Islam and the West

Hello, guys. Even if this is a taboo and very controversial subject, I think this is quite an objective view and I'd like very much if you could make comments of it and add your opinions.
____________________________________________

Islam and the West

by Friedrich vHuH

‘The religious ideal of Islam is organically related with social order,
which is your [the West’s] creation.
the rejection of any of them means inevitably,
the rejection of the other.’

Muhammad Iqbal, Presidential speech to the All-India Muslim League, Allahabad 1930.

More than 1.300 years the Christians have been thinking of the Islam as a threat. Pious Christians have felt challenged by a Faith that recognises the existence of a single God, Creator of the Universe, but that rejects the Trinity; a Faith that accepts Christ as a prophet born from a virgin, but that rejects his divinity and crucifixion; a Faith that believes in Judgement Day, in Heaven and Hell; but a Faith that has seemed to make of sex the key of heavenly rewards; a Faith that recognises the Judeo-Christian Bible as the word of God but that believes in other book which at first sight seems to contradict much of what the Bible says.
Christian States felt threatened because of Muslim successes and powerful expansion in the VIII century, the conquest the Iberian Peninsula which made of Spain the wisest, most advanced nation and a bright nation in the dark Middle Age, where for centuries Christians, Jews and Muslims co-existed in perfect harmony; trade, culture, philosophy and science expanded. Then in the XVI and XVII centuries the ‘evil’ of Islam pierced into the heart of Europe and for almost 1.000 years flanked the east and south of Christianity. Even in the XVIII and XIX centuries, when European might was expanding and Muslim might decaying, Muslims were still seen as a danger. Even today Islam is seen as a danger. All this has made the Western view towards Islam as one of antagonism and refusal to sympathise with Islamic way to see live and live it. At the same time, Western Civilisation didn’t think itself worth because of its very self, but for the capacity of contrast that allowed to measure Western achievements and discover Western idiosyncrasy.
Since the beginning, Western opinions were hostile. Ancient Europeans formed fantastic and vague visions of Islam, being separated from it by the Byzantine Empire: Islam was an heretic ideology derived from Christian ideals taught by monk Bahira to Mohammed; the Koran had been delivered to the peoples on a white bull’s horns; the Prophet was a magician, whose success was due to the revelation that stated that God approved sexual licenses. However, since the XII century —the time of the I Holy Crusade— a wider vision of Islam is spread thanks to the translation of the Koran to Latin made by the English Robert of Ketton in 1143. In the XIII and XIV centuries Europeans insists in two pints of a wiser conception of Islam: one, was that the Koran was a confirmation of the Gospels; the second —of doubtious logic, if compared with the first— was an attack to Mohammed as prophet. How was it possible that a man who didn’t do miracles and who, according to Christian legends, had lived a dissolute life, had become the prophet of God? And two outstanding aspects of his message were the main targets of Christian polemics: the supposed support Islam provided to the use of force —although the Christians proclaimed ‘Holy Wars’ too— and the supposed sexual liberty the Muslims had and life and the promised pleasures afterwards. Dante has in mind a terrible fate for Mohammed, the false prophet. In his Inferno, only a few Muslims, like the philosophers Avicenas and Averroes, as well as Saladin, the great mediæval hero; shared a place among the great virtuous heathens like Hector, Socrates and Aristotle in the first circle. But the Prophet of Islam was in the ninth of the ten circles around Satan’s fortress, because of spreading scandals and discord, condemned for eternity to be chopped from his mouth to his anus over and over again.
Most of mediæval polemics against Islam continued being developed throughout the Renaissance and Reformation until the XVIII century. Polidorus Virgilius, the great Historian of the Renaissance repeats mediæval conceptions: Mohammed was a magician, taught by a Christian monk and that his teachings had been successful because of the violence and promise of God forgiving sexual excesses, etc. It also mentions that Mohammed had been an impostor. A famous biography of the XVII century, written by a dean of the Norwich Cathedral carried the tittle "The True Nature of Imposture Completely Revealed" while Bathélemy d’Herbelot’s influential "Bibliothèque Orientale", an encyclopædia published in 1697 started its introduction about the prophet this way: ‘It is the famous impostor Mohammed author and founder of heresy that has taken the name of religion’. Not even Edward Gibbon, magnificent example of reason and judgement and who wrote admirably of Mohammed in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", didn’t know whether to consider him an exalted man or a hawker. So detrited became the Prophet’s stereotyped image that fed European polemics. This way, Luther put into the same bag the Roman Catholic Church and Mohammed’s heresy as the work of the devil in Christianity. And Voltaire, in his attacks to all revealed religions through the example of Islam, made a dying Mohammed beg his successor to hide his decease to Muslims to not destroy their faith, in his tragedy "La Fanatisme, ou Mahomet le prophète".
