The problem with Islam

[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;

[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.

[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

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"

[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.

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!!!

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...