Fma wrote me this note in the 'Isreali Major Offensive' thread:

...and at the same time I was reading this...

Link.

..and this.

I'm a history fanatic, and I read a lot of stuff on the internet (probably way to much) and I often get dragged down into dark places of the mind where its difficult to determine the truth of what is and what is not.
Sometimes I can't but help see the global situation as all connected to the past. I find it inconceivable that history is dead as some clever people have claimed, especially since so much of who we are today is grounded in our percpetion of our own past.

On the other hand, I find it strange that so much blood can be shed over events so few people remember and the notion that Christian/democratic Europe and Islamic Arabia have been locked in a 1,400 year long conflict seems almost fantastical, if only because the word 'war' is to small and meager to explain such a conflict.

Some people don't even accept the notion of a culture clash, let alone a world war, but then what are we facing? Why have we Europeans, and later the democratic nations, been fighting so many battles against Muslims if not for a global conflict of titanic proportions?

Fma is correct, not all bad things are caused by Muslims, but if we in the democratic world must share a portion of the blame for what is happening at the moment, then what part of the blame is ours?

The questions for debate are those of the poll.


Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

Does Islam pose a serious threat to democacy?

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?


Edited to include debate questions in the body of the post per new topic requirements

Let me deal with your questions in reverse order.

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?

No. If history teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that very few things are harder to kill than systems of religious faith. Even Zoroastrianism, that ancient religion, still has numerous adherents. The "great" religions of the world -- Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity -- are not going anywhere, at least not for many, many centuries. (The only major "dead" religions that come to mind are the mythologies of ancient civilizations which have disappeared. Even these are sometimes revived by neo-pagan faiths of various kinds.)

If you had placed the word "radical" or something like it in front of the word "Islam," I would agree that the two philosophical systems are incompatible, and pose a threat to each other.

Does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy?

The fanatical branches of Islam are a very serious threat to the Free World, particularly in Europe. Liberal, secular, representative governments must never yield to a philosophy which is the absolute antithesis of everything for which they stand.

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

If anything, I would say that the word "war" is too weak. Although it is heartbreakingly true that the struggle between fanatical Islam and sanity has resulted in death and suffering to an unimaginable degree, beyond this there is an even deeper conflict. This is a philosophical conflict, at least as important as the one between (for lack of a better word) Humanism, as represented by (among others) the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and (for lack of a better word) Scholasticism. (Allow me a very, very loose use of this word, please. By it I mean everything from science based on Scripture and authority (Aristotle, etc.) to the Divine Right of Kings.) This sounds like pretty dry, intellectual stuff, and it certainly fades into meaninglessness compared to the actual horrors suffered by real, living human beings. However, in some way, I think it is more "important" to the human species in the very, very long run, just as the struggle between Humanism and Scholasticism is still vital.

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

Yes, and this struggle has been fought over the last 13 centuries. This war has been hot and cold over the

An understanding of one interpretation of the Koran is required. The concepts of Dar al-Islam, the House of Submission (to God) and Dar al-Harb -- the House of War must be understood. These concepts are not found in the Koran or the Hadith, and yet they are the worldview of most Muslim leaders. Mohammed used the term Dar al-Kufr in the Koran--House of Unbelievers. There is currently some opposition to this rigid "us or them" worldview among some Muslim scholars

I think we have seen a revival of sorts of the zealous proponents of this dichotomy. It is a deadly form of George W. Bush's "You are either with us or with the terrorists". In this interpretation, you are either with God (i.e. you are Muslim) or you are at war with God and thus must be forced to submit. Interestingly, there is some debate as to whether Christians and Jews and other "People of the Book" are kufr (unbelievers). The view of militant Islam (particularly Shi'a) scholars is that they are kufr; the view of other more moderate Muslim scholars is that they are not since they accept some form of God's divinity.

One verse from the Koran:


There is a huge difference in the expected treatment of others based upon whether they have "made war against you" or "driven you from your homes". This is what we are seeing: some Muslims give the People of the Book the benefit of the doubt, others do not.

Another concept which is key is najis or "unclean". Here is what Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani says on his website regarding kufr and najis:

Kafir


These concepts of clean vs. unclean, holy vs. apostate, and submission vs. war form the basis for the conflict between Muslim societies and others. The decentralized clergy of the Islamic religion allows a handful of radical clerics to be able to have a great deal of latitude in interpreting the Koran and other holy texts--which allows a relatively small number of scholars great power to influence millions of Muslims.

Does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy?

I am reminded that most expansions of empire have followed a population boom. When a society is filled with a surplus of young, able-bodied men, something must be done with them. Some project must be undertaken to keep the nervous energy of these people under control.

England had a population surge in the 1830s which fueled Victoria's march towards empire. Throughout Europe in the years 1000-1200 there was a population boom that led to a large number of wars (and Crusades). There is even an argument to be made that the United States' post-WW2 boom led to its dramatic rise as a world power.

Muslim countries today are booming in population. Most of these countries cannot sustain this population growth for very long (at least in my estimation). War is brewing and an outlet for these young people's energies is needed.

But even aside from war, with a democracy, such population boom can be used to capture political power without armed struggle. Many in Europe fear that Muslims are breeding their way into the majority and some fear that the ultimate goal is to establish Sharia law via the legitimate political process.

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?
I voted yes in the poll, but my answer is close to Victoria Silverwolf's: democracy is a threat to radical Islam most definitely.

If we expand the definition of democracy to include a pluralistic democracy where minority rights are upheld, then clearly this type of democracy is a threat to most brands of Islam. Islam requires a submission to God and any who refuse shall face the consequences. Furthermore, Islam is more than a religion: it is a political system as well. It includes long lists of requirements and rituals and it does not distinguish between religion and government. The laws of Islam are the laws of government.

Sharia is clearly incompatible with democracy.

This whole conversation reeks of paranoia. What muslim nations aside from Pakistan are any threat to the world? Sure they have oil....BUT WE CONTROL THAT.

If anyone should be afraid, it's muslims. Look at Israel and the free reign of power they're given to just kill at will. Look at Israel bulldoze people's modest shacks so they can build their own condo resort. Yeah, those terrible muslims are out to get you!! Watch out!

In fact most of the muslim world is very POOR. I find it disgusting that people are making monsters out of them simply because certain muslims are associated with bad behavior.

Let's refresh on what attrocities have fallen ON MUSLIMS. Chechnya? How about the genocide on muslims by the Serbs? Israel? Nuff said there. Iraq and the US invasion? Abu Grab? Guantanamo Bay? The crusades? On and on....

Personally I think as muslims get pulled out of poverty, they'll be like Europeans and give up on religion.

God only knows how long it will take for Americans to give up on fanatical religions.




Like outlawing gay marriage? Why is Sharia any different than the religious fanatics in the US trying to push laws that control our bodies and our private choices?

Democracy is simply choosing, if people have choice they may decide on Sharia law. The same way the Iraqis are voting on religious lines for their leaders.

Sharia does not limit one's ability to vote. And liberty can be a very subjective thing.

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

Heck no. There is no 1400 years war to find. The greatest threat in the question itself is war, then Islam, then democracy. I think democracy can have a dampening affect on war but it is not necessarily so and I would argue that democratic nationalism has been every bit as much of a life killer as radical Islam in the past two hundred years.

Does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy?

Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Islam is a religion and democracy is a political system. I choose to not live in a society where religious values of the majority are imposed on all of society, but that still can be a type of democracy.