Since the XVIII century a wider comprehension of Islam spreads in Europe. Whilst Christian revelation in Europe was losing influence on the peoples, the change made Europeans able to understand and appreciate other ways to see the world and even accept them sympathetically.
Simultaneously, the attitude towards Islamic nations by European powers evolved from real fear to Ottoman menace until a confident equality, at least towards the decadent empires Safavidan and Mogul. Then at the end of the XVIII Century, they were sure about themselves in their relations with Islam and prove of this is the dramatic invasion and occupation by France of Egypt in 1798 and of British occupation of Mysore, the last active and hostile redoubt of Islamic India in 1799. The confidence grew in the XIX Century, when Holland and Russia joined France and Great Britain in conquering Islamic territories until 1920, when Saint Remo’s Treaty three quarters of the Muslim world were under European dominion. When the peoples of Europe released from mediæval conceptions the encounters with Muslims became more frequent and Islamic Civilisation was better and more deeply understood.
Despite that, among the posture that evolved since the XVIII Century, the old intransigent attitude was remarkable. Taking advantage of the opportunities of colonial empires, Christian missionaries worked among Muslim peoples as they had never did and wouldn’t do again. There were symphatisers like Bishop Heber and Dr. Livingstone but there were also others that believed in old Christian prejudices. Great part of mediæval polemics is revived in the "Life of Mohammed", published in 1851 by the Bombay Tract & Book Society, while Sir William Muir, a veteran administrator in India, translated the "Risalah", an Arabic work that had proportioned the mediæval clergy arguments about sexual abuses and supposed crimes and forced conversions —which were the rule in Christian Spain after the fall of the Sultanate of Granada in 1492. But not only missionaries kept the old myth alive about Islam, violence and sex being the same. Two very different men visited Egypt in the mid XIX Century, the Arabic specialist Edward Lane and the novelist Gustave Flaubert, and were impressed by the preponderance of sex and sensual environment in Islamic societies: the first denounced ‘excessive liberties in sexual relations’ but the second’s sexual experiences left permanent signs in his immortal literary work.
It is not strange at all that the colonial administrator would have been surprised by the violent aspects of Islam, preoccupied by the holy wars the Muslims always proclaimed when fighting European governments. From there comes that the term ‘fanatic’ and ‘Muslim’ turned to be almost a synonym to the eyes of the Europeans who faced Islamic resistance in places like Algeria, India or Indonesia. This image grew in the XIX Century as the Muslims opposed stronger the European imperialism and colonialism. Sir William Muir declared that ‘Mohammed’s sword and the Koran are the most tenacious enemies of civilisation, liberty and the truth the world has known’.
There is no major contrast in Christian antagonism than the way Napoléon, son of the Enlightenment, assumed the posture of a Muslim and manipulated Islamic institutions as part of his imperialist aims in Egypt. ‘I respect God, His Prophet and the Koran’, he said when landing in 1798 and afterwards, he acted like a Muslim ruler, honouring the Prophet publicly with Islamic Basmala when starting letters to Muslim tribes of the area, thus gaining political and religious rulers of the country for his cause. Napoléon, according to Victor Hugo ‘appeared to the eyes of the shocked tribes as a Mohammed from the West’ and he showed a pragmatism that the Europeans had been incapable of to that point, but that in later years, they would make effort to imitate him, even if never as successfully.
Though there’s undoubtedly a Romantic touch in Napoléon’s attitude towards Islam, it doesn’t cease to be a symbol of the new Classic Era that had just born. When adopting an Islamic identity, as the Romantics did to go beyond the limits of European XVIII Century society, in the same way that the expansion to the East and South meant a challenge to the established political system of power. By doing this, a new possibility erupted: it was like a well-served table that could feed the European wild imagination. Throughout the XVIII Century the appetite of Europe increase with the tales of travellers and specially for the "1001 Nights", translated by Galland for the first time in 1704. That series of caliphs, slaves, genius, lamps and fabulous tales provided the words and images for the Europeans to describe the Islamic world.
To some people Islam became an exotic Kingdom to explore new alternatives. And so did Montesquieu in his "Persian Letters", Mozart in his "Rapt in the Serrail" and Von Goethe in his "Western-Eastern Couch". It also became a place that the Europeans travelled to, dressed in strange costumes. It was big the likeness of the British for Arabic dresses and courtesy, from Lady Hester Stanhope, who proudly said she had entered Palmira below an Arc de Triomphe and built a tent among thousands of Bedouins; until Sir T. E. Lawrence who never got rid of his childish enthusiasm for camels, Arabs, sand and desert war.
But, even if Europeans travelled really or in their imagination, they were more interested in imposing their vision upon that exotic world than enjoying its reality and to serve their own purposes. Romanticism was an advance which destroyed old prejudices and made easier symphaty and understanding, but created a new barrier of fantasy.
