I expected that response, Dibakar, but do you think it should be constant? Why?

Dear Dr. Stanley Wilkin , lets see the globalization pressure in general and then determine its effect specific to our interests.

Globalization has been driven by several core characteristics of our present civilization. These include:

Within this framework we’ve seen an increasing level of social, as well as, economic globalization. There have been massive exchanges of popular media, information media, intellectual and philosophical information globally.

It has also resulted in mini-diasporas of people moving across borders for economic and educational reasons.

At the same time, there’s been a counter reaction to globalization which has taken the form of increasing nationalism and cultural retrenchment in countries where liberal western culture has challenged traditional religious and cultural sensibilities. Examples include islamist fanaticism and a rise of religious fundamentalism (Christian, Muslim, Hindu..) in many countries, including the U.S.

Additionally, this rise in nationalism has caused pushback again international trade agreements, the movement of labor and increasing racism stoked by security concerns.

The rise of fundamentalism and its leveraging for political purposes ie. ISIS, has caused widespread conflict across large parts of the world. This is causing another diaspora of people fleeing from conflict zones into areas that are perceived as ‘safer’. These movements of people further compound the rise of nationalist xeno-phobic movements as people feel culturally threatened and physically less secure.

So, the effects on religion of globalization can be seen in the following ares:

The issue is complex and has many moving parts. Globalization has, indeed, made the world a smaller place. As a result, it has supported the movements of religions across traditional boundaries. A good example from history was that it is often stated by historians that the Christian religion ultimately thrived because of the Roman Empire, not in spite of it. That the social and economic interaction across the empire allowed ideas like Christianity to move beyond the region of its birth. But, even at that time there were bloody pushbacks from the traditionalists… It’s clear that Supra-National engagement have had a profound impact on human culture and religion.

change in what manner, muslims have a path in holy book so they will remain on that only, i dont think it will change ever

Ahmad, perhaps it should and join the rest of the human race. We welcome you!

Dibakar, your comment confirms that Islam has changed. 30 years ago no Moslem would have referenced Islam as a peaceful religion. Most were very proud of its warrior beginnings and credentials.

You have identified one of the changes I have alluded to.

I thought I'd add to the above. The connection between Islam and peace is relatively new to me, as before its not a connection I came across either here in the UK or in Moslem countries. The common image then was Muhammad with his scimitar raised aloft. Moslem's were proud of their martial origins. This change I put down to globalisation.

Do you think that globalisation is only impacting Islam or other religions as well? Speaking of superiority, Islam and Muslims don't claim that their God created them as the chosen people!

I do, Amir. And welcome. There is change happening in all directions, I just wanted to bear witness to it.

A few years ago I welcomed the Moslem views on respect towards women, as no Puritan myself, I've always nevertheless worried about the use of naked and half-naked women. Recent events in Hollywood underlined that. I see nevertheless Islamic rules (?) on female dress suspicious, the covering up not to inflame men childish and silly. I believe that the over-sensitivity of students to real or imagined bad or offensive thinking a reflection of Islamic concerns over seemingly offensive (rather than critical) statements from the 80s onwards.

A mixed bag indeed!

What have you observed?

Following the discussion. I enjoy your line of reasoning Dr. Stanley. Indeed, globalization is impacting on all religions. But, in the light of Islam, I need more enlightenment.

What are your views, though, Dickson? I mix a great deal with Moslem communities, and there are several points of retraction as there are of expansion-ie the peace construct.

There will of course be points of modification, often unnoticed by the different communities.

I agree with Beemnet Kassahun, but do not accept the image someone has about "Muhammad with his scimitar raised aloft", which is not related to the question. Sweeping and invalid generalizations are always questionable.

I was actually reporting not raising generalisations. Nevertheless, this is a valid comment in the light of the discussion, which is about how perceptions change. This is how Islam was referenced several years ago. You are old enough to remember-so why don't you?

People's perceptions of perspectives and history becomes rapidly distorted and denial sets in concerning previous attitudes. We are I suggest now going through a period of such change, but in doing so it is silly to forget other perspectives. I am lost also as to why such a view is taken given the origins and history-are you suggesting we change that too? Believe me, people do it all the time. Muhammad's warrior background is well documented, certainly in the Qur'an, and even more so in the Hadiths. Are you suggesting we alter them?

