The problem with Islam

[KafirChobee]

First and formost - the interference of the Western powers for the last 800 years.

1) The interference of the West (Europe for 700+ years and then America for 50 [with out a clue ... aside from Carter, that did; but, everyone still likes to slam - because, they can - and he has moved on]. Especially after the oil thingy in the 70's. Hey! They got it - the West owns the rights to it - but, to save face the West lets them take the blame for cost and distribution. Seems fair - I suppose. BP ... ask them about 1974.

2) Other religions were given respites ... they matured on their own. Islam, on the other hand was controlled (by the West, by using the "dictators" they could contol ---- in the mean time the Imans were teaching what ever they wanted. Islam, never became an organizes religion - so much as a useable one.

3) The Wests' inference in their politics that their "God" is right, and Allah was a myth - where as, it is now a capital offense to become Christian in Afganhistan. Or, as we all understand "under god" (almost sounds like we are being laid). So? Can someone finally say - leave the regions alone - target all our missles at them and confess their ain't jack we can do, We just finally have to leave them to themselves. Sooner or later a "Tony Blair" will rise from their midst and lead them to the .... promised land?

Basically, the West has been so intent about controlling the regions - that they forgot about the first principle of a people becoming a people - that is, owning their history. That being, that a controlled people can not expand a philosophy until they own themselves. This is something that the nation of Islam has never had. But, is attempting ... through violent means.

Christianity has gone through hundreds of changes; back in the 1950s they were even tolerant. The French still celebrate the date their Catholics slaughtered their Protistants (isn't that St. Untolerance? ... same as today?).

Islam, has always been contolled by dictators or ....... Ayatolas. Because, that is what the West wanted. And, still does. Especially the GOP, ... they have to have an enemy to survive as a political party (though, personally, I don't know why - they look an aweful lot like most Democrats to me).

Still, we (white folks) had 500 years to make amends, allow for diversified religion in the ME - and instead our leaders used the radicals to their own advantage. And, now it is biting us all in the arse. And, ours leaders are pointing fingers at the people they previously promoted as being Western leading - progressive (hadn't killed a woman in their clan .. for a decade or more).

The problem with Islam, is that it never had the freedom to become a unified or debating religion (say like Baptists' and Catholics .... yuk yuk) - the powers that have always been ($$$$$$$$ - Brits, French, eventually Yanks) twisted them into what they are.

If their is a blame for radical Islam? It is us.

[KafirChobee]

There's so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin.
You sound like Rush LimpBalls - no reason to comment about something they he can't argue. Therefore, down grade the comment by attempting to ignore it.

Good job, Cube. You meet all my expectations ... for a right wing deliberate.

;)) :balloon2:

[Atilius]

First and formost - the interference of the Western powers for the last 800 years.

If we look back between 800 and 200 years we find a few indignities inflicted by Christendom upon the Islamic world - the Crusades, the Reconquista and such. But these were largely attempts to recover Christian lands lost to Islam. And we ought to remember that Islamic armies took the center of Eastern Orthodox Christianity in 1453 and laid siege to Vienna as late as 1683. It seems to me that until roughly 200 years ago, Islam had interfered with the West far more than the West had interfered with Islam.

[GoreBag]

It is also arguable that most European people can not 'own their history', and that applies doubly for most immigrant inhabitants of the New World.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why thank you for shedding such revealing light on this topic, KC! How silly of me to think that Islam's problems might not be the direct result of some imperialist western power, but there own ideas and culture! It must have been those terrible imperialists controlling the middle east since 600 AD! Those poor Muslims in the 'Nation of Islam' never ruled themselves for those hundreds of years when Islamic kingdoms streched from Persia to Spain.
And of course, no KC Rant, with Fresh Inanity!* would be complete without this:

Still, we (white folks) had 500 years to make amends, allow for diversified religion in the ME - and instead our leaders used the radicals to their own advantage.

Blame whitey! That's the spirit! Nevermind the people who commanded the countries when they actually attacked middle eastern countries, or those who fought, dozens of years after it happened, it is the shared collective guilt of everyone who is the same skin color! Whoopee!

Crazed Rabbit
*Trademarked

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

KC:

you flunked history at every level of your education, didn't you?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

oh wait, is this an April Fool?

[Reenk Roink]

I agree partly that Western 'things' had some role in the unrest of the Muslim world.

However, it is all fairly recent:

2003 - Invasion of Iraq: Further Polarized both worlds

1980's - US and Soviet meddling in Afghanistan: Led to a US supported Afghani mujahadeen, of which Al Qaeda split off from years later.

1948 (or is it 47?) - Creation of Israel: You know what this caused: wars, hatred, etc...

1918 - Treaty of Versailles: Dissolved the Ottoman Empire and destroyed last glimpse of Muslim unity.

1600-1800: Gradual Colonization of Muslim lands: If you really want to go this far back, here was the first real time that European power eclipsed Muslim power.

Before this the two worlds lived fairly isolated from each other, aside from the clashes on the borders.

The Crusades were probably brief interruptions, and the Reconquista was so complete that the Muslim Spanish populace had been reduced from millions to 20 some in years...

[solypsist]

if this isnt an april fools post then it's one of the most generalized cut and paste jobs i've ever seen.

[Duke Malcolm]

It is wrong to say that these are problems with Islam, insane even. They are perhaps examples of how Islamic peoples react badly with the Western peoples, but it is a mere, and slanderous jibe against the West by saying it is the root of all the problems with Islam.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Soly.partisanship--;
cout << "Good job, Soly!" << endl;

[The Black Ship]

How old the the concept of "The West"?

I didn't realize that the term included Russia too, since they've controlled a huge swath of Muslims. Maybe Russia joining NATO isn't so daft afterall?

Anyways, April fools:dizzy2:

[Strike For The South]

I agree partly that Western 'things' had some role in the unrest of the Muslim world.

However, it is all fairly recent:

2003 - Invasion of Iraq: Further Polarized both worlds

1980's - US and Soviet meddling in Afghanistan: Led to a US supported Afghani mujahadeen, of which Al Qaeda split off from years later.

1948 (or is it 47?) - Creation of Israel: You know what this caused: wars, hatred, etc...

1918 - Treaty of Versailles: Dissolved the Ottoman Empire and destroyed last glimpse of Muslim unity.

1600-1800: Gradual Colonization of Muslim lands: If you really want to go this far back, here was the first real time that European power eclipsed Muslim power.

Before this the two worlds lived fairly isolated from each other, aside from the clashes on the borders.