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam? I think we miss the root of much of the problems today. Deferred hopes and frustrations and lack of progress in a world that is rapidly changing to modern values are incredibly frustrating for people. Why accept change in your society if very little personal benefit comes with it. The rise in wealth in the Middle East due to oil for the countries lucky enough to have it, does not become the rising tide that leads to better standards of living for all. Yet to gain that wealth in come western corporations and military advisers and seeping in of western culture.

Just like the people of Dayton, Tennessee in the 1920s some people step forward and say, turn back the clock to the ways of the holier past. Root out this decadent influences. Westernization is perceived as a decline in social values and these types of value voters vote with rocks and belts of explosives.

My hope for Iraq was that we would have had a concerted effort to shock and awe the Middle East with the impressiveness of quick moving capitalism in investments directly into the Iraqi economy and fostering the growth of Iraqi banks and rewarding un-corrupt Iraqi business groups with capital investments. We went another way and I think the lesson that Iraq is teaching the Islamic world is that our system does not work for the average Muslim. The result of that war has been frustration for those most inclined to look to American involvement as an opportunity for prosperity. I believe democracy is incompatible, not with Islam, but with a society that does not have a large, strong, and stable middle class. Societies comprised nearly entirely of the very wealthy and those below the poverty line are ripe for revolution not political evolution.

Israel is a sign of the weakness of Arab and Islamic societies. It is seen as a betrayal by the west, which slowed the creation of Arabic and other nations of the Middle East and allowed a non-Islamic nation to be created in one of the holiest places in the Islamic World. Israel is another source of frustration for the common Muslim.

Large groups of people with little hope and cyclical poverty are never going to create stories that end in peace. Hope and prosperity change this.

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?
In a way yes. I see it not primarily as a struggle between the west and islam, but rather as a struggle between liberalism and totalitarism, whether the latter can be either of the religous or the political kind. All kinds of fanaticism, and especially radical islam, pose a serious threat to our way of life in the long run. A note: when I say radical, I do not mean "fringe". Sadly I don't believe in the existance of the big silent majority of tolerant and loving muslims, yet I strive to judge every person individually.

Does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy?
It isn't about democracy. Iran, Palestine, Malaysia, supposedly now Iraq and many other countries are techincally either partial or full democracies, yet I don't consider the inhabitants of those countries free to any degree. Democracy shouldn't be about enforcing the will of the majority, it should be about letting everybody have a say in matters that concern everyone, and leave the rest up the the individuals. So no, Islam can coexist with democracy, however I would not like to live in such a "democracy". What Islam is a serious threat to is freedom of the indiviudal. My signature says the rest.

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?
No. If anything, democracy gives Islam a voice to broadcast its inherent evil ideology (I believe every ideology, political or religous, which seeks to limit individiual freedom is inherently evil). I certainly don't want to censor that speech, but if anything, islam can use democracy to its advantage if left unopposed.


1. Could you please explain to me why you do not consider islam to be a political system?
2. You "choose" not to live in a society where relgious values of the majority are imposed, how nice. You think those people that are opressed in places like Afghangistan and Iran choose to stay there too, even though these countries are "a type of democracy"?
3. Is democracy really all about majority rule, no matter how vile and evil the majority might be?

Moif, this is an excellent topic. As others have pointed out, it is a problem that has been going on for centuries...millenia even. There is clearly an ongoing struggle between 'the west' and Islam. Unfortunately, as I will try to point out in my answers, the struggle itself is needless, as there is no inherent conflict between democracy and Islam, in that a democratic society could still be an Islamic society..there is nothing at all in democracy that precludes being Islamic, and there is nothing in Islam that precludes being democratic.

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

Yes, and no. As I say above, I don't think its a struggle between democracy and Islam at alll...although many of the participants might say and believe it is. However, much of it is definitely tied to the struggle between Muslims and Jews, and the peoples of those religions, and THAT has been going on for several thousand years. Much of the militant Islamist issues with 'the west' boil down to or are related to issues they have with Israel, and much of that goes back to ages old conflicts.

Does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy?

No. Islam can do nothing to damage democracy. In fact, it might even encourage it.

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?

I agree completely with Eeyore's statements here. However, that doesn't mean that those on the other side see the issue this way. I remember reading an article in one of the newspapers when I was in Turkey discussing this. It was very enlightening. First, Turkey is a VERY progressive Middle Eastern country. Also, the paper I was reading was British based (that's why it was in English, and I could read it). This is relevant, because even being published in a Westernized country from a very westernized source, it STILL claimed that democracy was inherently in conflict with Islam. This is a very common, probably even pervasive, attitude among many in the Middle East. I think it stems from the fact that while we take separation of church and state for granted, within Islam, the opposite is true: church and state are one. Therefore, if are Muslim, and you have a problem with western ideas, religion, or philosophy, you would simply infer that you must also then have a problem with western government styles, since from your frame of reference the two are one.

This is VERY important, IMHO, to understand when discussing the conflict between Islam and the West. Conflict often comes about from each side not understanding the perspective of the other. Further, if this belief is in fact true, it can easily be used to sway the masses againt the West...as it simply reinforces existing beliefs. This is in fact what I think is currently happening. This provides the leaders of many countries to holder greater sway over their citizens than they otherwise would be able to. Further, if you look at the issue as Eeyore outlined it ,



...also then frames the very solution to the problem in a manner which makes it unacceptable. One of the great frustrations many in the Middle East suffer from is lack of representation in their government--they are economically deprived, and feel powerless to have any say in what to do about it. Further, many resent the wealth being accumulated by those in power, and the fact that they don't get any benefit from it. Democracy would represent a cure for those ills--but naturally those in power would resist it, as it would decrease (remove?) their power and wealth. So, praying upon current beliefs to thwart any move towards democracy would surely be done so that those in power in the Middle East would remain in power.

So, those of us in the west should be very conscious of this schism, because it simultaneously represents the source of the problem as well as its potential solution.

Uhm how about no rampaging christians executing those that dont comply. None have slaughtered their daughters for dating or disrespecting daddy. women aren't executed after being raped because it was "obviously" their fault.

There is nothing with the singular exception of Eric Rudoplh that comes close to Sharia in Western Civ.

The difference is night and day.

Given the choice of who to live with i will take the worst fire and brimstone hellfire evangelical with a severe hatred of Northern Yankees over actual Sharia without actual thought in the decision.

1. I consider Islam to be a religion. Islamic theocracies are political systems and I would hate to live in one. Government IMHO should be for this world. Religious leaders should be shepherds for the next.

2. If the United States became a theocracy I would find a way to leave and hope that I was not killed or thrown in jail while i tried. But the government and I would have the mutual goal of wishing I was gone.
Afghanistan prior to the ousting of the Taliban and Iran are not democracies. Elections for representatives who do not hold the sovereignty of the nation are not elections. They are public opinion polls. I prefer a democracy that checks the tyranny of the majority in some ways. I like my change to take some time in case the trends of the year turn out to be more like leg warmers than blue jeans. When an idea takes a long time to come to fruition in government, it is less likely to fall back out of favor. Yet some functioning democracies could have less checks on the tyranny of the majority and less guaranteed protections for civil liberties for the individual.

I would not prefer this style of democracy, but if regular elections were still held it would be a democracy.

3. i think if you go to a pure definition, the answer would be yes. I believe in the inherent goodness of people and feel that individuals are less likely to do evil when acting by themselves than when acting in the name of a group. As i said above, I prefer the protection of individuals through guarantees of civil liberties.

So i don't believe in a vile and evil majority. I think this is the heart of hope in democracies creating a more peaceful world. When the collective voice is listened to before waging war it is less likely to occur than when a few theocrats, an autocrat, or a monarch decide to use their population to go to war. This IMHO is dependent on the independence of the electorate and the access to free information of the electorate.

