Why the West has lost the ideological war against Muslims?

[Sock puppet path]

The Byzantine Empire (Christians) were friendly with the Arabs.

The Turks came from Asia as conquerers and captured all Arabia.

The fact that they were Muslim and captured Muslim lands (and the Caliphate) should tell you that the religion was not relevant. They were imperialists. They established the Ottoman Empire which ruled over Arabia ( for 600 years) until the British defeated them and took over. The British were also imperialists.

The ottomans were the de facto muslim world power for centuries I know all about thier history. What is the purpose of trying to negate them?

 

[S.A.M.]

spider:

I'm not in favor of theocracy either.

I do believe that the West has been using the ME to ensure its economic interests.

But the way it is couched in the media, with the emphasis on Islam ( how often do you hear the religious beliefs of other criminals?) is what has convinced the East that it is a religious war. The headlines don't say, Moroccon or Lebanese. They say Muslim. If the former, most of the world would not care. If the latter, this raises hackles on Muslim youths worldwide. I am just attempting to show how it appears to a Muslim. I'm a Muslim, very liberal, very moderate. Do I like to hear Quranic verses quoted out of context as an excuse for terrorism? No. But I can consider the terrorists as uninformed criminals. But when I hear about Islamic fascism from the Western media, what do I infer? That the religion is fascist? From people who have no idea about the religion at all?

 

[S.A.M.]

The ottomans were the de facto muslim world power for centuries I know all about thier history. What is the purpose of trying to negate them?

And the British, French and Dutch were colonialists for a good period of time.

So were they Christian Crusaders?

 

[Nasor]

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

This is actually somewhat debatable. The western european nations couldn’t have engaged in such wide-scale exploration, colonization, and colonialism/exploitation if they hadn’t had an economic system that was much more sophisticated than the rest of the world. Specifically, the west had publicly-traded corporations when no one else did. It takes a lot of money to buy several ship, crew them, and send them off to establish a colony/trade outpost or just loot the natives. Kings and princes and maybe a few very rich private individuals could do it, but that’s it. With a public corporation you can pool a lot of money from a large number of people and use it to do something economically useful.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is not my quote.

 

[KennyJC]

4). There is an inherent flaw in the ideology of secularism, which has led to its predictable rejection by the Muslim world. This is because secularism insists on restricting the role of Islam in society to personal worships only. Political decisions about running the society are left to human beings. This directly contradicts the doctrine of Muslims, which considers politics an indivisible part of Islam i.e. to Muslims Islam is politics. Communism a far deeper ideology than secularism also failed to convince the Muslim masses of materialism and man made laws.

This makes no sense. You almost say this as though considering Islam and politics as one is a good thing. In which case I would like to see it's good points demonstrated. I sure hope you aren't talking about Sharia Law.

 

[S.A.M.]

This article is not written by me.

I just put it out for discussion. You know, so people could comment on it?

 

[KennyJC]

5). The duplicity of the West in promoting Western values across the Muslim world has greatly undermined its credibility. Western ideas such as freedom, democracy, human rights were given a devastating blow not by Muslims, but by America... by its own handiwork had permanently damaged its standing in the Muslim world and had gravely weakened the very ideas that represent the cornerstone of Western civilisation. So much so, that many non-Muslims are questioning the validity of these ideas and the deceitful role played by their governments abroad.

Agree completely.

Islamic countries are fucked up, but trying to force them to change into 21st century democratic standards is like asking a puppy not to shit on your carpet.

 

[Sock puppet path]

The Byzantine Empire (Christians) were friendly with the Arabs.

Were these the same friendly arabs that attacked the byzantine lands shortly after mohammeds death and laid siege to Constantinople several times?

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean after the Byzantines conquered Arabia? They were Romans, you know.

 

[spidergoat]

The west is currently attempting to fight an increasing trend towards jihad against anything western. This might be in part due to America foriegn policy, but I think there are other factors that could be more important, the oil is running out, and countries in the middle east cannot support their population with agriculture alone, extremist religion has a life of it's own like a disease, Arab cable TV news is often biased and purposefully provocative... Like it or not, extremism is a trend within Islam, and instead of addressing it, many muslims refuse to acknowledge it, quoting the Koran in an attempt to distance themselves from the problem.

 

[S.A.M.]

What is the reason for this trend, in your opinion?

 

[spidergoat]

The human world is evolving, and Islam values loyalty to tradition and sameness. These forces are fundamentally opposed. This dynamic exists independently of any particular nation's policies.

 

[S.A.M.]

And its unrelated to the regime changes orchestrated by the West?

So why is it that the majority of terrorists belong to those countries that have suffered most from Western interference?

 

[Sock puppet path]

You mean after the Byzantines conquered Arabia? They were Romans, you know.