The Crusades were probably brief interruptions, and the Reconquista was so complete that the Muslim Spanish populace had been reduced from millions to 20 some in years...

You mean bisdes the part where the north africans try to capture Spain and the ottamns are on Italys and Germanys doorstep? This is a load of mularky. I fail to see how any of KC points could even be considered a reason why muslims do tthe things they do. I feel no responsibilty and you shouldnt ethier. Using European colonaztion/imprealism is a huge cop out used to make us feel sorry.:juggle2:

[Watchman]

I'd say KC is also lost pretty far in the woods. Aside the border warfare between the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians and Russians in Central and Eastern Europe and the mutual piracy of the Med, the Islamic and Christian "culture spheres" largely left each other alone between the expulsion of the Crusader Kingdoms and the dawen of the Age of Empire in the 1800s, with the exception of Ottoman expansion but that was past its highwater mark already by the 1600s.

It's not really known why, but the Islamic culture sphere started entering a long period of stagnation and ossification around the European Late Middle Ages, which in part included a definite shift in attitudes towards religious and hence intellectual rigidity. The wave of steppe-nomad conquerors, never famous as great patrons of the arts and sciences anywhere, and the ensuing endemic warfare and chaos and due economical distruptions are often offered as possible explanations; I'd guess the comparative hegemony of the Ottoman Empire and its eventual deep stagnation also contributed in the Western end of the Islamic world.

Much of the long-lasting poltical trouble in the Muslim world, however, is a fairly direct result of the period of Imperialism; parts of Asia are about the only place where it left behind even remotely stable new states, and that's probably largely thanks to their high degree of organization long before the colonial period. The economical structures inherited from colonial times rarely did anyone much good in any part of the world after the empires crumbled either.

The Middle East, until then almost entirely Ottoman territory, was partitioned between the victors after WW1; much of it entirely regardless of local conditions and unstable from the word go, not in the least as the locals were no slouches in getting bitten by the Nationalism bug and resenting their new colonial masters. The Brits were constantly busy bloodily crushing uprisings in what is now Iraq during the interwar period, for one example.

Radical, politicized Islam is a pretty new thing AFAIK. Before the Iranian Revolution the Islamic faith was near universally considered a "dead letter" as far as world affairs went. Well, that sure changed since then...

I'd say it's actually currently fulfilling the same function revolutionary Communism did before and after WW2 - it serves as a reasonably uniting rallying point and ideological reference for those sufficiently unhappy at the existing state of affairs to actively oppose it, be that violently or not. Being a strongly normative faith, however, it is perhaps not very surprising most permutations of the theme have a distinct flair towards reactionarism and fundamentalism, ie. "bringing back the good old days". As tends to be the case with all such movements, the view of the "good old days" tends to be heavily romanticized and often has almost nothing to do with historical reality.
Not that this had ever slowed anyone down.
Partly also as the activists, not wholly inaccurately, regard the encroachement of "Western" modernity and influence as the root cause of the issues that so enrage them. And since the most readily available ideological opposition-cum-atlernative-model (providing which tends to be pretty important for all counter-movements) is a strict interpretation of the Islamic faith, a corpus already well known to all whose sympathy and support they are interested in aquiring in the first place...

[rory_20_uk]

So, first we lump together a massive area of land from the borders of China Morocco and state that they are all somehow the same. I imagine that by the same light they all peacefully converted to Islam :laugh4:

Right, the crusades. They were to retake the Holy Land. Remember that christianity was around BEFORE Islam. So they attacked. Revelation I know. And the conquest of the Balklands and Spain by the Muslims appears to also have been ignored.

Then we appear to sidestep the fact that the Middle East has had despots since at least 500BC!!!

"Better to remain silent and for people to think you are ignorant than to speak and for peple to know you are"

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

Right, the crusades. They were to retake the Holy Land....and happened in the 1000s, the Holy Land having been under Muslim control since about the 700s. :dizzy2:

Don't talk stupidities.


Then we appear to sidestep the fact that the Middle East has had despots since at least 500BC!!!500BC ? Try "since organized societies with division of labor developed" instead. Agriculture was developed in the Fertile Crescent some eight millenia ago, and hierarchical empires followed in short order.

'Course, the same despotic empires also laid the groundwork of all later developement...

And what did we have in Europe under the period ? Barbarian warlords mostly. A handful of oligarchies based on slave economy (Athens, evan at its best, so doesn't count as a genuine democracy by modern standards; all the more so as they elected tyrants to handle crises all the time...) in the more developed regions. And a tendency to be really jealous of the Easterners.

Your point ?

Ugh. Such tendentiously vulgar pseudo-historicizing gives me an indigestion.

[rory_20_uk]

So the Muslims had control. How did they get control? Asking nicely? And who owned the area before the muslims took control? And what religion were they?

Re: despots was that they existed before the West got involved, not after. I felt that 500BC was perfectly adequate to place the timeframe well before the West was organised.

And so no there was no intention to say that the West was any different or any better.

I thought that my points were perfectly clear. Thank you for pointing out that some members require themes to be painted with a thicker brush before they are able to discern them.

I'm not going to let the shortsighted low brow nature of your post adversely affect my digestion. To be upset by such commom tabloid reasoning would be beneath me.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

So the Muslims had control. How did they get control? Asking nicely? And who owned the area before the muslims took control? And what religion were they?The tried and true old-fashioned way, of course - armed conquest. Hardly much of a point. That's how everyone always took the place over anyway. Check out the OT for one - a whole lotta wars, sieges and massacres.

Anyway, by the time the Muslim Arabs came to the scene the Levant had been the subject of considerable tug-of-war between the Eastern Orthodox Byzantines and the Zoroastrian Persians (ruled by the Sassanid dynasty at the time). The border wars in the region had been almost routine ever since the Romans got that far and started butting heads with the Parthians (whome the Sassanids eventually overthrew); during the last century or so they'd started taking on a more total character, with the participants making serious if quite futile efforts to genuinely destroy each other.

The fact the two regional superpowers had battered each other bloody naturally made the Arab conquest a whole lot easier.

At the time the Levant region was religiously mostly made up of Jews and various Christian sects; both harbored considerable resentement towards their current Byzantine overlords, who had by that time started persecuting both Jews and the various "heretical" Christian sects that had a bit different idea of the canon than the Empire's offical take. The relationship had gotten so bad in fact, the locals had assisted the Persians in their recent takeover of the region, and the Byzantine reprisals after they'd expelled the Persians hadn't exactly improved things.