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

There is no struggle between democracy and Islam. There is a struggle between cultures, to say its based on simply that aspect democracy vs. Islam alone simply cannot ever actually answer the question. Not every nation with a majority Muslim population reflects the ideological noise one can find coming from say Iran. Terrorism is a label that is short from covering possibly a large scale social movement within the Muslim population that is providing for the resources to escalate towards organized warfare, not Islam in total. Just look at Christianity in America, you can find a broad variance of people speaking on a book or a perception and broad range of followers, some more severe in faith then others as it relates to living peacefully with others. I think this is made worse in the mideast from the simple fact more extreme aspects of violence such as war occurred more often and poverty is more widespread. Many children are indoctrinated into radical Islam, in a sense of it almost being like a prison, these children spend all their lives being taught this then of course come to be adults with such a mind. Its just like the ability for a televangelist to make way in a particular perception by knowing what to say and do, it’s the same thing that some Muslims take to and are able to have success with in a Muslim population, save the message they are spreading is far more deadly. Democracy will not change this, a democracy will reflect the will of the people, so say if Iran was democratic, it might be a sound assumption that nothing would be really different over there, radical Islam is not secular not care to share in views of such, it’s the far right wing of a religion of people that live and grew up in, or more or less its questions about our nature and nurture that have no answers currently. I will agree that radical views probably did not just grow overnight, and there is a historical basis for trying to understand them, but who is speaking on the issue, currently is sounds like a person that wants open war to be declared on Muslims in total, I would think that is probably one of the reasons we have the world we live in today. I remember once sharing water with a Muslim person in the mideast, culturally it was his duty to share something back and I got a nice meal, they are conservative overall and in a larger total sense populous wise, this gives all the ground for some people to be able to plant hate and culture it, but its not Islam in total that is responsible for such



Does Islam pose a serious threat to democacy?

Islam alone no, you could say the same thing about any particular ideology.

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?

In the current sense, its posses a threat to groups within the population that do not agree with the views of radical or goals or radical Islam, so you will end up with internal conflict, or lots of dead people.

-------------------
So I guess it boils down to how is the world going to handle radical Islam, is it simply going to engage in open war with Muslims all over the world, I think that might be what such a movement desired, and more on it that would basically suggest the desire for genocide.

Interesting results, though they mirror what I was seeing as the slant of this forum. Now I shall attempt at answering my own questions...

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

Yes I certainly think so, but I also think 'war' is too small a word and 'campaign', or even 'crusade' don't justify themselves either. I reach this reasoning not by the amount of wars there have been between the two sides, but rather the lack of any mutual peace, for even as the gods of war slumber, colonialisation, exploitation and domination continued to run rampage in the Mediterranean region and antagonism was always present. There has never, as far as I can see, been any time since the death of Mohammed, when a peaceful co-existence held both sides in mutual regard. One side has always pressed an advantage over the other and these have led to countless battles, wars and invasions. Nor has one side always enjoyed the advantage. At the beginning of Islam, the whole region around where Israel now stands was a Christian world and the most powerful nation in that Christian world was on the Anatolian peninsula; Constantinople fell to Islam five hundred and fifty three years ago when it was finally conquered in war by the Turks, thus ending two thousand of years of Anatolian Greek culture.

This might not mean much to any one reading this today. Five hundred and fifty three years might seem a long time when compared to, say, the history of the USA... but if you look at the recent history of Turkey, that is to say, the history within human memory, then you will see that the Turks did not stop their attacks against the Greeks. In 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus and tried to annex it. The island is now divided into two halves and sits as a serious stumbling block for Turkeys desired membership into the EU. The relationship between Greece and Turkey also remains strained and both sides periodically probe the other with small military provocations.

It would be wrong to see Turkey's troubled relationship with Greece, by itself, as evidence of a great conflict between the east and west. Instead it should be viewed as one small facet of a far larger and darker conflict. At the same time many other wars took place during the last five centuries to have an immediate impact on the current Euro-Muslim situation, the most serious of the later being the break up of Yugoslavia. This conflict had a great many causes, but chief among them was a Serbian resistance to a perceived Islamic threat, the root cause of which was the Ottoman Turkish invasion of the Balkans which started all the way back in 1389 with the Battle of Kosovo between the Serbs and the Turks.

Any question as to why the Serbs might regard Islam as a threat can be seen in the population demographics of the region:
Link.

The only reason why Islam exists in the Balkans at all is the same reason as to why it exists in the former Christian regions of the Middle East. Never ending warfare.

Turkey has long tried to push its way into Europe and those territories it managed to capture were subjected to forced conversion. Young boys were taken from their families to be raised in special military boarding schools and indoctrinated into becoming Turkeys most feared fighting troops, the Jannisaries. The end product of this are the Bosnian's and Albanian's who were once a feared resistance to Islamic invasion but who were ultimately defeated and their children converted.

In 1526, the Kingdom of Hungary fell to the Ottomans at the Battle of Mohács and from 1423 to 1503 the Ottomans waged war against Venice (then a serious maritime power) for control of the Aegean Sea.
As I said before, no one side enjoyed unlimited success though and during this period, the Muslims faced their most famous enemy, Vlad III, also known as 'The Impaler', or 'Dracula'. After a long and bloody career, Dracula liberated Bosnia and Wallachia from Ottoman control, but was himself killed in battle.
In 1475, the Ottomans suffered their greatest ever defeat at the Battle of Vaslui in Moldavia but, though it was the greatest ever victory of Christendom against Islam, this bloody rout was a mere bump in the road and the wars continued with unabated intent.
In 1522 the Ottoman Turks invaded the island of Rhodes. The Knights of Rhodes were banished to Malta, which was in turn attacked by the Turks, though unsuccessfully in 1565.
In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent mounted the first major Turkish attack against the Austrian Habsburgs laying seige to Vienna and attempting to run mines under the city's walls. The seige ended dismally though and the Turks withdrew as the snow set in. The seige became known in history books as the event which halted the Turkish advance into Europe.
The Battle of Lepanto has often been described in the same light. In 1571 the Ottoman Turkish fleet faced the combined forces of the Christian Holy League. At this time the Turks had a vast empire that dominated the Mediterranean region an which relied don the extension of naval power. Lepanto was the battle that ended Turkeys naval superiority, but not Turkeys ambitions against Europe and in the mean while the Turks had retaken much of the territory they had lost in the Balkans.
From 1672 to 1676, the Turkish people known as the Tartars unsuccessfully attacked Poland. Jan Sobieski, becomes king of Poland.
In 1683 the Turks were back to dig tunnels and lay siege to Vienna once again. A two month stalemate ended with the Battle of Vienna and the crowning glory of Jan Sobieski when the European powers defeated the Turks. This was the last time the Ottomans were to lay seige to Vienna (though the Turks continued their war in Europe for another 16 years).

An interesting side note to the second seige of Vienna comes from the immediate aftermath. Once the Turks had withdrawn from the field the Viennese discovered bags of coffee left in the Turkish camp. This trove of beans led the way to the introduction of coffee as a popular beverage into Europe. Today, in the UK, multiculturalists celebrate the inventions and discoveries brought to Europe by Islam, as if these things were gifts and not the detritus left behind by five centuries of invasion and attack.

In 1686 the Christians liberated Hungary.
Whilst all this was going on in the Balkans and cental Europe, the Russians were busy fighting their own wars with the Turks and these continued after the defeat of the Battle of Vienna, all through the 1600 and 1700's until they reached the Sixth Russo-Turkish War from 1806 to 1812 (the same time as the Napoleonic wars). When the Turks saw Russia defeated at the Battle of Austerlitz they immediately launched themselves into a new war with Russia. They lost this war as well, losing some of their Moldavian territories as a result.

