Over the past decade, religious fervor has
erupted in the Islamic world in general and
in the Middle East in particular. Recently
we've seen suicide bombers determined not only
to kill themselves but take as many victims as
they possibly can. A recent attempt was made by
the young man keen to blow up the Delta flight
to the US.

Why has Islamic fundamentalism intensified at all -
especially at a time when we might expect the
societies involved to be moving forward, toward
modernization, rather than backward?

Is it because these Islamic societies resent the
influence the West is exerting in their territories,
especially the US?

Do the fundamentalists regard the West's economic,
technological, and military influence as a threat
to the integrity of Muslim societies and traditions?

Should the West be involved in the Islamic world?

I would appreciate your thoughts - but no
anti-Islamic tirades please.

It seems that many Middle-Eastern Islamic upbringings and values are so distant to Western culture (in particular Wahabi- as the traditionally Islamic cultures near Europe, and primarily far east are moderate and of no noticable difference) that Islamists would feel bombarded both literally and culturally via television, media etc (although there are always pockets in other countries too).

If the upbringing and values stay the same, there truly isn't any evolution- just a seemingly hostile 'colonisation' by the west introducing technological mediums for their less moral western culture to penetrate and jeapardize Islamic customs- which I imagine would be the attitude.

And personally, no- the West should have less to do with the Islamic world- they don't like it, and we're harming ourselves be injecting ourselves into it. After all, it's not like we'd benefit from a cultural transaction with the wahabi world either- so I say best to keep them apart.

If they want to adopt a different culture more compatible to interact with our own, THEN we can interact.

Dear King Hazza,

I'm trying to make sense of why a young man
would want to kill not only himself - but
take innocent people with him, as happened
recently in the attempt on the Delta flight
to the US.

Usually fundamentalist revivals, in whatever
religion, take place at times when social
changes have led to turmoil, uncertainty,
and the erosion of familiar values. When
people find themselves confused, threatened,
or even appalled at changing conditions -
they may see a "return to basics" as a solution.

From what I've witnessed on the news it seems
that the principal foreign enemy of the
Islamic fundamentalists is the United States.
And, I suppose part of the reason may be due to
the fact that the
fundamentalists find it politically helpful to
have an alien enemy. The solidarity of any
group is enhanced if it perceives a common
outside threat.

Islam is one of the world's major religions,
it claims the allegiance of a fifth of the
entire human population. Trends in Islamic
societies, therefore, are potentially of
global importance. My concern is - how
involved should the West be in their affairs?
And, is it time to profile Muslim passengers
on flights?

King Hazza,

what utter nonsense.

The world is now a 'smaller' place not as it was in the 1100's.

But should I disagree with my brothers in the east is it my place to try and KILL them because I have a differing view on life....NO

How to stop this madness should be the major topic throughout this small world - peace be with you.

Islamic fundamentalism is the storm before the calm.
They know their religion is nonsense and those in charge are trying to hang on.
Iran is next to escape.The shah was not as bad as the nuts now in gov.
See how rich is the western world?.
You can have a share of that.
Dump the imams.
The internet will show you the way.

Foxy,

Mohammed set the groundwork for permanent antipathy between Muslims and non-Muslims until all submit to Allah's will.
This has waxed and waned over the centuries.
Why then has this apparently dormant impulse recently been re-awakened?
How about globalization (including instantaneous communication, mass international transport, mass migration) and advanced technological capabilities (including warfare)?
Think what Mohammed could have achieved given these opportunities for the expansion of his “religion”.
The “fundamentalists” are doing what Mohammed would have done, if able.
Mohammed killed the unbelievers with a sword within the limits of his territorial capability.
His followers have more effective firepower at hand (a sachet of semtex on a passenger plane) and virtually limitless territorial capability.
They also have the advantage of an enemy which is hamstrung by its own failure to recognise the fundamental nature of Islam and that it is at war with them (courtesy multicultural relativism).
You’d better believe that Mohammed’s enemies recognised him as such,
whereas “guardians of the freeworld” such as Obama and Janet Napolitano can’t even bring themselves to admit that these most recent outrages (Fort Hood and Flight 253) involved terrorism, let alone Islam.
Many of these perpetrators have tasted both Islam and the western lifestyle and, unable to reconcile them, have made their choice.
It’s all very well to blame Iraq and Afghanistan until we remember that 9/11 pre-dates US involvement there.

Victor Davis Hanson has his own take on it:

“…the answer to "Why do they hate us?" does not entail poverty, Western imperialism or colonialism, support for Israel, past provocations, etc. Rather, radical Islam encourages in an Hasan or Mutallab age-old passions like pride, envy, and a sense of inferiority — all accelerated by instantaneous communications and abetted by continual Western apologetics that on a global level blame Westerners for self-induced misery in many Islamic countries. "They did it" is far easier than looking inward to address tribalism, gender apartheid, statism, autocracy, religious intolerance, and fundamentalism, which in perfect-storm fashion ensure an impoverished — and resentful and angry — radical Islamic community while the rest of the world moves merrily on.”
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson122909.html