The funny detail is, especially in the Byzantine regions the Muslims were often hailed as liberators. After all, they were quite willing to let the "Peoples of the Book" worship pretty much however they felt like so long as they paid their extra tax and didn't cause trouble, something that could not be said of the often rather intolerant Byzantines.


Re: despots was that they existed before the West got involved, not after. I felt that 500BC was perfectly adequate to place the timeframe well before the West was organised.Given that the involvement of the West, to a large degree also run by despots at the time, did nothing to help the matters I somewhat fail to see what you're after. For example, the Hellenic conquest merely replaced the old Achaemenid Persian overlords with (mainly Macedonian) Hellenic ones; the Crusader Kingdoms ran their territories as good old feudal monarchies; and the puppet regimes installed by Age of Empire conquerors weren't exactly meant to be bastions of progress and enlightement.

...are you trying to say that despotism is somehow natural or suited to the region or the people living there, or something similarly absurd ? :inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, the area was in constant war. The Muslims then came in and conquered the place. Then the Christians came back and fought them. The crusades in that light seem to be merely a continuation of normality for the area, not some amazing alteration due to the West.

They deserve despots? No, rather the more simple fact that the West can not be blamed for the despots that are there, since they have been there long before the West was aware that the area existed. I have never visited the area, have talked to few people from the area and so have no idea of what regieme would work best - or if indeed there is even a "best".

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

Yes, the area was in constant war. The Muslims then came in and conquered the place. Then the Christians came back and fought them. The crusades in that light seem to be merely a continuation of normality for the area, not some amazing alteration due to the West.You don't know too much of the academic discussion about the whys of the Crusades, do you ? Hint: internal developements in the Catholic portion feature prominently. So do the at the time recently arrived Turks. And the fact the Byzantines had just gotten a serious licking from the aforementioned nasty steppe nomads.

The Crusades had the unpleasant side effect of firing up a whole new wave of appreciation of the until then almost forgotten military dimension of the jihad concept though and a general shall we say turn towards militant values, and had their part in the processes that for example led to Egypt being taken over by the Mamluk military regime (which was eventually taken over by the Ottomans, but anyway).

Oh yes, they had long-lasting effects indeed.

More concretely, however, firebrand nationalists and other rabble-rousers in the area have in the recent years found the whole issue a really good blunt instrument in the best nationalist fashion. Bush's infamous use of the term "crusade" to describe the Second Gulf War can only be considered the height of short-sighted stupidity in the context.


No, rather the more simple fact that the West can not be blamed for the despots that are there, since they have been there long before the West was aware that the area existed.Given that the standard Cold War games of proxy regimes and sycophants were played there as they were in any other strategically vital region (the US has had an essentially permanent military presence on the Gulf since something like the Thirties...), this postulation is pretty absurd. Do I even need to point out the Shah of Iran, who managed his country in such a popular fashion as to get deposed by a religious-populist uprising, had been reinstated to autocratic power by outright Western (primarily American) support...?

Not that "the West" had been particularly adverse to any despots in the region anyway. One of the major reasons the "great unwashed" there tend to hold such low opinions of the West has to be the fact they can well perceive the hypocrisy in piously talking about promoting democracy, freedom and suchlike on one hand and cheerfully cutting oil deals with and supporting patently autocratic regimes on the other. Kinda eats at the "street cred" of the whole idea, you know ?

[Reenk Roink]

You mean bisdes the part where the north africans try to capture Spain and the ottamns are on Italys and Germanys doorstep? This is a load of mularky. I fail to see how any of KC points could even be considered a reason why muslims do tthe things they do. I feel no responsibilty and you shouldnt ethier. Using European colonaztion/imprealism is a huge cop out used to make us feel sorry.:juggle2:

Of course they invaded those areas, and there were counter invasions and the sort. My point in that statement was that neither the Muslim or European worlds actually dominated each other until the fairly recent rise of colonialism. If you had read more closely, and stripped yourself of a defensive position that you adopt when I point out certain facts of history between Americans and Natives/Mexicans, you would see that my thesis was that only very recently has the West in any significant way interfered with the 'Muslim world' (as it has for most of the world).


So, first we lump together a massive area of land from the borders of China Morocco and state that they are all somehow the same. I imagine that by the same light they all peacefully converted to Islam

No, we simplify it a bit, and call it the "Muslim World", just as we call Europe the "Western" or "Christian World." We never imply that they are "the same" as they're were feuds between groups all the time only surpassed by the infighting in Europe, or imagine that they all "peacefully converted" when many Muslim rulers prefered having the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians keep their religion for tax income and many even imposed the tax on converts. These off-topic, obviously anti-Islam comments are thouroughly unnecessary...


Right, the crusades. They were to retake the Holy Land. Remember that christianity was around BEFORE Islam. So they attacked. Revelation I know. And the conquest of the Balklands and Spain by the Muslims appears to also have been ignored.

Again, off topic. And quite a bad way to justify colonialism...

Or is there an actual point to that statement?


Then we appear to sidestep the fact that the Middle East has had despots since at least 500BC!!!

OMG!!! :shocked:

Probably even before that too...

But perhaps we could cross out "Middle East" and replace it with "Europe" for another true statement...

Or is there an actual point to that statement?


"Better to remain silent and for people to think you are ignorant than to speak and for peple to know you are"

This statement reeks of arrogance and unfortunately, lacks self-awareness...

[rory_20_uk]

Since the topic states that the West is responsible for the problems providing examples of events to refute this is on topic.

Yes, there were feuds, fights and indeed wars in the "Muslim" areas. So how are the wars that the West is involved in are singled out for special consideration? Muslims have been killing each other for a long time without any Christian interference.

The Crusades were mentioned in the initial posting. How can this be off topic? :inquisitive: Colonialism? What? The point was again that warfare is not some import from the West.

Yes: there are despots all over the world. Although despot is usually reserved for the Middle East. I did not bother to mention the rest of the world as it is off topic...

Funny, you can state some things are off topic, and the minute I ensure I remain on topic I am ignoring the rest of the world!! :laugh4:

Yes, the statement is very arrogant. I fail to see how it lacks self awareness any more than priests berating their fellow man about what sinners they are. I like the phrase and I will use it. Frankly, I don't care what you think of it.

~:smoking:

[Reenk Roink]

Since the topic states that the West is responsible for the problems providing examples of events to refute this is on topic.

Here's the part I refered to as off topic:


I imagine that by the same light they all peacefully converted to Islam :laugh4:


Yes, there were feuds, fights and indeed wars in the "Muslim" areas. So how are the wars that the West is involved in are singled out for special consideration? Muslims have been killing each other for a long time without any Christian interference.