The end result of the Turkish invasions of Europe, that is to say the aftermath we have today, is the Bosnian genocide, the Cyprus stand off and the massacre of school children at Beslan. Every where the Turks invaded, they brought Islam with them and no matter how many decades or centuries past, those regions continue, to this day to be volatile hot-spots where the religious and cultural differences continue to fuel misery and suffering.

It would be a serious mistake to look upon all these dates as isolated incidents for they were not. The ongoing conflict between Europe and the Turks was precisely that, ongoing. It was punctuated by cease fire agreements, diplomacy and bouts of peace but these only lasted for as long as it took for the Turks to re-arm, or to breed up a new generation of troops, for as Amlord points out, the pressure of a fast growing population was always a major ingredient to Turkish expansion. Nor did the fighting end simply because there was a peace deal. If the Turks were quiet in central Europe, their forces were nearly always engaged in warfare in the east or the Mediterranean. Through out the entire period of Ottoman supremacy, Muslim forces, known as 'the Barbary Pirates' operated freely from Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salè and ports in Morocco. These forces kept up raids against European shipping and coastal regions from the time of the first Crusade in 1099 until after the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1816 when the Royal Navy Destroyed the Port of Algiers.
Between those two dates, the Muslims kept up constant raiding, pillaging and slavery across the entire southern coast line of Europe and up into the North Atlantic for as far as Iceland where to this day Mothers tell their children to go to sleep or else 'The Turk' will get them.

These Muslim raiders even impacted the fledgling USA since the Barbary Pirates raided US commercial shipping as a matter of course and the US congress was forced to pay the tribute Islamic law lays down as a custom for dhimmi's (non Muslims) in order to prevent attacks. This tribute had no real effect though and so the USA was obliged to build its first warships to defend its commercial interests (and thus began the long tale which ends with us here today). Thus the US Navy owes its existence to Islamic aggression. What a poetic irony.


Does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy?

Amlord gave us the key to understanding this question I believe. Yes it does. The pressure of its ever expanding population means the islamic world cannot contain its own population and needs to spread that population in order to make way for the next wave of babies. It was this factor alone that allowed the Ottomans to carry on their five hundred year war against Europe without ever once facing a similar threat in return.

A good example of the population imbalance can be seen in Egypt. One hundred years ago Denmark and Egypt had the same population size. Roughly 5 million people. In both nations there was a basic agricultural foundation which allowed this population to exist in balance. However, over the course of the last century, the Egyptian population has grown to approx. 80 million people. In Denmark, the population is about 5½ million.

In Europe, in general, the population numbers amongst Europeans, is fairly stable. After the Second World War there was a sharp rise in fertility rates as is common after wars but since then the statistics show equilibrium is being maintained.

In the Muslim world though, and I include the Muslim of Europe in that description, the figures do not show equilibrium, nor anything that resembles it, but unchecked growth.

As you can see by following this link, the highest scoring nation on the European mainland, is also that nation which has the highest proportion of Muslim citizens: France. And as far as I can see, there is not one single Muslim nation on the list below France.

India, is a democracy also and it has a very high fertility rate, and if the question still remains, does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy? then the answer could be no, if India remains a democracy... but this means nothing to European democracy which faces replacement by sharia law within a few more generations.. and if the environment doesn't kill us all first.

Any one who has read my posts in the last few months doesn't need reminding once again about the spread of Islam into Europe's main city's and the depressing statistics which show how many Muslims in Europe actually admit to wanting sharia law. I think I have made that point abundantly clear enough.

Suffice to say that the Muslim influx into Europe is real, fuelled by the extreme fertility rates of Africa and the Middle east and allowed to happen by the EU leadership for domestic political reasons. European nations, with their massive social services systems are now straining under the burden of paying for millions of immigrants who cannot, or will not, find work.
At the same time the ongoing conflict in Lebanon has shown us just how many of these people have moved back to their own countries once they have received the piece of paper which changes them into Europeans, and thus entitled to benefits paid for by the European tax payers. Denmark alone has witnessed 10,000+ people holding Danish citizenship and fleeing from Lebanon. Naturally the question has been raised (and smacked down) in the Danish parliament as to who these people are? Many of them were granted citizenship in Denmark after they fled persecution in Lebanon, and now here they are, living in Lebanon again. The same has happened in every western single European nation with each state mobilising vast resources to get these people out of harms way.

But why are these people regarded as Europeans when they don't live in Europe and have no connection to Europe except as a safe haven in times of trouble? More to the point, many of these people chose to live in South Lebanon, which is a stronghold of Hezbollah. Just what is going on here?

Europe is full of Muslims and they are growing in number at a rate, four times faster than ethnic Europeans (who are decreasing in number). There is no mechanism for slowing down or speeding up fertility rates, though in the past Chirac and Mitterand have both made plea's to the French to have more babies, and what we're facing is a Muslim dominated Europe within the next two generations.

Islam has no leaders as such, but it does have a form of consensus on key issues and it does have powerful organizations which work towards the spread of Islamic influence. Foremost amongst these, and possibly the greatest threat of all, is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Link.
If you read about the Muslim Brotherhood, you will soon discover that it is described as bing created to counter colonialism. In its own way then the Muslim Brotherhood is like the US Navy. Founded in retaliation for aggression...


Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?

This is the hardest question to answer I think because it can go both ways. In its purest form democracy is not a threat to religious belief's, but in truth, democracy is not pure and the Muslims know this from the experience of being subjected to the political whims of the democratic nations and the military consequences of those whims, for the last hundred years or so.

Whats more, its fairly obvious that a portion of the Islamic world certainly see's democracy as a threat. Muslim oganisations, most regarded by the European establishments as being 'moderates', make no secret of their desire to replace European democracy with Islam, nor their intention to do so once they reached the numbers they need to replace the system from within.

In this, I wonder why we refer to such people as 'moderates' at all. What is a moderate democrat by comparison to a moderate Muslim?

Finally, I'd just like to add today's tit bit from Ayman al-Zawahri.
Link.

Note how al-Zawahri uses the same claim on Spain as the Muslim Brotherhood does... its a significant detail and one that explains the real reason why Israel is so hated. Once Islam has been imposed on a place then the Muslims can never relinquish it for if they do, then they believe they have defied their god.

Such a belief cannot be reconciled with democracy and as such it will always regard democracy as a threat. We might not think our democracy is a threat to Islam, but the truth is, Islam, in various guises, attacked and invaded Europe for centuries and it wasn't really until the advent of European industrial might that the Europeans began to win, and it wasn't until the rise of democracy and the end of colonialism that the Muslim world really began to fight back again. Whether we like it or not, and regardless of what we say, devout Muslims consider democracy to be a direct threat.

Moif you start by asserting a slant of the board against your views and then offer an incredibly cherry-picked account of history that shows many acts of aggression by Islamic forces into Europe. Where you see a contest of Islam vs. Christiandom I see a more universal story of man fighting man, of might leading to expansion and conquest.

You leave out the parts where the Western world launches into the Islamic world. The Crusades and Imperialism and Russia's role in trying to push through the Ottoman Empire to a warm water port.

History through the nineteenth century has been one of the strong expanding through the weak. When Europe was weaker it got invaded. The Huns, your Vikings, the Romans, the Mongols, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Lombards, the Turks.

During this time many leaders claimed that their gods wanted these wars to happen. At different times societies conducted persecutions and inquisitions against those who did not conform to the leader's faith.

I think you are concocting a history that is being jammed into your perspective from 2006 and reading back to see evidence of it happening back to the dawn of Islam.