Globalisation is simply neocolonialism. But as the world gets smaller due to advances in communication technologies and changing social orders, non-Muslims are beginning to discover Islam is Salaam/Shalom/Peace. Nonetheless they are finding it is quite different from what their traditional information sources had alleged (unless, of course, they had read Henry Grady Weaver's Chapter 10 in The Mainspring of Human Progress). Muslims leaving comments above are unanimous in their commentary that Islam is Peace, whereas the European or Euro-American commentators refuse to accept it and persist in their social constructions of exclusivity to "the human race". When will the ideology of colonialism/neocolonialism change?

Robert, you appear to believe that people function merely by and through belief-one group believes this and another that. You also appear to believe the world is separated into divisions. One group here, another there.

Surely, greater acquaintance with evidence beyond an association with who thinks this and who thinks or rather believes this or that, and that such beliefs anyway can be simplified into contesting groups-one right, one wrong based upon antiquated concepts of dominance.

But really the question is not about that, and in fact seems more interesting by the day. Your response indicates yet again the political and parochial nature of perception, choosing of sides is a question of assuming realities. One side is unanimous in its approach, surely just the ones here, and any evidence to the contrary must be ignored according to a political perspective-right or wrong.

Why should Islam, or other ideologies, make claims not supported by evidence? In the past the Western colonisers believed fortuitously that they were aiding those they conquered. As Islamic forces initially did over a thousand years ago, with continued conquests in pursuit perhaps of the uniformity claimed now in different ways. In both cases the injustices, murders and deaths in war were papered over and reconstructed.

Come Robert, put your ideological approach to one side and consider matters outside of political frames. Yes, you have a point, but ignoring history and creating it afresh should not be part of that point.

Your impression of an interactionist sociologist with membership in the ASR leads me to wonder where you might be coming from? Rashomon effect seems to be well illustrated here, as my main argument was that his-story is NOT history and the Anglo-west is only now discovering that - or are you?

Before training to be a sociologist, I trained in Ohio to teach history. After I received my permanent licence in 1996 to teach History from the DfEE of England & Wales, the pitfalls of England's approach to teaching history at GCSE level in a modular fashion rather than a chronological fashion soon became apparent. Jumping from a module on Roman Civilisation to a module on the American West to a module on the Tudors, students rarely came to know about British Empire.

Robert appears to be affiliated to a number of organisations that prejudice him against the question. I feel he is simply showing prejudice in general and refusing to engage with the question, I have therefore blocked him and of course reported him. My views or opinions are open to question, as are everyones, although here I've attempted to clarify them. A refusal to actually engage with the question means he is wasting people's time and I suspect would, if allowed to, become simply abusive.

My apologies.

I find it ironic that you call Robert prejudiced. The simple fact that you insist on even using the spelling 'Moslem' instead of Muslim leaves me wondering whether or not you are prejudiced in your views, not to mention your refusal to distinguish between Islam as a doctrine and the cultures of those that claim to follow it. When will this lack of differentiation stop? The religious books of Islam have remained constant, so speaking of changes taking place or not taking place in 'Muslim' majority nations and conflating that with changes or no changes in Islam is simply misleading at best.

You have a right to say that. My misspelling was simply that and no more. But why should you believe I don't make the distinction? Have I suggested anything of that kind? I am interested in simply understanding changes, if there are any. When cultures come together than surely something of that kind would occur and they are usually two way, not one.

You say nevertheless that Islam is constant, but that really is not reflected in different behaviour, which surely has no cultural basis. I do not actually believe that its wise or healthy to remain unchanged, but as you believe the book was written by god it must be unchanged. I read it nearly every day, not for edification but interest. I would suggest that its writer was not remotely supernatural, but if you believe that then fine.

I am not religious, nor care for it in any variety, but Christians behave differently, each trumpeting views not in the respective books. Have Christians altered their views? There is some reason to believe that Hindus have become more militant over the past years. Cultures affect each other. Are you not expressing the same inability to differentiate you are accusing me of? My point was that travelling through many Muslim countries during many long years I never came across one that said Islam was a religion of peace. They expressed the reverse. So what had changed? Christianity began as a religion of peace and became one that easily accepted violence. Why?