We are not talking about infighting between Christians or Muslims. We are talking about the effect the West has had on the Muslim world. Nobody, not even the original poster, claimed that infighting was a result of the West. I can think of perhaps only one example, and that is the extremely recent sectarian violence that has been surfacing in Iraq.


The Crusades were mentioned in the initial posting. How can this be off topic? :inquisitive: Colonialism? What? The point was again that warfare is not some import from the West.

Nobody has stated that warfare is an import of the west. Truly, if such a statement had been uttered, it would be on par with "the Middle East has had despots since at least 500BC!!!"


Yes: there are despots all over the world. Although despot is usually reserved for the Middle East. I did not bother to mention the rest of the world as it is off topic...

Blanket statements will be called out. Saying "the Middle East has had despots since at least 500BC!!!" is not an effective way of detaching the West from their current support of despotic regimes in the Middle East.


Funny, you can state some things are off topic, and the minute I ensure I remain on topic I am ignoring the rest of the world!! :laugh4:

See above...


Yes, the statement is very arrogant. I fail to see how it lacks self awareness any more than priests berating their fellow man about what sinners they are. I like the phrase and I will use it.

In the context in which you used the statement, there was a lack of self awareness (on your part).


Frankly, I don't care what you think of it.

Shucks ~:flirt:

[Brenus]

“The French still celebrate the date their Catholics slaughtered their Protistants (isn't that St. Untolerance? ... same as today?).” What??? Where did find this absurdity? I am French, and there is one thing that the French are not proud of, is the St Bathelemy. I normally like what you write, but if all yours information come from the same source, I will start to change my opinion!!! :furious3:
And again and again, France has the biggest Muslim and Jewish population in Europe. It is probably because they love to be discriminated… Or, perhaps, because they love not to obliged to follow blindly their religion, perhaps because even a Muslim who want to convert, or worst, become atheist want to be able to do it without fear, to be able to eat and smoke during the Ramadan, you know, freedom…

The Uma, the Community of the Believers never existed. You can call it the Islam Nation if you want, there is not one Islam. Even if you know only Shiites and Sunnites, you can deduct that.

The interference of Europe in Islamic countries has nothing to do with Islam, but all with politic. If the French and the English went in Crimea against Russia, it wasn’t because they LOVED the Ottoman Empire but to block the Russian Fleet in the Black Sea.
Sorry, this example doesn’t fit in what you’re pre-supposing…:book:

“The problem with Islam, is that it never had the freedom to become a unified or debating religion” So wrong… Read others books and you will learn that Islam, having not Pope, is one of the most debated Religion… Was. It is due to dictators, using Islam as pretext, who favoured the most reactionary sides of Islam to impose their rules.
Never united under one rule, you said… Never heard of the Ottoman Empire?
And is the Christian religion unified? Did France and Italy, or Spain (both Catholic) never fight each others?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hows this for a revelutionary idea "Islam" and "Christendom" have interferred with each other since the get go. They have warred, traded, exchanged ideas and generally interacted as people tend to do. Yes the West has had a big impact on the East but the reverse is just as true, neither would be remotely the same without a common history with the other.

Some of the past has been bad, some good. The Crusades were a religious war, involving the deaths of pilgrims and the destruction of cities and from the begining to end no one comes out with clean hands. The Reconquesta was a glorified and bloody border war.

Get over it, hereditory guilt and pride are both equally idiotic, the past does not dictate what we do today.

[rory_20_uk]

Bloody well put :thumbsup: :shakehands:

~:smoking:

[yesdachi]

with out a clue ... aside from Carter...
Carter had a clue? This combined with your ridicules conclusion that the “west” is responsible for the troubles with Islam… I am starting to think you need to get on some kind of medication or maybe you are in some alternate dimension where everything is twisted around and your only access to this dimension is the .org.

I will say that the “west” has thrown some fuel on the Middle-East fire over the last few decades, but seriously, this region has been populated longer than just about any other place on the planet and they have been fighting with everyone they can the entire time, hundreds of years before there even was a “west”. Your finger pointing at the “west” is a bucket filled with holes(it does'nt hold water).

Every major region has gone thru some kind of serious conflict: dark ages, unifications, civil wars, invasions, etc. and practically all have emerged from the flames of chaos and entered into a time of enlightenment (followed by disco), except the Middle-East.

[spmetla]

I'd say that Islam's "backwardness" isn't directly because of colonialism but more because of the middle east's general decline in importantness. The Europeans started building ships capable of long ocean voyages which negated the value the Middle East had for trading with Africa, India, and the Far East.

The evolution of professional armies and gunpowder weapons wasn't followed up as quickely by the Turks whose "elite" jansinnaries were only forcibly disbanded in the mid 1800s.

These two factors caused the middle east to become poorer because trade was their primary cause of wealth and than with that lack of wealth they couldn't afford (money wise) to keep up with the technologic and organizational advances of the European powers which were soon able to project power across the seas at relative ease except for the fighting between other European powers.

The lack of wealth then of course led to a further uneven distribution of wealth and no creation of the strong middle class which brought about political, social, and ecclesstial change in Europe. Only the creation of the Suez canal and the discover of vast oil reserves and the sudden and recent demand for that oil has caused the Middle East to regain any relavance again.

As for saying that Islam has never had the chance to be unified I'd say that statement is quite the opposite. Islam started unified and then split into two major sects and that's besides little cults that appear there hasn't been much organizational change. The Turks disbanded the position of Caliph with the end of the Ottoman empire and many muslims didn't recognize the Turkish Caliph as Caliph anyhow.
Christianity on the other hand started out has a cult and had many spliter branches for the first 300 years of it's existance before it was "unified" since then it has split into Catholism and Orthodox churches with the gradual addition of new branches of christiany along the course of history and has never truly been "unified".

Yes, the "West" has caused some problems in Islamic nations in recent history but that hasn't caused the current "backwardness" we see in many Islamic nations now but really just caused those nations to keep the social status quo of when the colonial powers took over.
It took a long time for Europe to seperate church and state and hamper the power of any one church and until the middle east has the same internal revolutions I don't expect the region to change to much socially or politically.

[caravel]

Here is my humble opinion:

Those that blame the Versailles treaty for the Ottoman collapse are only looking at the surface. The Empire was already in serious decline before this and unless some serious political reforms were introduced it was done for.