This quote from your above post intrigues me. While it makes since that there in instability on the border regions of a clash, I wonder what you attribute the Bosnian genocide to? Wasn't this an effort by Christians to attack a Muslim majority to gain control of the area for the Croats or Serbs depending on who was doing the killing?

Well, my post was long and I left out a lot of stuff in a vain attempt at brevity, so yes you could say I was cherry picking, though I was trying to be as fair as possible.

There have been numerous attacks back and forth that is true, but if you can find me any long term and continued campaigns against Muslim territory I'll happily consider them as well. I can't really see the Russian campaign in the same light as the Ottoman Turks attacks against Europe though since, as I understand it, the Ottomans actually began those wars and the Russians merely continued them to their best advantage.

Nor did Russia wage a centuries long war against Arabia in the manner which Turkey did against Europe.

The only extended campaign against Muslim lands were the Crusades and these miserable campaigns were usually confined to the lands around Jeruslam whih was in fact Christian land that had been lost. It might seem like semantics, but the fact remains that Islam has spread onto Christian territory and the reverse has never been so.


Leaders come and go, but religions remain and I think you are being some what disingenuous with this point of view Eeyore if you think religions are merely a tool for political ambitions.

Yes, leaders do use religion as motivation, but the people doing the fighting still have to believe in the religion in order to be motivated and this is the threat we face. Don't be fooled into thinking that religion is some impotent force that cannot sustain its own agenda for we can blow away every Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden the world throws at us, but the religious sentiments they misuse, and the millions who follow it, remain.



Thus do all historians and there are many differing views. No one has a fully comprehensive grasp of all history and no matter how many levels you plumb seeking wisdom, you still have to accpet the basic facts.

The Ottoman Turks were the greatest Islamic power yet seen and they attacked Europe for centuries. Right up until Europe became too strong to attack. We are still living with the after effects of that ambition and the remnants of its colonial endeavours.

Now, we face another wave of Turks, one that has brought Islam right into the heart of Europe and which seeks to marry Turkey into the EU. The potential dire consequences of this would be profound. There are only 70 million Turks in Turkey, but if you count the Turks as a people, then you are facing 500 million spread out across the Middle East and into Asia. If Europe were to succumb to the influx of Islam these people could bring with them, unchecked by internal borders, the results would either be the death of European democracy, or another European war for survival.

What I'm trying to say is, history is not dead. It didn't all come to a stop with the Second World War. The world we live in today is doomed because all such worlds are doomed. American strength will also pass and Islam, a religious ideology will remain.

The only thing that can save Europe from being swamped by Islamic immigration is a profound change in the way we look at the world and ourselves. Currently this isn't happening from the European side so we are, basically, defenceless, as our democratic fredoms are gradually traded with sharia for short term political capital.


Yes. I thought I'd made that clear, just as I thought I'd made i clear that this is not a one sided conflict where Europe is the victim. Both sides have attacked the other.

I merely focused on the Ottoman Turkish aspect because it, more than the Spanish, Russian or African fronts, demonstrates how the past is linked to the present.

There is also the whole colonial period which I coud have expanded on, but chose not to because I believe every one here is well acquainted with the after math of that period.

Moif, Turkey (well, Istanbul) was indeed the center of the Islamic world for the time period you describe, and the history you put forward does have some valid connotations regarding Islam and the Islamic movement going forward. However, I think it appropriate to point out that there is a gap between Turkey then and Turkey now, that makes using Turkey in the modern climate synomous with the Muslim problem you are addressing in this thread problematic. Attaturk overthrew the existing Islamic regime in 1922, and made Turkey a secular, democratic state. So, if you're talking about a war between democracy and Islam, Turkey would have to fall on the democratic side, as it isn't (at least officially) Islamic, and it is certainly democratic. This schism is readily apparent if you talk to anybody from the Middle East--they view Turkey as an outcast, not one of them. So, when Turkey is trying to join the West, it is part of a movement started by Attaturk back in the 1920's, a movement that he led to combat precisely the same Islamic forces you are discussing...a fight which is ongoing to this day.

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and Islam constitute the latest struggle in an ongoing global war?

Yes it most certainly does. Democracy and Islam are two concepts that are incompatible when the latter is more prominent than the former. Democracy is a means to an ends- freedom. And freedom implies free range of thought and the ability to disagree. Such disagreement is not tolerated in the Islamic world. This is a conflict that has been brewing for centuries. It started as a war between different religions (Christianity and Islam) and has now become a war over ideology (Liberalism and Fundamentalism). This is a struggle that will most likely prolong long after I am dead and will continue into the next century. Its about differing principles and whenever there are differences there is bound to be conflict.

Does Islam pose a serious threat to democracy?

No. The idea of Islam could not be a threat to democratic institutions by definition since a free society allows for free thought and free speech. This allows all opinions to have an equal opportunity to be heard and evaluated on individual bases. However, the actions undertaken by students of Islam IS a threat. When the democratic institutions are threatened, the immediate and emotional response is to make those institutions more secure which inevitably destroys democracy. For instance, I have no doubt that the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major US city would lead to semi-fascist policies voted through majority opinion and in effect destroy freedom in this country forever.

Does democracy pose a serious threat to Islam?

Yes. The ideas of liberalism that teach individual autonomy and personal freedom pose a threat to Islam because free thought means that people can disagree or reject Islam. Many will argue that Christianity or Judaism are the same way...but this is wrong. Christianity and Judaism are two religions that have evolved over time to accomadate the changing views of politics and individual liberty. The West of today is the beacon of liberal ideas while the Middle East remains in the Dark Ages of political thought. The religious leaders of the Arab world wield the most powerful form of propaganda possible...religious. While this was once used in Christian countries, it was subsituted for individual thought and progress. But the religious leaders of Islam know that to remain in power they must suppress any outside or free thinking and label it is herecy. Islam is the reason that the Middle Eastern peoples continue to be oppressed...not the West. The Western world long ago freed itself from the clutches of theocratic rule while the Islamic world is still plagued by it.

The thing is Hobbes, you could take any one given year of the past five centuries and say the same thing. There is always a more obvious and pressing motivation for the actions of a state and this is equally true of Ottoman Turkey as it is for modern Turkey.

Its also true that Turkey has always been an outsider and always had its own particular brand of Islam that differed from, say for example, the Islam of the Great Caliphate which preceded Ottoman Turkey.

Where Islam plays into all this is as the common denominator for no matter how different all the periods and people's of the Muslim world were, they were and are still united by their religion. Kemal Attaturk's influence is already waning and given a couple more generations I have no doubt that Turkey will have reverted back to its Islamic past.

Its already happening. Did you read this article to which I linked earlier?

One doesn't need to be a genius to understand why it is 'dangerous'. Abdullah Gul has made veiled threats like this one before and its no surprise given his political affiliation to various Islamic parties which have had to be banned by the Turkish military in the recent past.

Gul perfectly represents modern Turkey. On the surface he is as polished and secular as any western politician, but scratch too deep and you find a devout believer who, on the foundation of public support, feels no shame in making such veiled threats against the EU if he doesn't get what he wants. (I might hasten to add that this description equally fits Tony Blair).

There is this risky notion that a secular Muslim nation is not as dangerous as a religious Muslim nation and that Turkey is some how 'okay' because Kemal Attaturk's legacy makes it into a secular, European style democracy.
I don't accept this line of reasoning. First, because I don't believe simply changing a nations name changes the hearts and minds of its people. Iraq is the perfect illustration of this where thirty years of Saddam Hussein's rule didn't do anything to erase the religious and tribal nature of the people living there.

