Why are the extremist christians more pragmatic than the extremist muslims?

[Lechasseur]

Yeah I think secular strength in Christendom is probably the biggest reason

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yeah I think secular strength in Christendom is probably the biggest reason

People have taken the Philosophy out of Islam and the Christianity out of Philosophy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Necessity is the mother of pragmatism. Islamism makes all sorts of pragmatic bargains with all kinds of secular movements - the far-left, other religious groups, liberals, nationalists etc; and normally there is lip service to the idea that sectarian conflict must be avoided. Heck, I've seen Ahmadi-led groups take charge in some European muslim circles.

With the specific Shia-Sunni split, the issue is more that that throughout MENA the split is more intrinsically linked with an ethnoreligious identity, in a way that we wouldn't see in the Christian world anymore outside of NI and the breakup of Yugoslavia.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Necessity is the mother of pragmatism. Islamism makes all sorts of pragmatic bargains with all kinds of secular movements - the far-left, other religious groups, liberals, nationalists etc; and normally there is lip service to the idea that sectarian conflict must be avoided. Heck, I've seen Ahmadi-led groups take charge in some European muslim circles.

Famous members of the Muslim Brotherhood when they were young: Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yasser Arafat.

With the specific Shia-Sunni split, the issue is more that that throughout MENA the split is more intrinsically linked with an ethnoreligious identity, in a way that we wouldn't see in the Christian world anymore outside of NI and the breakup of Yugoslavia.

“Are the Shia population in this country Persian fifth columnists?” - many Arab leaders around the region since 1979, from Saddam Hussein to the al-Saud.

[pbrower2a]

It could be that Muslim countries largely have a heritage of being colonized or occupied by "Christian" countries. Even Iran was politically partitioned during World War II, and that still has an effect. The worst fanaticism among Christians in recent years was in the Balkans -- in lands ruled harshly by the Ottoman Empire. But even that heritage ended no later than a century ago.

OK, Indonesia seems to be less a hotbed of Islamic extremism than other predominantly-Muslim countries... perhaps because colonial rule in Indonesia ended so swiftly and decisively. The Dutch were ousted before they could reclaim Indonesia from the Japanese Empire. Indian Muslims may be the most placid... probably because the British were even handed between Hindus and Muslims, and the Indian government has generally left Muslims alone. Yes, there was the Islamic extremist attack on Mumbai, and before anyone could ask how those extremists got overland in India they were shown on video arriving by dinghies. There's no safe haven for Islamic extremism in India -- not even in the large Muslim population.

The Shiite-Sunni divide remains sharp... about as sharp as the Catholic protestant divide once was. Maybe the Protestant-Catholic divide faded as secular democracy made pragmatic solutions to social problems more appropriate than sectarian divisions.         

[Agonized-Statism]

The violence was comparable during the European wars of religion, but secular government keeps those differences from welling up and religion itself has declined in the West. Religion currently has a far more important role in Middle Eastern governments (particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran), and mixes with national identity to create a pretty explosive situation.

[SInNYC]

Most Christian countries were affected by the enlightenment, after which the countries became increasingly secular with little base for rearing extremist Christians.

Most Moslem countries were imperialistic colonies - since imperialism normally involves more modern countries taking over less modern ones, it also halts natural social progress of society since modernity is viewed as a sign of the imperialists. Many Moslem countries did have important Enlightenment-like movements after independence. But the movements tended to be nationalistic and/or socialistic (in the SD way, not the communist way), and the west thus decided they had to be wiped out. This left a choice between theocrats and autocrats, both of which lead to increased religious extremism post independence..