There seems to be some misconcieved idea of poor muslims that are being driven to hate us and commit terrorists acts because the horrible empire of the western whites has been interfering politically. This is always the first resort for apologists for muslim extremist regimes and dictatorships.

The problem with the middle east is hardly islam, Iraq was not exactly an islamic state. The main issue is simply backwardness, the same backwardness affecting africa, india and partsof the far east. When we come into conflict with this, which we do frequently due to mass immigration and trade, there is a conflict of cultures. We can't resolve this, these people need to provide their own solutions. Any solutions that we import won't be long lasting.

[Rodion Romanovich]

A few comments to various above posts:
- ottomans attacking Vienna and Italy doesn't justify west attacking for example Iran, Iraq and similar areas when those weren't under ottoman control
- crusades struck mamluks, not the seldjuks, who threatened west
- ottomans didn't avenge the crusades - Austria and Italy didn't do most of the damage during the crusades, and besides the ottomans weren't the ones struck by the crusades

Both sides in this "Christianity vs Islam" debate seem to mix up things by bunching together all Christians in one camp and all Muslims in another camp. You can't measure who is right and wrong today by looking at how many atrocies representatives of each religion have committed, and when. On the contrary, it's necessary to see west not as west but as the different countries it consists of, and east not as east, but the different countries it consists of. If west fools themselves to think they're at war with Islam, they'll declare war with around 1000 times more than they're at war with now. If east fools themselves to think they're at war with Christianity, they'll declare war with around 1000 times more than they're at war with now. This is a misunderstanding that mustn't happen - we can't draw the whole world into major war and conflict because the rhetorical parables we find artistically beautiful makes us think there's such a conflict, because it isn't. If such a conflict would be fought, then 99% of the soldiers would fight only for the reason they think the other side wants to fight them under any circumstances, while the other side wouldn't fight if they didn't firmly believe the other side wanted to fight them under any circumstances.

This incorrect reasoning where Christians are bunched together, and Muslims are bunched together, it's what lies behind a war in Iraq filled of torture, civilian massacres, oil stealing and destruction. It is also what lies behind terrorists striking innocent civilians in western countries - people who often have little to do with the acts carried out by the leaders in some of the western countries. In reality, it is a war between 500 white men, and 500 muslims. Why do others join this war? Without soldiers there would be no wars.

The whole ottomans vs crusades things actually doesn't matter in the actual core conflict, the only way it matters in this subject is because people believe it matters, and fool themselves that this is a debate over religions, a war between millions of people. It's just a debate over power, freedom, justice and ability for both sides to keep their cultural heritage and law in their own respective countries. Western countries have advantages in weaponry and economy, but they aren't using those resources to act as responsibly as they could, which is bad considering how easily some eastern countries could once get such an advantage when western countries least expect it. While we can be assured that their revenge won't be horrible because western countries haven't been horrible, we can expect their rule to be as irresponsible and somewhat arbitrary and inproper as the behavior of some western countries have been today.

[KafirChobee]

OK, so I over generalized and showed my ass in some ways. [I apologize to Brenus, I did neglect one significant point about the St. Bathelemy thingy. :sweatdrop: That the Catholics simply beat the Protestants to the gun. Both seemed intent on being the "correct" relgion for the area. it was a matter of "Do unto others, before do unto you". I may have left out that part. Sorry. Only meant it as a far flung example of our own intolerances in the Christian community - me thinks I flung it to far.

Still, I remain somewhat entrenched in the premise that Western nations have either directly or inadvertantly contributed to the rise of radical Islam - especially in the modern era. Watchman's discourses on the history of the region (and others) are far superior to mine. It has been more than a few years since I studied the history of what we call the Middle-East and no doubt my memory on certain issues maybe lacking (unfortunatelly my second wife burned most of my notes and lecture papers ... and memory is a tricky thing).

For most Westerners it is the simple answer to a complex question that they most likely will succumb to. It is like the watershed of Hamas being elected over the PLO (PLA ... what ever). Just days before the elections there it became known that the U.S. government had contributed $millions$ to the PLO candidates, so when Hamas became the dominant party the U.S. proclaimed it was because the PLO had been ineffective on providing social services, improvements to the infrastructure, jobs, etc. Not, that the people there voted against the party supported by the USA - Bush that is. See, as in most things to do with the region we tend to oversimplify what we do not understand (or to listen to those that do) by reducing everything to an economic factor . What could be easier. Ignore the realities and point out the economic failings instead - as the all cause for the regions instability.

Today we are again employing the carrot and stick as our only diplomatic tool. We use a phraseology that lauds "democracy", while demonstrating to the world that we no longer feel the necessity to abide by it at home (limitless wiretaps, torture, rendition, gitmo, etc.). We find it conveinient to use terms like "radical islam", or axis of evil (GOP'ers love the word evil - evil empire, the inadvertant evil of disagreeing with the "agenda", the evil peace marchers that only support our enemys'), or to define what we don't agree with as some sorta alien plot to overthrow all we hold near and dear. It is us against them - if only the infidels would understand this - all would be so much better. IT'S THE CORPORATIONS ... STUPID. Our hopes are built on the premise that a corporate secular world is the best hope for changing those that oppose us (and our way of life, presumably - though I imagine jobs might help, not to many Middle Class rebellions. Beside our own, that is) - while still expounding the need for all to be "born again" in the blood of Christ.

We can't help ourselves, I suppose, it is our modern nature to interfere anywhere it is perceived we have economic interests. Humane ones don't count for much, but oil and economy certainly do.

We like to say things like, "Islam has been hi-jacked by radicals". When in fact most of what is occurring today has been a long progression for religious identification and independence (of a sort). At present we sponsor our own news staion Iraq (that few watch because they know where its coming from - Virginia) and we are using a buncha psyche crap that never has worked for us (primarily because those in charge don't have a clue about the culture - or even take the time to learn about it).

The facts do no deter us - they just some times get in the way of the "spin".

As it has so aptly been pointed out - Islam has two primary folds, but hundreds of sub-cults. Just as Christianity does, even so with Judaism. Minor things come into play - interpretations of a line or phrase, that eschew each faction from facing the others truth. It allows for diversity, of a kind, but (generally) bastardises a possibly simple passage into meaning that conveiniently coincides with the ideas or philosophy of the person spouting it.
All religious leaders do it, look how easily a minister floats from the New to Old testiments to prove a point or explain some epiphany that god gave them in a dream.

Maybe, the question ought to have been if Islam can survive its self.