Second, because no man or cult of personality, not even one as profound as Kemal Ataturk's can last and eventually such pesonalities become 'old hat'. The only thing that can really make Turkey into a secular nation is the mood of its people and whether or not they decide to follow Islam will depend on how satisfied they are with their lives. Abdullah Gul obviously thinks, or wishes us to think, that if the Turks are denied their place in the EU, then they will become 'dangerous'.

To me, thats a stupid thing to say to the EU because it implies that the Turks are still borderline and could just as easily become 'dangerous' after they've been granted membership of the EU.

Third. There is the distinct possibility that as the EU population becomes more Muslim, so Turkey, as an EU member, and as the 'Gate way to the East' will gain more political weight and could eventually become the political gravity point of the EU. I am already very uncomfortable with the amount of power and poor foresight on offer from the EU and the last thing I want is a possibly 'dangerous' Muslim nation dictating to my country by virtue of the EU.

Fourth. Even secular Muslims are still subject to basic Islamic ideology as this article makes clear.

Finally, don't get bogged down with my arguments considering Turkey. Turkey is but one nation and the Muslim world, as considered by the Muslims themselves, is not limited to nations. If this were simply a matter of geo-politics then it would be no problem, but the world is evolving away from the tanks and bombs era and the warfare of the 21st century is already shaping up to being far more brutal and far less structured. Our domestic Danish Muslims have made it clear to the meanest understanding that they consider their 'patch' to be a part of the Islamic world, and if the past is any lesson at all, then its that they will continue to think this way, and they will never leave that patch unless forced to and the time when any one can force these people to do anything is rapidly passing us by.

The future belongs to those who are left alive, not to those who have the most fire power.

This is the fundamental lesson of the New World Order where political correctness decides who and what is right and wrong not the use of power, whether political or otherwise. The use of military power is heavily frowned upon and cannot easily be sustained by a democracy for any length of time.

Wars are already now fought with one eye on the TV and with journalists being seen as an third party. Who ever controls the media controls the mood and the mood is what ultimately decides. The mood in Europe is pacifist, conciliatory and soft.

The mood in the Muslim world is angry, accusing and 'dangerous'.


edited for grammar

I think generally our differences are laid out here. But I come back to this point. Not all historians start with a point of view and search through history to confirm it. Just because nobody can see all of history from the present does not give us a free pass to write history as a story we want to come out the way we see it. it is sloppy history and too often practiced today.

A good historian seeks as best as possible to use a scientific method to neutrally investigate facts. This is in the end, impossible to do purely, but not try earnestly to do so is sloppy history.

While I agree that the age of the United States will pass, i think you are looking in the wrong part of the world for the next global hegemony. And I think the view that Europe is allowing itself to be overrun by the sharia loving Muslim hordes is essentially paranoia.

RedCedar:

Please, learn your history. Re Serbs and Muslims, as I have remarked here prior, we call that "payback". Delayed, perhaps, but payback nonetheless.

Here is Arafat's hero:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...lter-Berlin.jpg

The soul in question is the late Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini. And now, why the payback:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg

That is al-Husseini inspecting the Nazi Waffen SS Hansar division, made up entirely of Muslims and which was responsible for the murder of Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies. And please see also:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

al-Husseini was otherwise a founder of the Arab League, and you will now see, met with some rather interesting and influential souls:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...s/pic-1_gif.htm

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...s/pic-8_gif.htm

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal.../pic-39_gif.htm

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...s/pic-4_gif.htm

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal.../pic-19_gif.htm

Funny, well not, but you know what I mean, so funny that you mentioned Pakistan, given the above pictoral history.

Al-Husseini's influence in the Arab/Muslim world was quite incalculable. Do you know why Malaysians blame the Jews for everything? Look at the one picture.

You can otherwise research for yourself the documents available which show al-Husseini's Nazi connection. Tito himself wanted to try al-Husseini for war crimes, but al-Husseini had by then made good his escape. But suffice it to say that all one need review is the one document wherein the statement is made that the solution to the Jewish problem in Palestine and the Arab world would be the same as that in Europe. Need I report just what that final solution was? And what proof do we have to support this contention than that al-Husseini personally intervened with the Nazi high command in order to put the kabosh on the Red Cross proposal to trade 5,000 Jewish children for Nazi POWs. And the kabosh was put on and 5,000 Jewish children died at Treblinka.

So when they say that they want to exterminate some, it isn't exactly new, since they've not only said the same a whlie ago, they did the same a while ago. And not that I think it was right, since I don't, but Slick & Co. never bothered to tell us, like you, about the prior history before he decided that the US ought to bomb the Serbs back to the Stone Age.


Eeyore:

What imperialism? For 20 years? Have you forgotten about the Ottoman Empire [though you mentioned the same]? When did the same collapse, since that's when the Brits and the French inherited part of the Middle East, or more correctly, since what you left out entirely is that they were not imperialists in Lebanon and Palestine, they were agents of League of Nations mandate. And the Ottoman Empire collapsed owing to its defeat in WWI.

And many leaders? Yeah, one of them was named Mohammed. But it isn't Mohammed in some cave in Afghanistan, well, at least not living, it is the Qur'an, the words of the late Mohammed. As long as those words are here, we are in danger. Read the book yourself. Then read the Hadith. Then read the various biographies of Mohammed, with accompanying commentary. Khomeini was otherwise right when he said, on the occasion of Mohammed's birthday:

"It is God who incites men to fight and to kill. The Koran says, "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, "War, war until victory!..." The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam."

The scholor Bernard Lewis would agree, since he reports that your more modern Islam is nothing but the westernized, falsified version of classical Islam.

And here is what you and far too many simply fail to appreciate. On a Muslim website, I was discussing some recent event with the one regular Muslim poster. His attempt at soothing the fear, as he called it, though I called it self-preservation and never mind any emotional response, since I'm either living or I'm not, but in our discussion my Muslim friend said, Kiv, you must admit that maybe only 2% of the population is radical. To which I then responded.....do the math. How many Muslims are there in the world? So take that number and multiply the same by .02 and you should end up with a rather large number, at least when one thinks of persons willing to self-detonate and fly fuel-laden passenger jumbo jets into our skycrapers. And then I spoke to him re the other 98%, and asked him where they were during all this? And then I told him that I didn't want CAIR press releases condemning this, that and the other, instead, I wanted him to pick a rifle and help us fight this war. Until then, I added, spare me the worthless words [and worthless owing to the reality that enough CAIR higher-ups have been arrested and/or convicted of terrorism related charges that, well, you get the point]. I don't think that I posted the same here, but maybe I did, but I know that I posted the same on a handful of Islamic websites, but there was that British report, of our two Arab Muslims in the UK, who said, smiling faces in the photo and all, that our imams tell you one thing, while they tell us something else. And they weren't trying to be nice and inform us, no, they were braggarts, speaking of the superiority of Islam and its eventual conquest, while in the meantime, their unemployed and otherwise government-housed selves serve as hate-mongering parasites.

I have otherwise already written off Europe. It may take some centuries, but it's over for Europe. So too with us. They are simply going to outbreed us, and since we allow them to immigrate here, while we cannot immigrate there, they'll export and be fruitful and multiply [do the math, they have 4-8 kids per couple while the European birth rate barely matches it's death rate, last time I checked, so take that and the current demographics of the population, and there you are]. In the US, no one can say that they are not telling us beforehand, I mean CAIR itself reports on its website that it wants the US Constitution and other law replaced by sharia. Canada just had some discussion about that. What are the demographics there? And what the result when the population demographics are more equal? One would otherwise think that the fact that we cannot immigrate there means something, but apparently not for some, since some cannot see that broad panorama.