To add another problem to the equation, the sentiment of superiority developed from imperialism made itself present. Abú Taleb Khan, a Muslim-Indian that visited London in 1800 had to endure hard critiques on Islamic manners; from eating with the fingers all the way to the Mecca peregrinations. This presumption of European superiority affected in great deal the relations of the West with Islam.
Approximately three decades later, in his famous project for education in India, Macaulay said that ‘there are no books’ when referring to the Muslims, whilst Indians ‘learn almost as we do’. It is not strange that such presumptuous thrust forgot about the fragile base of British colonial power and support Christian missions: Europeans were sure that they were different and superior to Muslims. They, in fact, governed over the Muslims by Divine Right and the Muslims were ‘radically incapable of establish a good and tolerant government over civilised and Christian races’, or so said Lord Gladstone.
In a parallel way, with so many attitudes towards Islam, developed the scientific of the Islamic societies and faith which started with more careful translation of the Koran: Maracci’s translation to Latin and in 1698 and de Sale to English in 1734. De Sale’s Koran includes an introduction which states the great Islamic achievements and is based in other Islamic sources. With this he followed the path of two Oxford professors of Arab: Edward Pococke and Simon Ockley, who after gathering a tremendous amount of sources, wrote the History of Islam, from an historical and not prejudiced view.
By the end of the XVIII Century many Islamic texts were translated, literary and religious; in such task is outstanding Sir William Jones, founder of the Royal Asian Society of Bengal in 1783 and Silvestre de Sacy, first president of the Asian Society of France in 1822. Throughout the XIX Century these studies went on and the specialists in Religious Science, Biblic Critique and Compared Filology allowed Islam to speak from its own perspective.
In the early XX Century it was when studies of Islam became an independent science. Men like the Hungarian-Jewish Ignaz Goldziher, the Dutch Snouck Hurgronje, the Scottish-American D. B. McDonald and the Russian V. V. Barthold began to consider themselves experts in Islam, most interested in make their studies with the highest levels of erudition and interpretative clarity. They founded a current that reached its maximum height with the work of the French Louis Massignon and the English Hamilton Gibb, who expanded the intelligence of spiritual dimensions of Islam.
Since the Second World War, Islamic studies have multiplied, thanks to the growing interest, particularly in the United States and because scientists have introduced social sciences to this studies, especially anthropology. Therefore, Islamic studies have acquired new dimensions; anthropologists have extended their investigations to know: from the ancient urban communities of central Islamic countries until tribes and villages in Africa and south and south east Asia. Then, they have been able to see the compromises taken by Islam and how it has adapted to local cultures and traditions; thus, making possible to understand the very different ways there are to be a Muslim.
Studies of Islam also reflect the attitudes of the societies they’re born from. E. g. Simon Ockley, though interested to present the facts and development of Islamic Civilisation, shared the XVIII Century views of it being a monstrous heresy. Ernest Renan, comparative philologist and Biblical exegist considered Islam’s emphasis in the appalling authority of God was typically semitic, it opposed the scientific spirit and represented a barrier for progress; their civilisation was inferior to Arian —a silly used term, derived, culturally and racially from Persian-Indian regions— civilisation, that had produced science and philosophy.
Indeed, many Western study men have thrust in Western Civilisation’s superiority and the way of contemplating things above Islamic Civilisation. And there’s a tendency to make studies more preoccupied for the intellectual debates about Islam than for a true and imaginative comprehension of Islamic societies. Even more, it seems particularly difficult for people educated in an agnostic and materialist environment to understand the power of faith. This would explain why the most accurate and important studies about Islam have been made by pious Christians: in an époque in which they are more and more affected by mundane pressures, Christians have discovered a new affinity with whom too adore the Only God. Massignon became famous for his sanctity while Gibb declared: ‘Metaphors of Christianity satisfy me intellectually because they express the highest grade of spiritual truth.’
Then we come up with a singular paradox that even if the traditional sources of hostility towards Islam come from the mediæval Christian polemics until they become secular; it is devout Christians the ones who have gone deepest into the hated Islam. The old objection focused on the sensuality and sexual environment of Islam has turned now to the position of women in Islamic society —derived only from misinterpretations of the Koran when adapting it to local traditions, since the Koran is very clear about the same status and rights of women. Violence has become the rejection of severe physical punishments made by certain Islamic societies and governments —again not all of them and of nature endemic of every people. The fear towards Islam is also now livened up again, after the XIX Century sentiment of superiority; now that thanks to oil, Islamic societies have again the power and very understandably, the will too to influence —and decisively— on the West.