[spmetla]

I think that Islam can survive itself. It's just that because the middle east in general and for the most part has missed out the internal reforms that the Europe has gone through and suddenly when oil became important contact between the these two regions and the immense cultural differences that have grown in the past centuries have had a shock effect. Some embrace the new ideas, others go along but are fairly neutral while others fear change and resort to violence. The "west's" sudden economic interest in the Middle East certainly doesn't help because like anyone else the West wants favorable not fair economics and while it had the power to do so it made this possible and now understandable the formerly exploited hold some resent.

I'm confident that eventually that while regular muslims modernize and change the extremists afraid of change will slowly die out or fade away.

As for the arab conquest, crusades, and the ottoman expansion those are now all just excuses and nothing more. Now one alive now remebers any of these events and they are all just in history books.

And as for the crusades themselves they were started because christians making pilgrimage on their way to Jerusalum were being denied that ability were previously they had been able to. The pope called for a crusade and many replied to that and went. The crusaders that went and actually accomplished something primarily did it for selfish reasons and not just to liberate the "holy land", just look at Bohemond with Antioch or Baldwin's Couty of Edessa. And the turks were defiantely affected by the crusades. The first and second crusades past through Seldjuk terriotry. Antioch and Edessa threatened the Seldjuk and Danishmend turks for many years. Only the mongol invasion weakened the Seldjuks enough for the Ottomans to take over.

I'd love to continue this but then it'd be a monastery thread so I'll just stop myself now.

[Brenus]

Ah, the KabirChobbe I like. :2thumbsup: More Marxism, less Bushism, it is what we need. The victory of people like Bush (and some extend Bin Laden) is that they oblige people to think like them.

Go back to the roots, economy and power. Even the St Barthelemy was for that. Henri III, last of the Valois dynasty, had no heir (well, he was gay…). His successor was Henri de Navarre, whose mother was nicknamed the Queen of the Protestants. He was himself a protestant and got married with Margot (Have you seen the movie, The Queen Margot?) daughter of Catherine de Medicis. The other head of the Protestants (Admiral Coligny) was also in Paris, so the King decided to eliminate all opposition. So a spontaneous and popular up-rising occurred and all the Protestants were slaughtered. Well, excepted the target, Henri de Navarre escaped and became Henri IV, first of the Bourbon, later… And he was assassinated by a Monk (Ravaillac).
So, yes, war of Religion, but politic ruled like it rules now.

“Still, I remain somewhat entrenched in the premise that Western nations have either directly or inadvertantly contributed to the rise of radical Islam”. Yes, of course. The support to the Saudi, one of the most conservative lecture of the Koran, the perpetual mixing-up of politic and religion (the main members of the PLO were Christian), the real ignorance of what is Islam, al that contributed to the Radicalism of Islam. If you tell every day that the people who defend their land are the Muslim, well all the Muslim are happy. If they are defeated, all Muslim are humiliated and some will go for more extremism.
The Western Countries didn’t help dictatorships only when they were Muslim (Pinochet, Videla, Somoza, Mobutu, etc). But with the so-called shock of the cultures, the identification is more obvious. As a French, I can sympathise with the Chileans, however I a not from this country. So, I won’t go in the Jungle to fight for Chile’s freedom, if there is jungle in Chile. However, as a Muslim, I can identify myself with another Muslim (If I was a Muslim…).:sweatdrop:

One fact to include is the fall of Communism. Before, it was possible to refer to other big ideology to express yourself in opposition of the US and capitalists. Now, the only refuges available are nationalism and/or religions. When both coincide in a dream like the Uma, it will create extremists. And when it is so obvious than a conventional war can't win, you go from terrorism, the asymmetric war, where the wreakers can win.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html
Maybe Islam needs to be more introspective instead of searching for excuses and blaming others to continue living with a 7th century mentality.

[Faust|]

I would say that almost all, if not all, cases of radicalism arise as a reaction of individuals to PERCEIVED threats, domestic, foreign, or both. That's the source, and viewed in this light watchman's posts and KC's posts are not altogether inconsistent. So a good question pertaining to the issue of this thread would be, are Islam's radicals justified in their stance? I would think attempts to answer would take you deep into the philosophical areas of various subjects.

"I would say that almost all, if not all, cases of radicalism arise as a reaction of individuals to perceived threats, domestic, foreign, or both." This is why I will never be a nationalist... way TOO reactionary. This statement also helps explain why not all Muslims are radicals... the key is "perceived threats".

[Fragony]

The problem with islam is islam. If it is the same in every muslim state, and if it is the same in every western country where they 'enrich' the culture then they must be the problem.

Edited by Ser Clegane: I would appreciate if people spend a minute thinking before posting every offensive thought that happens to wander through their mind

[PanzerJaeger]

The muslim threat is minimal compared to the danger posed by seemingly sane Westerners such as KC, who believe such trash. They will not be satisfied until the Western World is just as horrible as the islamic world.

This fifth column in our midst does far more hurt western progression and prosperity than their terrorist allies.

[rory_20_uk]

PJ, please tell me you're not allowed to vote...

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

The muslim threat is minimal compared to the danger posed by seemingly sane Westerners such as KC, who believe such trash. They will not be satisfied until the Western World is just as horrible as the islamic world.

This fifth column in our midst does far more hurt western progression and prosperity than their terrorist allies.

Haven't seen you for a while mia muca, glad to see you are still making sense :2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

The muslim threat is minimal compared to the danger posed by seemingly sane Westerners such as KC, who believe such trash. They will not be satisfied until the Western World is just as horrible as the islamic world.

This fifth column in our midst does far more hurt western progression and prosperity than their terrorist allies.


I hope you do realize the KafirChobee writes such material (and cuts and pastes from certain sites) the type of subject matter that he does to provoke such a response from those with political idealoge opinions opposite from his own.

If you would allow his rants to go unanswered or better yet show where his points are mote, ridiculous or so far off base as several others have done in this particlure thread - you points would be better served.

[Faust|]

deleted
-Faust

[KafirChobee]

I hope you do realize the KafirChobee writes such material (and cuts and pastes from certain sites) the type of subject matter that he does to provoke such a response from those with political idealoge opinions opposite from his own.

If you would allow his rants to go unanswered or better yet show where his points are mote, ridiculous or so far off base as several others have done in this particlure thread - you points would be better served.

Wellllllll, I certainly do attempt to provoke a response to my queries - that is true. And, i am always curious to about the responses that my questions provoke. However, the idea that my ideas, concepts, questions, philosophys' or provocations are somehow mute? Or, to be ignored? Well, only the ignorant accept one concept as an absolute - never challenging it, never questioning it, or wondering why it makes it the true belief.