Re the Serbs, please see my above remarks to Red Cedar. And know that I don't know what I'd do, if some of my relatives had been exterminated by some others, with some of those others and their children still living. And to put that into further perspective, you hear Osama spouting off about the Crusades? When was that? Or when was the last Crusade? Now when did the Muslim Hansar Waffen SS division slaughter Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies? You might try listening to your own side's propaganda and not that of the side that wants you dhimmi. But until then, I suppose that you'll have to blame those Serbs and not even mention the rather recent history in mitigation of their guilt. But for the more important point, take away that prior genocide, and do Serbs slaughter Muslims? Seems you left that question rather entirely out of the equation.

And you history is clear, the Serbs fought both Muslim and Croat. This explains why:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg

As the note on the other page on that site reports re that photo:

"Amin Al Husseini in Croatia with Croatian Nazi leaders in the early forties. With their help, he founded the Bosnian Nazi Division called the Hanzar, made exclusiveluy of Muslims, and perpetrated the genocide of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. These historic moments are at the root of today's conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina."

Yep, that explains it. That war hadn't ended just because ours did.

But do the math, and then tell me that there is no great cause for alarm.

Why's that? Are you denying that the Muslim population of Europe is growing faster than the indigenous population? Or that they've been getting increasingly comfortable using violence to pursue their political and social ends?

Don't just assume that because something seems outlandish, it therefore is unlikely to happen. I'm sure many people would have considered it "paranoia" when the Communists took over in Russia to think that their rule would turn into something so murderous as to break nearly all records. Or that Nazi rule would lead to the Holocaust. It's far more important to look at the telltale signs of what's actually happening than to dismiss what those signs point to just because it doesn't square with what you're familiar with.

Well, Eeyore, I will gladly consider any historical incidents which you feel contradict my perspective. I may be biased, but I'll not casually dismiss an historical example of a counter view should you care to supply one... And that goes for any one else here. I know there are some astute minds, well versed in history, here and I'm not out to provoke a squabble. If any one can provide me with examples that show my understanding of the historical relationship between European civlisation and Islam is flawed then I'll be happy to read them.

For my part I've been reading history books since I was about thirteen years old, but I only came to the conclusion we were embroiled in a vast conflict in the last few years, when I kept reading Muslims saying how that this was so... and not just extremists either.

Actually let me rephrase that. I've always understood there was this great historical dichotomy between Islamic Arabia and Christian Europe, but I just never realised it was still taking place until recently...

At first I dismissed the notion as absurd, but each time I came across some Islamic scribe, teacher or just plain guy on the street being interviewed by the BBC, talking about 'the Crusaders', I began to remember that there is more than one way of looking at history and where you see cherry picking, I see perspective. All I see is a list of documented historical examples that no one here has countered in any way. The only conclusions I can come to then are; A. I am correct, B. I am incorrect and no one cares or C. I may be on to something but its probably nothing anyway...

In the mean time I read this today...
Link.
Who ever Hassan Tahsin is, he obviously has a louder voice than I since he writes for the Arab News and his opinions must reach millions. It seems however that this individual has much the same basic view of the situation that I have (no small wonder since I've been reading lots of Arabs, Turks, Somali's, Morrocans and Brits making the exact same point).

There is an ongoing global war taking place and what we are seeing today is just the latest battle. As far as Hassan Tahsin and his like are concerned, 'we', the west, have been waging war against 'them', the Muslims, ever since 1097.

Maybe Hassan Tahsin has also cherry picked his historical references. Its quite likely, but maybe that doesn't change the fundamental truth of his words either? No doubt every person who ever invoked history was guilty of cherry picking and the truth is something that got left by the way side. I bet Pope Urban didn't really take much notice of historical accuracy when he ordered the first Crusade and I doubt Richard ceur de lion cared much about getting the story straight either.

The point I am clumsily trying to make is, whether we like it or not, all the wars and conflicts between Islam and the West happened regardless of historical accuracy and the point of view put forward by Hassan Tahsin is essentially correct because that is what he has chosen to believe. Its no good trying to argue away a point of view like that by saying its inaccurate, or biased. Of course it is. Not even eye witnesses can agree on what really happened in the past and history is a story told many times over.

edited for clarification

Coming from Texas, it is easy for me to visualize a foreign group insinuating itself gradually into a population until the seemingly benign invaders take the reigns. My ancestors did it spectacularly well, as the Mexicans can attest. Some say they are returning the favor. I am sure there are many examples throughout history.

I love the comment about "the muslim problem", do you have a "solution" moif? Maybe something similar to what the serbs had?

I can see you digging up all this junk about history, but what about today? It sounds more like hatred for muslims than honest fear of them.

Other than Europe being "invaded" which btw is not a war. Where are muslims a real threat to democracy, the west or christianity? Mostly in impoverished areas of the world.

Now look on the other hand at the West destroying Islam. You can even say the west is trying to program muslims to welcome western values.

I don't buy that Islam is any real threat to the west, to democracy or christianity. Or that there is a war, a great war.

I think moif just dislike the arabs in his midst and is trying to blow it out of proportion to either convince others or himself that muslims are some sort of threat.

How you can not feel some sadness for most muslims is beyond me. Not only do I not see them as a threat, I see them as being the worst off people on the whole planet, without resources and contrinually killed and badgered by western and non-muslim powers. How many Taliban are we killing? How many muslims Iraqis are dying PER DAY?

edited to remove personal attack.

Where did I use the phrase 'Muslim problem'?

RedCedar:

Impoverished? You mean like Osama? You mean like the Saudis, who fund those mosques here in the US that preach hate? You mean like Iran, which uses its money to export its ideology by way of, for just one example, Hizb Allah? They don't seem too impoverished to me.

And what does impoverished have to do with this anyway? Are the Moros in southwestern Mindanao any more impoverished than their Catholic Filipino neighbors? Yet they kill them. And they kill them because their Catholic Filipino neighbors have the good sense to not want to live in an Islamic state.

And, yes, we are exporting our culture and values, but whoever said that such not acceptable? As I've said here on AD prior, and on any number of occasions, all ideas are open to challenge, theirs and ours included. But you have instead made that rather fundamental mistake of equating what you called a "war on Islam" with what I will call a "war on people." Sorry, but any so-called "war on Islam" need not be a "war on people." True, it can be made so, as it can get personal if one allows such, but there is not anything more illegitimate about a war on Islam than there is anything illegitimate about our war on, first, Nazism, and then Stalinism. The same could be said of a war against Christianity. My objection is not to having any war against Islam and/or Christianity, but to the rather immoral and wholly misguided notion of some that the war can be won not by ideological victory but instead by the more expedient means of simply killing the speaker of the opposing view. And, sorry, but on any clear reading of recent modern history, it is not us, but some others who are playing that abominable game [which is to say that some are not trying to win us over, but to kill us instead].

And obviously, this is where the repression comes in, since some, like you, share the one view, and so the Christian, the Sufi, the Buddhist, what have you, does not get the same public forum for the airing of one's views, since that would be a "war on Islam." And that's what you simply do not see. The mere existence of the Jewish message and the Christian message and the Buddhist message, etc., stands as opposition, war, with Islam. Unlike you, they know that. And so they restrict the building of churches, public gatherings, etc., and otherwise make one's life difficult. We have the same phenomenon being exhibited here in the US by some, with the saving grace thankfully being that the "difficulty" has not yet reached the proportion such that some find it all the expedient to simply kill. I mean, even our abortion clinic bombing friend did not do what he did because of any desire on his part to win the debate by killing the other side, instead, and more correctly, his ideology informed him that he was acting in defense of the very lives of other humans and it was otherwise property and not people that he sought to destroy. I didn't say he was "right", I'm just using him to make a point.

