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...

[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

[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"

[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.

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.

[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 ?

[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".

[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.

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...

[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? 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!!

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.

[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

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? 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!!

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

[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!!!
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…

“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

[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.