So, Redleg, raise thy hand and say "seige heil!" Isn't that what are you are saying? Or, is it simply that if a person disagrees with you .... they should be ignored? Sounds about right.:balloon2:

[Redleg]

Wellllllll, I certainly do attempt to provoke a response to my queries - that is true. And, i am always curious to about the responses that my questions provoke. However, the idea that my ideas, concepts, questions, philosophys' or provocations are somehow mute? Or, to be ignored? Well, only the ignorant accept one concept as an absolute - never challenging it, never questioning it, or wondering why it makes it the true belief.

Extremists regardless of thier postion on the political spectrum are best ignored - or has several others in this thread of shown, that their position is based upon their own ignorance and fear. Others with far more knowledge of the Middle-East and Islam have shown how ignorant and off-base your initial premise is, and therefor its time to just ignore it. The premise of this thread is very telling given the nature of the term Kafir that is in your name as it relates to Islam.

However you should of stopped right there with your comments.



So, Redleg, raise thy hand and say "seige heil!" Isn't that what are you are saying? Or, is it simply that if a person disagrees with you .... they should be ignored? Sounds about right.:balloon2:

You might want to stop reading Michael Moore and other Liberial bloggers, this is the typical tactic of the far left - accuse others of being something because they chose to ignore your arguement.

Disagreement does not mean that one is raising their hand spouting Nazi doctrine, nor does ignoring an arguement mean anything other then I find your arguement not worthy of discussion.

Bring an arguement that is worthy of discussion. One that does not resort in your normal desire to call other of opposing views Nazi's or facists, like before when you called my ancestor's facists that, a classic blunder again on your part. It seems that once again you have made yourself your own worse enemy.

Your showing yourself to be a extremist, extremists should be ingored and ridiculed for what they are, ignorant knuckleheads.

Edit: because I just could not resist something that I stumbled across in my readings and forgotten until now that is relative to the nature of this thread. It actually explains a lot about how incorrect the nature of your premise and comments truely are in this thread, and why you often resort to triades, insults, and rants in your attempts at communicating with the rest of us.

[Ser Clegane]

Please refrain from making such silly nazi-comparisons - they insult the poeple they are directed at and at the same time tend to trivialize the crimes that have been committed by the "real" Nazis.

[KafirChobee]

Extremists regardless of thier postion on the political spectrum are best ignored - or has several others in this thread of shown, that their position is based upon their own ignorance and fear. Others with far more knowledge of the Middle-East and Islam have shown how ignorant and off-base your initial premise is, and therefor its time to just ignore it. The premise of this thread is very telling given the nature of the term Kafir that is in your name as it relates to Islam.

However you should of stopped right there with your comments.

Disagreement does not mean that one is raising their hand spouting Nazi doctrine, nor does ignoring an arguement mean anything other then I find your arguement not worthy of discussion.

Bring an arguement that is worthy of discussion. One that does not resort in your normal desire to call other of opposing views Nazi's or facists, like before when you called my ancestor's facists that, a classic blunder again on your part. It seems that once again you have made yourself your own worse enemy.

Your showing yourself to be a extremist, extremists should be ingored and ridiculed for what they are, ignorant knuckleheads.

Edit: because I just could not resist something that I stumbled across in my readings and forgotten until now that is relative to the nature of this thread. It actually explains a lot about how incorrect the nature of your premise and comments truely are in this thread, and why you often resort to triades, insults, and rants in your attempts at communicating with the rest of us.


OK, first, KAFIR is an Arabic insult flung at those whom have not been enlightened by Muhamad (sp) and found Allah to be the one true god. It means infidel - or Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. So, I'm not exactly sure what the point here was Red - unless it was to somehow signify my conformance to Islam? Or, was it to demonstrate a (my) non-existent disdain for a culture that most westerners refuse to understand - try to remember I spent 6 years in the late 70's and early 80's studying and writing papers on Middle-East affairs. Regardless, I chose the name Kafir not to be offensive (as some names connote), but ....... well, why not? Redleg, I suppose is just a bird? Or is it reference to the "Redlegs" of Civil War attrocities - I mean the Cincinnati Reds shortened their name to be pollitically correct correct back in the 60's. Regardless, what is in a name?

You keep referring to your family, and my calling them Nazis ... when in fact I queried if they were racists - after you commented that one of your ancestors was a founder of the KKK, or a leader in it or some such. It really is getting old though that every time I am accused of being an extremist, or knucklehead, wrong-think, or that my arguements are not worthy of discussion. :wall:

On this subject, "the problem with islam", I opened discussion to why islam is the way it is. And, on why so many good people of islamic faith have gone to the darker side of it - I don't believe I have accused the religion of being subversive (as have some) or proclaimed that Jesus is the one true god (or is that Jehova, the name that cannot be spoken, etc?).

Most that have actually had something to say on topic have given me a variation of approaches, perceptions, histories, and analogies that have been somewhat enlightening. Though I do not find all of them as well thoughtout as others, all have been atleast honest. Versus personal attacks against me, or a religion some refuse to even perceive as not being one of terrorism. As one put it, Islam has been hi-jacked just as other religions have to support political beliefs - and/or perceived threats (as another mentioned - a very good one actually, hadn't given much thought to that premise).

Railing against me, calling me an extremist, accusing me of insulting ancestors .... well, what ever rings your bell. Versus actually commenting on topic, or hurling insults, or insinuations that I won't be satisfied 'til we (US)collapse to the level of poverty the majority of Muslims live in. Thing is, seems (to me) there are just as many religious extremists in the Christian community as there are in the Islamic one. It is simply a matter of perception.

[Redleg]

OK, first, KAFIR is an Arabic insult flung at those whom have not been enlightened by Muhamad (sp) and found Allah to be the one true god. It means infidel - or Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. So, I'm not exactly sure what the point here was Red - unless it was to somehow signify my conformance to Islam? Or, was it to demonstrate a (my) non-existent disdain for a culture that most westerners refuse to understand - try to remember I spent 6 years in the late 70's and early 80's studying and writing papers on Middle-East affairs. Regardless, I chose the name Kafir not to be offensive (as some names connote), but ....... well, why not? Redleg, I suppose is just a bird? Or is it reference to the "Redlegs" of Civil War attrocities - I mean the Cincinnati Reds shortened their name to be pollitically correct correct back in the 60's. Regardless, what is in a name?

Not even close to what I meant with the comment, but nice try, if one is only looking at the insult aspects of the term Kafir. To be completely forthcoming there is another insulting meaning for the term Kafir that stems from South Africa also.