Lastly, if Islam is not a threat to democracy, then can you please explain, why, more than one thousand years after the death of Mohammed, there is no word in Arabic for what we call "democracy?" That fact alone proves you wrong in this regard. Which is not to say that their "system" is worse than "democracy" since that is a separate matter and question, but when "democracy" needs the adherence of people to that ideal in order to exist, and the people in question do not even have the equivalent word in their own language, then we have a problem. And so we will have to "program" Muslims with those values that we associate with "democracy." You called it "program", I didn't, though I wish we could, since that way we could "program" our children to see skin color as meaningless, to understand that a woman ought to be allowed to soar to the height of self-actualization, while keeping in mind, of course, that we need make allowance for her to be able to, where possible, breastfeed the little one, given that women can do so while men cannot, need I go on? And speaking of "programming", does such explain the curricula of our public schools? I mean, can the state not otherwise report that is has a rather compelling interest in seeing that its younger citizens grow to be emotionally satisfied, otherwise self-sufficient and ever resourceful, law-abiding adult citizens of the nation? Now returning again to the matter at hand, how could an ideology and/or a language that does not recognize "democracy" not pose a threat to democracy's existence? Lastly, re the "programming" is that what we call the Saudi-funded effort to build mosques here in the and evangelize our citizenry? And isn't what is good for the goose also good for the gander? Or do you wish to simply surrender the playing field?

Sorry, one more. Re their being killed. Simply recall:

http://www.nysun.com/article/33150

So it isn't just us doing the killing. As I've said repeatedly here recently, there is an inner war going on between the secularists and the Islamists [recall Hama again as well]. That war has otherwise killed more than we have.

Sorry, even one more, since I almost forgot, but speaking of Haifa, since that city is in the news as of late, you might otherwise wish to check up on terrorist activity in Haifa. Seems that some Arabs have already decided to target other Arabs for purposes of creating an Arab/Jewish divide. For some particulars:

"HAIFA RESTAURANT REOPENS AFTER SUICIDE BOMBING 6 WEEKS AGO

The Matza restaurant in Haifa has officially reopened following the
suicide bombing in which 15 were killed and dozens wounded six weeks ago,
THE JERUSALEM POST reported.

"It is a very emotional time for me. I am crying, but I am also happy that
we are back on our feet again," Ali Adawi, 57, the owner of the restaurant,
said. "What happened here will remain with me all my life. I'm still not
sleeping properly and the images of the atrocity are going to be in my head
for a long time to come."

His relative Soheil Adawi, 31, who had a three year-old child and whose wife is in her eighth month of pregnancy, was one of those killed. Dov Chernobroda, a member of the board of directors of the Beit Hagefen Arab-Jewish center and a long-time activist in promoting Jewish-Arab coexistence, was also killed in the attack."

See: http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000038.html

And then, about a year and half later:

"Nineteen people died and at least 50 people were wounded Saturday when a female suicide bomber walked into the popular Arab-owned restaurant, Maxim, at the southern entrance of Haifa, a Mediterranean port city."

See: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10...east/index.html

First, these questions lump all forms of Islam into one group. This would be the same as holding Presbyterians accountable for the beliefs held by Southern Baptists – both Christian faiths. Second, they limit the struggle to being between a particular form of government and a particular religion. More appropriate questions, if we are truly going to step back and see the forest would be these:

Does the ongoing struggle between democracy and fundamentalist Islam constitute another struggle in an ongoing global war between democracy and religion?

Does religion pose a serious threat to democacy?

Does democracy pose a serious threat to religion?

The struggle for religious dominance over democracy is occuring in many places - the United States being one, though it is certainly much more subtle and not as bloody. To look at the forest, I'd say that yes to the first and no to the second and third. But, moif, if we are going to step back and see the forest, let's do that... not step back and focus on one particular grove.

Entspeak

They also lump all democratic nations into one group.
I don't see that I'm being overly biased against the Muslims here. India, Denmark and Israel have little in common beyond their democratic election systems but they are all regarded as fair game by those who would use their religious ideology as a pretext for war.


If I seriously believed American christian extremism was a threat to democracy, I would ask that question. Since I do not believe it is a threat then I see in point in asking.

I take your original point however and concede that, yes, there are many different types of Muslims and they don't all share the same idea's and belief's.

BUT

I do not see any great similarities between Islam, in which ever form it is practiced and democracy, in which ever nation it exists. The only Muslims I am prepared to view as being any where close to democratic are those who are secular Muslims and although I have nothing against these people what so ever and would gladly accept them into the fraternity of democratic people's, I must accept that these Muslims are a tiny minority in the Muslim world, and are usually quiet about their belief's so as not to invite repercussions by their more religiously minded fellow Muslims.

If I look at the various Islamic nations, I can't but help notice that those which are described as being Secular, are often only kept so by their own secular military leadership which must often intervene to keep the jihadi's in check.

It doesn't say much for secular Islam when it requires constant military intervention to keep it functioning!

I recognize that. But democratic nations is a much more general group which also involves some Islamic states.



You are being overly biased when you lump all factions into one and then blame them all for the religious ideology of one particular faction.




Islam is the second largest religion in the world with over 1 billion followers. You believe that fundamentalist Jihadist Muslims make up the majority? If the majority of over 1 billion people want to overthrow democracy, I don't believe they'd have much trouble.

I just like to clarify that it is the ideology and not the mass of humanity that is my concern.

Perhaps I haven't made that clear enough...? But it was what I meant when I said in the opening post of this thread, that Fma was right. Not all bad things are caused by Muslims.

Islam, as a religion, is an ideology. Created by humans to explain and guide. It has certain advantages and disadvantages like any other ideology, but essentially it is an idea given life and meaning by people. The trouble with ideology arises when people take them too seriously and when they refuse to question their beliefs. Any one who refuses to question their belief's and even refuses others to question those beliefs, to the extent that they are willing to use violence to prevent it, is a dangerous threat when they start trying to spread their religion ...and Islam is said to be the fastest growing religion in the world.

As you point out, Islam is already the second largest religion in the world. Compare it to the largest and you will find there are key differences of doctrine. Christianity is essentially a forgiving ideology that puts forgiveness first. Islam on the other hand, demands submission (this is actually what the word 'Islam' means) and puts jihad first. Jihad means, an internal/personal struggle. Thus it can mean almost anything, but more often than not it means a struggle to submit to the will of Allah, as taught by imams (teachers/speakers at the mosque). In both cases, the religion can be used as a tool to motivate people to do terrible things, but essentially Christianity has long since stopped doing this since it has been eclipsed by secular democratic society. Extremist Muslims still refer to western soldiers as 'crusaders' though. They do this in order to generate a sense of outrage amongst Muslims, and essentially it works. Islam can, and is being used to build up to another great conflict. Just how great that conflict becomes is any one's guess, but I fear the Muslims will use violence to acheive their ends as they always have done and given the rise in power of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its willingness to display its open hatred for Israel, I fear that violence may very well be carried out in deed as wella s sentiment.

I personally cannot think of any great Islamic influence for peace. There is no word for democracy in Arabic, and no concept of it in Islamic law. If we're waiting for these concepts to take root, then we may be in for a very long haul.

edited to add:

Here is an interesting artilce that makes a similar argument to that I am putting forth in this thread:

Link.

You have made that clear in terms of how you start a sentence or paragraph... and then you throw in a but and then you go back to the generalization of Islam. It's like saying, I understand that they aren't all the same, but... they're really all the same.

It's like conc