This points to what I think is one of the most important factors in Islam's success (as measured in numbers and in fervency of believers). It, much more than Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism, puts primary emphasis on exterior acts, rather than interior beliefs. It's about what you do, not what you believe--or, to be precise, what you believe is a byproduct of how you act. In many of these Muslim societies, a great deal of effort is expending compelling "correct" forms of behavior. Saudi Arabia's muta'aween, for instance. We Westerners might find it strange that they don't seem to care that, as we see it, morals enforced at gunpoint aren't valid, but they have a different definition of valid. For them, that a person conforms to right action is all that counts; beliefs are secondary. They know that it's much easier to compell behavior, and thereby eventually change beliefs, than it is to expect a belief to change behavior. This goes against our parochially Western ideas of "free will," but those ideas are largely illusory. See, e.g., Robert Cialdini's "Influence," for examples.

picabia:

See, e.g., Robert Cialdini's "Influence," for examples.

I hope this was a joke, becuase I certainly laughed.

"This goes against our parochially Western ideas of "free will," but those ideas are largely illusory."

The idea of freedom is 'largely illusory'?

I'll take the Western illusion of freedom (especially in regards to the status of women) over the Islamic illusion any freakin day of the week.

Women's 'illusory' version of freedom in that culture consists of wearing a robe that they can barely see out of, sitting in their house all day unless escorted out by a male relative. They can't educate themselves or even drive in many Islam controlled states. They're basically slaves.

This hymen thing should be the least of their worries.

Right with you up until the statement that free will is "illusory". Please explain.

I mean just that. B.F. Skinner wrote: "Unfortunately, the feeling that one is free is not sufficient proof that one actually is free." And that feeling of free will is all the proof there's ever been that our actions are uncaused. When we see a man act in a certain way, we say that he does so because he "wants to" or because "he feels like doing so." In other words, we attribute the cause of the behavior to an "internal agent"--whose behavior we can't explain either but about whom we are less likely to ask questions. That's nothing but sophistry, because we only inferred the existence of those internal agents from the behavior they are meant to explain. It's a fallacy to use an inferrance to explain the thing it was inferred from. The internal sensation of "wanting" or "feeling" to do a thing is taken as proof that he acts freely. But in fact, the same forces that are causing him to do a thing are also causing him to want to do it. Feelings do not cause---they are caused.

In no other field of science than psychology is "free will" any longer taken as a legitimate cause of phenomena. I write "any longer," because once it was believed that the behavior of animals, insects, and, yes, even inaminate object was caused by their "free" choices. For instance, Aristotle wrote that a falling object falls faster as it approaches the ground because it feels jubilant about returning to its natural resting place. But today, we recognize most phenomena can be explained without reference to "free will." No one with any rudimentary understanding of the philosophy of science believes it is necessary to refer to a beetle's feelings or desires to explain its behavior. How could it be otherwise, when beetles (and humans) are constructed entirely out of physical objects? Sure it was possible to believe in "free will" as long as we could believe in nonphysical "souls," but that day has long since passed. A person is a physical object.

The primary evidence for "free will" is the sensation of having it. When a person goes somewhere, he usually experiences the desire to go soon before actually doing so. But does that prove the action was caused by the feeling, or is it a case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc?

Even if we were to accept "feelings" are causal, what caused the feeling? Conventionally it is said the feelings and thoughts are not caused at all--they simply arise. That's prescientific thinking. Any science in its initial stages is likely to be very flattering to humanity. Astronomy and biology began by putting humans in a privileged position in nature. But we eventually discovered closer approximations of the truth. Eventually, psychology will have to abandon this notion that humans are special. If any of those who responded here (except for the 1st one, who mistook my statement about free will in the scientific sense to be a statement about political freedom. I'm all in favor of political freedom, but no power on earth can give humans the ability to make totally "uncaused" choices) was at all caught up on the research, they would know that free will has been torn to shreds in the last two or three decades. There's no room left for it, any more than there is for a geocentric universe or other flattering prescientific notions. The idea is dead, but, as Nietzsche wrote on a similar subject, "given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which [its] shadow will be shown."

I meant the 2nd responder, not the 1st. Also, Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" would be a good starting point for those interested in a scientific-philosophical analysis of free will.

I am no expert in psychology. But I did find this fascinating. A very modernist view of humankind turns around and meets up with one 2000 year old! One of the strangest teachings of the Buddha was that there is no self. The self is an illusion, a product of our taking our internal states as real and unitary when they are in fact an ever-unrolling series of internal vignettes, each one just a response to an internal or external stimulus.

I personally had an experience long ago that suggested that what the Buddha said is true. I also have a long experience of doing things for reasons I don't understand. Either of these may strike a chord of familiarity with some readers. I hope someone comments if so.

Picabia,

I appreciate your effort for understanding. It is a fair effort. However, your depiction that Islam emphasizes exterior actions rather than, or prior to interior spiritual development is quite mistaken. There is saying in Islam: belief leads to deeds. They are indivisible. The Prophet Muhammad (saaw) spent 13 years in Makka enduring torture, starvation, attacks, assasination attempt, lies and slander all before he established Islam as a state in Madinah. He did not raise a finger in defense or in military action for 13 years. It is noted that Gandhi studied this period of the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) life and adopted his nonviolent philosophy in part with his example a long with the examples of Buddha, Jesus, and others.

But that period in Makka developed the spirituality andpersonalities of the Muslim people, enabling them to later fulfill the commandments and prohibitions that followed, such as no sex outside of marriage, no liquor, no gambling, praying 5 times a day, fasting from sunrise to sunset, and so forth.

These religious acts are all motivated by freewill, internal fortitude and belief, not compelled by violence. But as it goes, these commandments became law of the land as the 10 commandments of Moses (as) did.
And the law of the land includes punishments as well. But the punishment is born of the revelation just as the belief, the command and the prohibition. So again, belief emanates deeds, thought leads to action. And while the the best generation of Muslims consisted of towering figures, there were also those who suffered from their own weaknesses and violated the law of the land. However, in the Islamic society, punishment and repentence are expiation for a major sin such as adultery so the sinner does not go before God on the Day of Judgement with such a terrible sin, or rather God will not grant punishment in hell for that sin: expiation/kaffara.

But in the end, Islam is a way of life for the individual and the society. It satisfied the intellect and fulfills the instincts and needs and governs the affairs of the people.

Picabia,

"Free will" does not mean "independence from all influencing and controlling factors". Everything comes from and is affected by something else, therefore, all choices are weighted by related factors; that does not mean that we do not, in the end, have a choice.

So free will is not illusory. It is simply not independent of all influence.

What we have here is an ardent believer in the Behaviorism theory of psychology. Which is in opposition to the theory of psycho-dynamics (Freud and Jung et all) and cognitive psychology.

It believes that ALL things that organisms do should be regarded as 'behaviors' , and that everything is cause and effect. No need to deal with or acknowledge anything like the hypothetical construct we'd call a 'mind' evaluating or governing the actions.

There are other theories.

I remember back in school, when I was taking a 'theories of psychology' class over the summer.. with a teacher who was an strict behaviourist. You wouldn't know it was supposed to be 'theories'.