Excuse me the byzantines conquered arabia...when exactly did this happen? You might also want to inform John Julian Norwich because that isn'tincluded in his 3 volume set on the history of Byzantine.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not Arabia, sorry, North Arica, Syria, Egypt and Palestine.

With Justinians death in 565 the greatest period in Byzantine history had ended and the tired empire entered a period of instability lasting from 600 to 900 AD.

Slavic tribes had invaded the Balkans, a new wave of Asiatic nomads were being kept at the gates of the empire only by paying tribute, and the Persians were well on their way of conquering Syria, Palestine and Egypt.

But the emperor Heraclius who ruled from 610 to 640 conducted 3 brilliant military campaigns and destroyed the Persian empire and regained Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Holy Cross. (This was during the period of Mohammed who died in 632. ).

The empire was then confronted with a new enemy that of Islam and Arabs attacked the Byzantine empire and by the middle of the seventh century they had subjugated Palestine, Syria, Persia, Egypt and most of Northern Africa.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Not Arabia, sorry, North Arica, Syria, Egypt and Palestine.

That was long before islam came on to the scene and as said they were well established christian lands when muslim armies invaded

With Justinians death in 565 the greatest period in Byzantine history had ended and the tired empire entered a period of instability lasting from 600 to 900 AD

Slavic tribes had invaded the Balkans, a new wave of Asiatic nomads were being kept at the gates of the empire only by paying tribute, and the Persians were well on their way of conquering Syria, Palestine and Egypt.

.

Please don't try and tell me Byzantine history I have spent the last few months reading exactly that subject. That period of instability coincides not only with the incursions of invaders from the north but also with the sudden appearance of the conquering armies of the prophet in the south. At Yarmuk 24,000 byzantine soldiers were hunted down and killed to a man (it took 2 days)

Slavic tribes had invaded the Balkans, a new wave of Asiatic nomads were being kept at the gates of the empire only by paying tribute, and the Persians were well on their way of conquering Syria, Palestine and Egypt.

But the emperor Heraclius who ruled from 610 to 640 conducted 3 brilliant military campaigns and destroyed the Persian empire and regained Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Holy Cross. (This was during the period of Mohammed who died in 632. ).

The sassanid empire was not destroyed that honor again goes to the armies of islam (the entire campaign weakened both parties enough to allow them to be beaten in the field by arab armies)

The empire was then confronted with a new enemy that of Islam and Arabs attacked the Byzantine empire and by the middle of the seventh century they had subjugated Palestine, Syria, Persia, Egypt and most of Northern Africa.

No argument there

 

[S.A.M.]

Give me a link. I'm not very up to date on the period after Mohammed.

 

[S.A.M.]

Okay this is what I found about the Byzantines:

According to Byzantine accounts, the Muslims successfully bribed elements in the Byzantine army to defect, this task being made easier by the fact that the Arab Christians, Ghassanids, had not been paid for several months and whose Monophysite Christianity was persecuted by the Orthodox Byzantines. Some 12,000 Ghassanid Arabs switched sides. The Christian advance on the right flank, towards one of the camps containing the Arab women and families, was finally repulsed with the aid of some of the Arab women. Eventually renewed Muslim counter-attacks broke through the Byzantine lines, and a rout ensued. Most of Baänes men were either encircled and massacred, or driven to their deaths over a steep ravine. As a result of this, all of Syria lay open to the Muslim Arabs.

They were defeated because of the defection of oppressed Christian minorities into the Muslim camp and by Arab women?

 

[Lawdog]

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/why_the_west_has_lost_the_ideological_war_against_muslims

Came across an interesting article on the Eastern position.

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

War is organized violence. The West has simply been better at it. Why? Technology, its almost always technology. Sometimes its inspiration.

4). There is an inherent flaw in the ideology of secularism, which has led to its predictable rejection by the Muslim world. This is because secularism insists on restricting the role of Islam in society to personal worships only. Political decisions about running the society are left to human beings. This directly contradicts the doctrine of Muslims, which considers politics an indivisible part of Islam i.e. to Muslims Islam is politics. Communism a far deeper ideology than secularism also failed to convince the Muslim masses of materialism and man made laws.

This was also true of the West, up until the era of Enlightenment, when Catholic Europe began to loose its direct influence in politics. In a healthy society, religion is taken very seriously, theology an issue of war. Islam has the right idea, but their religion is wrong and false.

5). The duplicity of the West in promoting Western values across the Muslim world has greatly undermined its credibility. Western ideas such as freedom, democracy, human rights were given a devastating blow not by Muslims, but by America... by its own handiwork had permanently damaged its standing in the Muslim world and had gravely weakened the very ideas that represent the cornerstone of Western civilisation. So much so, that many non-Muslims are questioning the validity of these ideas and the deceitful role played by their governments abroad.

True enough. the original American ideas about freedom/democracy are correct, they have been so destorted into liberality and corruption and abortion that america is no longer a sound country.