Nowadays most people is no longer worried because the success of Mohammed’s ideology. They are worried about a modern heresy: the desire of many Muslims to subordinate the lives of their societies and their lives to Holy Law. The failure of many Islamic nations to prevent this and have modern governments is one of the main causes of the Islam’s extremist factions becoming terrorist organisations. In fact, the rejection of Islam, that some time means closed hostility, seems to be very present in Western secular culture; even if modern political leaders are not longer hostile nor do they insist in their differences about monotheist beliefs. This way, the Council Vatican II concluded the following:
‘The Church sees with appreciation too the Muslims, who also adore the only living and subsistent, merciful and almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth, that has spoken to the men and Whose hidden decrees procure to submit with the entire soul, as Abraham submit to God, of whom the Islamic faith makes reference. They venerate Jesus as a prophet, though they don’t recognise him as God; they honour his virginal mother, Mary and even invoke her devoutly. They wait the Day of Judgement, when God will recommence men once they’ve resurrected. Therefore, they appreciate moral life and honour God, above all through praying, charity and fast.’
In the beginning of the XXI Century the world changed abruptly on September 11th 2001, and Western prejudices against Islam increased because an extremist and irrational fraction of this pious ancient faith vilely struck the West —this would repeat, though in lesser but not less harsher scale on March 11th 2004. To the inexperienced Western eye, a Muslim means terrorist and Islam means Terrorism. That conception is not only wrong, but it’s an aberration and a sign of historical amnesia. One has just to remember that in the 1930s a very heterogeneous religious group —considerably smaller than the Muslim and equally and wrongly conceived as a single race and homogeneous faith— was blamed for the ‘wrong’ and ‘evil’ of the world and ultimately persecuted and mass murdered. That became the worst crime in History and it happened because of prejudiced and ignorance. The same cannot happen in the XXI Century, even if the prejudices and ignorance are very present in the West. We certainly must not allow our hatred to be targeted towards one billion innocent people.
The average Western citizen doesn’t even know what Islam is nor what Muslims believe in. The basis of their faith is almost the same as in Judeo-Christian traditions: 1) the Faith in God, His prophets, angels, books and the Judgement Day; 2) Praying; 3) Charity; 4) Fast —which is actually discretion and humility—; 5) peregrination to Mecca. A sixth might be added, the ill-conceived ‘Jihad’ or holy war, which is not the excuse to kill every white man in the street, but an inner struggle against one self demons and temptations; ‘Fight in the wrath of God against those who fight ye, but don’t be the aggressors. God doesn’t love aggressors.’ (Koran II, 186). Therefore, Christianity and Islam coincide in precepts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. The 5 is not a relevant difference.
But there are of course many problems in the XXI Century Islamic World: civil wars, oppression, poverty, discrimination, etc. Being spiritual peoples, Muslims are very sensitive about things and are a fertile ground for fanaticism, but why? Because of the failure of some Islamic régimes to modernise, the great disparity of wealth and Western imperialism and neocolonialism. However, there are exceptions too: the Islamic parliamentary monarchies of the Persian Gulf are perfect examples that Islam, democracy, modernity and prosperity can co-exist.
The conflict with Israel and the armed every-day-conflict is without doubt, the greatest problem of the Middle East. And it has deep causes too that are not impossible to resolve. Both, endemic Jews and Palestinians are semites, related by blood and related religiously who can co-exist, as they did for centuries in Spain or in Palestine itself.
The creation of the State of Israel severely injured Muslim pride and exacerbated a sentiment of inferiority, even after achieving political independence from the West. They felt powerless to prevent the establishment of what they believed to be a new European colony and a base of power from where to expand in the region. The massive immigration of Europeans to Palestine and Israeli expansion worsened things. For the wise Muslims it was a humiliation and an abuse on their weakness; for the believer Muslims it was a profanation of their holy places —e. g. when Israel conquered in 1967 the mosque of al-Aqsa and the Cupola of the Rock, east of Jerusalem. Then came extremists which by vile methods tried to force the defeat of the other, who only retaliated accordingly, thus causing a terrible amount of desolation, destruction and death, whose victims are ordinary Muslims and Jews in the street, who have little excuses for hatred.
Islam is a world wide religion exactly in the same way Christianity is: it is not homogenous, it is not a race and it is not terrorism. Islam include one billion people, from Morocco to Indonesia, from central Asia to the Sudan, many languages, races and cultures, many of whom are the direct heirs of the world’s most ancient civilisations. If we fail to comprehend this we fail tolerate Islam, if we fail to tolerate, there will be prejudices. And prejudices and ignorance are the first two steps to Holocausts, Holy Wars, Crusades and Inquisitions.