The writings on Islam as presented by yourself in this thread would fit the orginial meaning of Kifar as it relates to Islam..

KafirKafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth.

A very fitting describtion of some of your posts in this thread.




You keep referring to your family, and my calling them Nazis ... when in fact I queried if they were racists - after you commented that one of your ancestors was a founder of the KKK, or a leader in it or some such. It really is getting old though that every time I am accused of being an extremist, or knucklehead, wrong-think, or that my arguements are not worthy of discussion. :wall:

your memory must be failing - I never stated that my family had an ancestor that was a founder of the KKK - you seem to have confused yourself about what I have written. My father however is a bigot, a racist if you will - whom I have been educating that racial make-up of the individual is not important, but the individual's behavior. Being the son of a racist however does not make one a nazi, nor does it makes one's ancestors a bunch of facists.

If you don't like certain accusation and comments in return then maybe you should first lay off of the extremist comparssions that you often attempt.



On this subject, "the problem with islam", I opened discussion to why islam is the way it is. And, on why so many good people of islamic faith have gone to the darker side of it - I don't believe I have accused the religion of being subversive (as have some) or proclaimed that Jesus is the one true god (or is that Jehova, the name that cannot be spoken, etc?).

And your post was responded to by people far more educated then I in Islam and they have shown where your premise is incorrect, therefor I had no reason to disprove your premise since it has been done by others.



Most that have actually had something to say on topic have given me a variation of approaches, perceptions, histories, and analogies that have been somewhat enlightening. Though I do not find all of them as well thoughtout as others, all have been atleast honest. Versus personal attacks against me, or a religion some refuse to even perceive as not being one of terrorism. As one put it, Islam has been hi-jacked just as other religions have to support political beliefs - and/or perceived threats (as another mentioned - a very good one actually, hadn't given much thought to that premise).

You should write like this more often - its more apporiate for the discussion that you initially seem to want to have.



Railing against me, calling me an extremist, accusing me of insulting ancestors .... well, what ever rings your bell. Versus actually commenting on topic, or hurling insults, or insinuations that I won't be satisfied 'til we (US)collapse to the level of poverty the majority of Muslims live in. Thing is, seems (to me) there are just as many religious extremists in the Christian community as there are in the Islamic one. It is simply a matter of perception.

Actually you have done all that I stated - but don't let that prevent you from attempting to escape responsiblity. Nor have I stated that you want to see the United States fail, not in a direct way. If you don't like the language and responses you get, don't use the method initially. Shall we review the initial rounds of this conversation.

The first being that I informed Panzer that he would be better served to ignore you, not even an accusation of wrong or insulting you at all.

Lets see the quote exactly.

hope you do realize the KafirChobee writes such material (and cuts and pastes from certain sites) the type of subject matter that he does to provoke such a response from those with political idealoge opinions opposite from his own.

If you would allow his rants to go unanswered or better yet show where his points are mote, ridiculous or so far off base as several others have done in this particlure thread - you points would be better served.

Nowhere was there an attack on you by myself in this comment. Telling Panzer that his points would be better served if he ignored your rants - is not insulting you at all. However you decided to take issue with the statement with the little "seige heil" comment which was completely uncalled for. It was actually an attempt to prevent the direction that you chose to go with in your response to me. To bad that in your desire to have another confrontation with me - you missed the actual message in my post.

Futhermore, you didn't like my retort in response I see, well you might want to notice something from our previous exchanges, that and review your own. You will notice something if you pay attention, I normally respond in the matter in which I am being treated in the post.

If you want honest intellectual discussion then treat the discussion as an honest discussion. Nazi comparassion and the like are not honest attempts, nor will they be responded to in a polite manner.

[KafirChobee]

Kafir, n. [from Arabic, kafir, infidel, from kafara, to be skeptical of religion. an unbeliever, infidel]
1. a South African Bantu.
2. the language of Kaffirs.
3. A non-muslim: term of contempt used by Muslims.
4. A Kaffir
[Webster's 20th century unabridged dictionary - is old though, 1967, is also the pre-edited or editors edition]
One can look up Redlegs anywhere on the net, btw. But, as I said before - what is in a name?

This is not about names, or name calling - go back to my last post and comment on the issue here. Not on your personal attacks about and against me. Thank you.

[Redleg]

Kafir, n. [from Arabic, kafir, infidel, from kafara, to be skeptical of religion. an unbeliever, infidel]
1. a South African Bantu.
2. the language of Kaffirs.
3. A non-muslim: term of contempt used by Muslims.
4. A Kaffir
[Webster's 20th century unabridged dictionary - is old though, 1967, is also the pre-edited or editors edition]
One can look up Redlegs anywhere on the net, btw. But, as I said before - what is in a name?



This is not about names, or name calling - go back to my last post and comment on the issue here. Not on your personal attacks about and against me. Thank you.

Again most of your premise has been debunk and even your last post has been answered in the context of what you posted. Are you having a problem accepting responsiblity for your own statements?

[Leet Eriksson]

Not to intrude in the pleasant debate in this thread, but KafirChobee's definition is more correct.

A Kafir is someone whose not a muslim, not someone who hides, covers or denies the truth, we call these Munafiq (منافق), or Munafiqoon (منافقون) [Plural].

[Byzantine Mercenary]

wasn't there a time when it was just the pagans who were the infidels not all the non muslims? did muhammed even ever call christians infidels?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Christians and Jews are People of the Book, according to the Koran we all follow the same God.

Ultimately Islamic extremists do not bother me. Non-Europeans still make up less than 10% of the population by quite a way. Until they hold a majoriety they aren't a threat to me. What worries me more is the extreme Christian-nationalistic backlash some Muslims are creating in Europe. I came to the conclusion that there would be a religious war a few years ago, by the time the Danish Cartoons thing happened I'd knocked ten years of my count-down.

The problem with many Muslims in Europe is that they are clearly Muslims before they are anything else. This offends the European sensability which says your nation comes before your religion. Added to that there is an obvious culture clash, which clearly is religious.

At my University you can tell the Middle Eastern Christians from the Muslims because you can communicate with them.

In England we have a saying, "Don't talk about politics, religion or football."

In Britian Muslims kick up a huge fuss about the first two and the rest of us don't like it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In England we have a saying, "Don't talk about politics, religion or football."

In Britian Muslims kick up a huge fuss about the first two and the rest of us don't like it.

...Because it takes away the the focus from arguments on the third?:inquisitive:

~D