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.

;))

[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...

[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.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-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".

[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?

[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. 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.