"Summary execution under the More King of Granada" by Henri Regnault, who perhaps didn’t know or ignored on purpose the atrocities made by Christians during the Reconquest Wars in Spain.


A Harem woman, painted by August Renoir in 1870, seven years before he travelled to Argel and actually came into contact with an Islamic society.


A sign of Islamic cultural patrimony.


The ‘Kabah’ in Mecca, the holiest places of Islam, where at least once in a life time, every Muslim —semite, black, yellow or white— must visit.

Bibliography

Francis Robinson, "Atlas of the Islamic World since 1500", I & II, Barcelona, 2001.
"Complete Documents of Council Vatican II", Barcelona, 1992.
"The Koran", Madrid, 2000.
B. Lewis, "The Arabs in History", London, 1967.
J. H. Kramers, "The Encyclopædia of Islam", Leiden, 1954.

 

Interesting commentary. However, I feel it is a bit narrow in scope. What I mean by this is the driving force that led to Imperialism/Colonialism, that being the age old pursuit of profit.

As a side note Fried, you may recall that I teach lovely little 7th graders here in PA. Our first unit in the fall is "Islamic Empires". The first year I taught this unit I caused a big stir in the area because I was teaching the children the Koran and Islamic values. Now, keep in mind, I'm about as American as one can get and not a religious person at all. I was hurt by these accusations. I was just trying to teach a culture that is different from the norm here in western PA. It was so bad that radio shows were spending whole segments talking about it. I had parents calling and asking why I was teaching religion.

In the end I was lucky to have a principal who was suppportive. We ended up having to have some of the children go to the library until the unit was finished. Now, at the beginning of each year, I send a letter home to the parents explaining what will be taught and how so people don't think we are "pushing Islam".

I love my country but the ignorance of the general populace can be very frustrating.

Later

 

Thanks a lot for the response, J! And thanks for the input.

And let me tell you honestly: I admire you. You are precisely the kind of teacher the US needs.

If more people thought the way you do, there would be much less terrorism, less KIAs in Iraq and much less problems in the world.

 

Putting my Archie Bunker hat on, muslims would have as much relevance today as the Papua if they didn't happen to be sitting on all that oil.