Islam was from the outset a martial religion. Is that necessarily bad? I think violence is unacceptable in any guise, but many people do not think that way. Christianity embraced violence four centuries after its inception, a huge mistake to my way of thinking. But, whether you understand it or not Islamic populations will change, as in fact many already have. That is a good thing. Change is healthy, fixity produces sterility, failure of imagination, failure of social and intellectual progress. No. No. Change really is good. Raising issues concerning Islam, Christianity, Democracy, Tyranny, Buddhism, etc, is necessary. Preventing discussion as Robert intended is not what RG is for. People's arguments can be wrong, but we all learn from discussion not from shutting discussion down as Robert intended. His religious views are his own business. I have no interest one way or another.

I did not want this to be about religion. I don't now. Its not the issue. Robert made it an issue because he was unable or unwilling because of his affiliations to discuss perceptions, how they alter, and in which way. Perceptions are fundamental to human behaviour. Denying the past in order to set up tropes one is more comfortable with is not the way forward.

Changing history to suit claims of the present is common nowadays. Should we nevertheless go along with that? Honesty has to be considered an important intellectual trait, without it we make no progress-and believe me change is good no matter what you believe in and where you come from unless that change merely satisfies illusions of a peaceful or perfect past. As a Westerner denying colonialism would be an affront to those affected by it, but that doesn't mean I can accept the denial of equally or worse historical disasters created by others. Doing so allows such events to occur again!

If I seem to you harsh on Islam, I am far worse on Christianity. The violence in the Pentateuch I find immensely distasteful, the cupidity of Christianity equally so, but honestly many things in the Qur'an should not be in any religion. Sorry about that! There's really, from my point of view, no truth in any of them.

Are you saying religion and culture are the same? Srudying the behavior of Muslims is quite different from studying Islam. If you want to discuss changes in the behavior and perspective of Muslims then you must make that clear and not use the term Islam. Islamic texts such as the Qur'an and Hadith of Bukhari are constant but that does not mean that interpretations by the scholars is not allowed within a certain framework.

Christian theologians do not deny the different authors of today's bible or the acceptability of differing versions of it. The vast majority of Muslims would not accept this for themselves; hence the difference between Christian willingness to change religious practices and the Muslim's unwillingness to do so. Even though you say you do not want to talk about religion, this is an important point when speaking on and understanding this issue.

We all have biases one way or another and obviously, you have your own biases towards unbelief in religions and that is your business, but please remember that means you are not totally impartial.

As regard to Muslims claiming Islam is a religion of peace, I believe that their need to keep saying that is simply a defensive response to the growing attack on Islam. I don't really know why you say Islam was a martial religion from the onset when it is well documented that Muhammad and his followers suffered much persecution at the hands of the Makkans before they were given permission to defend themselves.

Moreover, Muslims are from such intensely diverse cultures and backgrounds that it is hardly possible to use their respective behaviors and perspectives as a basis for what Islam says. For example, a traditionalist Afghan Muslim's ideas on a woman's role may be quite different from a traditional Tuareg Muslim's ideas on that.

Why can't we speak of Muslim majority nations and their views in terms of the nations themselves instead of lumping them all together in this discussion of "Islamic perspectives". They are hardly homogeneous enough to even try that.

I know a great deal about Islam, sorry about that, but please I am not interested.

I do not believe the story you are told about Muhammad's persecution, my researches indicate differently. Even if he and his followers had been he could simply, as a religious man, gone off and pursued his agenda elsewhere. The fact that he chose not to, but to involve his religion in war, is both worrying and telling. Many religious people were persecuted but chose other paths. For me, ethics is all! Killing-No.

Mecca had been earlier taken over by one of his tribe, and was then as now the core of Arabian economics and political power. Did not that affect his decision, as much as anything else?

I fully accept the diversity of your religion. Please accept also that I do. Nevertheless, you have two incompatible arguments here. One: diversity. Two: We all speak from the same unchanging book. You must choose one argument or the other. I, meanwhile, don't really care.