Just imagine for a What-If what it would be if the Byzantine empire had managed to hang on in the 12th Century, and by some strange quirk of fate even had expanded southwards!

Would we be having todays Olympics as an apotheosis of the Orthodox faith?

 

Finally!! Za Rodina says something I can agree with.

Islam is a threat and people who don't recognize that threat should read the Qu'ran before they make statements like the ones above.

Islam teaches that nonbelievers should convert or die. Please don't bring up examples such as Malaysia where other religions are allowed...like Za Rodina said in another post: it's political survival. Malaysia is heavily populated by ethnic chinese who are not muslim.

The truth is that most Islamic countries do not allow religious freedom, nor are they democratic. The lack of democratic ideals among muslims should be a general indicator of their mindset.

Furthermore, why do you suppose that 19 out of 20 terrorist organizations listed by the US State Department are Islamic-based or Islamic-affiliated?

Why are they so?

With the exception of the IRA there aren't too many christian terrorist organizations going around conducting bombings of innocent civilians.

So why is there a link between the two; Terrorism and Islam?

It's because of the general makeup of the religion itselfd and the poison it creates in its affected society.

ok..rant off.

 

Well that was a nice unbiased view...

Apart from ETA?

So every Muslim is a terrorist?

Surely it comes down to the perversion of the religion by the individual. Look at the Crusades for example. They were doing 'Gods Work'...

Have you read the Koran?

 

Theologically, all major religious have similar core precepts: love, respect, honor and faith - Islam in no different. However, so much through history have we seen the manipulation of masses of undereducated and impoverished though religion.
Today is nothing new. I think that today's Islamic culture's glaring lack of progression, diveristy and cultural education perpetuates ignorance and hatred - these are powerful tools of control ... e.g. Saudi Royals, etc. It's never the religion - it's the men running it. - and that's an emphasis on "men". I can't imagine that if women were the heads of religions that we'd have the problems we do today.

Marx said that religion was the opium of the people – I think, rather, its more like crack-cocaine or heroin – get them hooked, and they’ll do anything for you to get it … even strap themselves with explosives to get 71 virgins - which frankly is the dumbest idea of heaven - sure virgins, but after four or five, you're going to want a pro!

[ 20. August 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: drache ]

 

Yes I have..have you? Let's talk shop. If you haven't them come back when you have and we'll talk.

 

I never said I have, I was asking out of interest, so lose the attitude. Im impressed you read it!

I couldnt be bothered to read it to be perfectly honest. IMHO second only to the Bible for winner of 'The Greatest work of fiction' award...

I know alot of muslims though, and only one was a terrorist...

 

Don't forget that the Torah tells jews to kill all gentiles. Oh, let's not forget the inquisition. But all those religions teach to love thy neighbor and respect one another - the key is that religion is rife with contraditions - only the ignorant take everything literally. And that goes back to my previous point - it's a cultural problem.
Countries with christian foundations have, for the most part, been influenced greater by the Enlightenment, Reinanance and have progressed in education and cultural diversity/acceptance. Unfortnuatnly, most of the arab world has not.

[ 20. August 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: drache ]

 

No attitude...I just would rather debate the Qu'ran with people who have read it.

Don't be so easily offended. I wasn't insulting you.

 

drasche I pretty much agree with your views on organized religion.

 

I have read the Koran. And a Muslim mate of mine did me a favour and read it loud in Arab for me. It's beautiful.

But to westerners with no idea of Arab the Koran loses moct of its literary value in the translation making it a plain, repetitive and tiring reading. And certainly, taking it word after word it is very agressive. But so is the old testament and so is St. Paul.

Saying that 1.000.000.000.000 Muslims are terrorists is idiotic and false. You simply cannot label one billion people because of what a few radicals do.

Doing this would be the exact same than saying that 20.000.000 Jews were the Zionist-Bolsheviks who wanted to destroy the world, thus giving Himmler and Heydrich an excuse for what they did.

If Americans keep blaming terrorism on Islam all what they'll get is even more terrorism. Trying to understand the political, historical and cultural background of all the countries from where terrorism raises would do much better. Why not trying to understand that some people are really mad at 50 years of despicable US foreign policy? Why not understanding that the West has supported corrupt and autoritary régimes all over the place and removed them when they stopped serving their interests? Or why not understanding the misery, poverty and apawlling difference of richess between people over there?

Are the democratic and liberal régimes of Bahrein, Oman, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates also terrorists just because they're Muslims?

Then I'll start balming all Americans of being Christian fundamentalists and fascists just because Cheney and his thugs are…

 

"TheRedBaron looks around for his Stalhelm..."



Have to say, Im with Freddy on this. I like the Muslim/Jewish Terrorist/Bolshevik analogy. Very good.

Like I said in another topic, havent the USA just played into fundamentalists hands by invading Iraq? Surely their actions will INCREASE terrorism.

See the Mahdi's army is still goin strong. Have seen six headlines on Yahoo! news headlines saying Najaf has been dealt with over the last few days followed by a headline a few hours lata, saying, struggle continues! I guess I dont have to point out the significance of the name Mahdi to anyone...

 

1 - I agree
2 - I agree
3 - I don't. Is it the West's fault that most of these nations have monarchies or quasi-monarchies in power, who are simply interested in clinging to that in power, them and their close tribal structures? Or is it the West's fault that old power traditions are in place, running in the face of the examples provided by the more progressive nations?

Why did some evolve, and others are still stuck in the worst part of the middle ages? How many literature Nobel Prizes by Arab have we seen? Medicine, Physics, Economy? How many fiction and non-fiction books are translated into arabic every year?

We know things can improve, better government systems can flourish, but are they allowed to? Or is it all the West's fault?

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs2.html

 

Well, Miguel. Certainly supporting the Saúds in power no matter if they're an opressive régime who have 200 Rolls-Royces whilst their people can't eat properly has something to do with it…

Or keeping selling weaponry to an equally opressive and expansionist régime like Israel's also helps…

US military budget for the fiscal year of 2005 will be of 415.000.000.000 dollars. How much factories, business, schools, oil refineries, industries, etc. can you build with that much money in the region, thus providing thousands and thousands of jobs to people who badly need it, who will later expend their money in their country and who will stpe by step liberalise economically, politically and culturally? It can be done.

We cannot prevent the Crusades, the creation of Israel, Italian-British-Russian-French colonialism in Islamic countries… it all has happened and we are paying the consequences. It is time for us to learn from that and start thinking on the roots of the problems instead of just fighting the symptoms and making them stronger.

Are we going to speak about cultural superiority? Because I know about a continent named Africa which has contributed very little to universal culture, except for Egypt of Carthage… or what about Polynesia? What about China that invented everything 30 ceturies before the Europeans, but that remained that way for 50?

Things can improve. Now China, after 50 centuries of decline is the economic engine of Asia, having displaced Japan and is kicking ass not just in ths Olympics.

The same can happen in the Middle East and will happen some day. The Coran is no obstacle. Centuries of war, misery and opression are.

 

So, if the House of Saud keeps to the same traditions as the Sultan of Egypt in the 18th Century, it's still the West's fault?

What does this has to do with the point, even if I agree it's true?

Are we going to speak about cultural superiority?</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not talking about West's cultural superiority, I'm not that kind of a white supremacist. I'm talking about cultural stagnation on the part of Islamic countries. They spend oodles of money on mad defense products they can't use or have to hire Pakistani mercenaries to oerate, squander fortunes on crazy engineering schemes like highways that lead nowhere, but then shut out half of the country potential by refusing women to use a driver's license or permission to graduate from an university and then practise their profession? I suppose the Saudi discriminate againt their women because Bush told them to...

Thank goodness somebody is evolving. That's one of the cultural effects of globalization, by the way.

Centuries of war, misery and oppression perpetrated by the Islamic ruling classes.

 

Sounds like the Middle East is due a 'cultural revolution' Za Rodina style...

Replace 'Islamic' with Tzarist or Bourgoeis and Za sounds more like his Uncle everyday...

Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood!

 

Ah, tovaritch, I really should have little interest on this matter, considering the rotten job my successors did

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201996/Bear%20Went%20Over%20Mountain%20-%20Aug%2096/BrOrMn.pdf

Careful,large 248 pages, 13 Mb long PDF!

(edited for clarification)

The PDF above is a Russian study on the Afghan War, edited in the US with foreword by Col. D. Glantz.

[ 24. August 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]