Western Imperialism: The reason for growth of radical islam and poor muslim lands

i think you need to read some actual historical texts, you appear to be completly brainwahsed as to the events of histroy. read up on the mughhal empire, the ottomans, the umayadd conquest of the arabian peninsla, the riddah wars- these were all signficant military confilcts, they werent people openly welcoming islamic armies into their lands and handing them over the rule. Following that i woulkd then advise reading up on the arab slave trade, largely in central africa, which all the caliphs oversaw at some point. Moslem armies and the caliphs drained all theier coquered contries of their natural resources, in asia it was gold, spices , in east africa coffee harvest and in central and subsahran africa it was the very people itself, moslem empre became rich off selling africans in the slave trade, long before the europenas got there.

It's a very interesting discussion, and yes, Western imperialism is a very big factor as to extremist Islam today. Many Muslim terrorists will justify themselves by citing Israel (which was created by Western imperialism) or Iraq and Afghanistan (which they see as modern Western imperialism) as examples.

I'm reading a book on Empire right now, and it devotes a chapter on the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was the foremost European power during the medieval ages, and yet by the 1800s, it was crumbling. Christian empires around it were much stronger, such as the Hapsburg and Russian empires, and Christianity and success became linked. Christian takeovers in the Crimea, Egypt, Yemen, the Indian subcontinent, west Africa and after WW2, the Holy Land, caused a lot of resentment amongst Muslims.

From certain talks I listened to, I understand that Muslims feel humiliated, from that and alot of attacks external ad internal problems have alot to play for problems in Islam today.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Firstly the Mughal Empire was not an Islamic one so you can leave that out. .

Secondly I don't think you understood me properly, it is obvious the rulers at the time did not want Islam to take over and therefore there were wars but I am talking about the actual civilians living under non-islamic rule and how there are accounts, many accounts, of people asking for Islamic rule in the place they lived. .

Furthermore there are accounts of Jewish Rabbis sending letters to their friends and family telling them to migrate to the Ottoman Empire to be free of the oppression of Europe. There is even a letter of the King of England to the Caliph at the time requesting to send his daughter to study in one of the Muslim Universities in Southern Spain, this is the kind of kingdom Islam brought about. .

there are also letters from mohammed to regional kings and leaders threatening them with war if they didnt convert to islamm whats your point? the only reason there would have been an islamic university in spain is becuase the moors invaded southern europe ( which incidently where the first clashes of west and islam began) .

You talked about the slave trade, you accused me of being brainwashed yet didn't even bother to learn about this yourself. Just to be sure I just double checked this, the caliphate did not even go up to the parts where the slave trade was the most prominent. I have checked all the maps, of every caliphate and where the slave trade was mostly done. Sure slavery is allowed in Islam but with certain conditions and strict rules on how to treat the slave. The only slaves that were taken from Africa were the war captives but they were treated with as much respect as a free man because thats what Islam teaches. .

Ever heard of Timbuktu? Its a place in Africa, has literally nothing, desert land, yet when Islam took over it, it became one of the most flourishing cities in the world. This was done because of fair and equal distribution of resources from all over the Islamic State. .

And you said that the Muslim Empire drained its countries of its resources, seriously that made me laugh, you do know all the countries or regions within the Islamic State were actually part of it and were able to access those resources as much as other people in that state whether it be in Malaysia or Morocco. What you are trying to say is that the islamic state sucked itself dry? Its like saying Washington DC takes the resources of Texas and sucks the dry when they are both part of the same country. In western imperialism they would go to OTHER countries "give them some democracy" and come back with the money. .

You seem like you know a few historic terms like Ottomans and Mughals but don't actually know any of the history behind them and have made your own judgements based on nothing. Just taking bits and pieces of history and joining them together even though they don't fit.

Firstly the Mughal Empire was not an Islamic one so you can leave that out. .

Secondly I don't think you understood me properly, it is obvious the rulers at the time did not want Islam to take over and therefore there were wars but I am talking about the actual civilians living under non-islamic rule and how there are accounts, many accounts, of people asking for Islamic rule in the place they lived. .

Furthermore there are accounts of Jewish Rabbis sending letters to their friends and family telling them to migrate to the Ottoman Empire to be free of the oppression of Europe. There is even a letter of the King of England to the Caliph at the time requesting to send his daughter to study in one of the Muslim Universities in Southern Spain, this is the kind of kingdom Islam brought about. .

You talked about the slave trade, you accused me of being brainwashed yet didn't even bother to learn about this yourself. Just to be sure I just double checked this, the caliphate did not even go up to the parts where the slave trade was the most prominent. I have checked all the maps, of every caliphate and where the slave trade was mostly done. Sure slavery is allowed in Islam but with certain conditions and strict rules on how to treat the slave. The only slaves that were taken from Africa were the war captives but they were treated with as much respect as a free man because thats what Islam teaches. .

Ever heard of Timbuktu? Its a place in Africa, has literally nothing, desert land, yet when Islam took over it, it became one of the most flourishing cities in the world. This was done because of fair and equal distribution of resources from all over the Islamic State. .

And you said that the Muslim Empire drained its countries of its resources, seriously that made me laugh, you do know all the countries or regions within the Islamic State were actually part of it and were able to access those resources as much as other people in that state whether it be in Malaysia or Morocco. What you are trying to say is that the islamic state sucked itself dry? Its like saying Washington DC takes the resources of Texas and sucks the dry when they are both part of the same country. In western imperialism they would go to OTHER countries "give them some democracy" and come back with the money. .

You seem like you know a few historic terms like Ottomans and Mughals but don't actually know any of the history behind them and have made your own judgements based on nothing. Just taking bits and pieces of history and joining them together even though they don't fit.

Humiliation is the exact word I'd use for it. From being a great civilisation that extends from Morocco to China and almost kicked Christian Europe's arses, to having your lands taken from you by those same Christian Europeans a few centuries later... well, it's not very nice.In the West, some talk about 'Islamization' of our society, which is nonsense, but we never stop to consider the opposite and far more likely scenario- the Westernisation of the Muslim world. Again, this breeds radical Islamism, as it is interpreted as modern imperialism.

very rarely, if at any time, is a youtube clip empirical proof of anything. However in terms of extreme violence, poverty and gorwth of islam within the worlds poorest population - this has been going on throughout the histroy of islam long before any 'western imperialism. you aslo seem to forget that islamic imperialism was going onas little as 250 ears ago, right up to the point that it came into conflict with european borders and was defeated.

Response: The youtube clip is a clip from the history channel itself, so it is very much credible. As for islamic imperialism, there has never been a such. An imperialists continues to conquer until all is under control. Yet the muslims ruled Spain for 800 years without expansion. They ruled India for 1000 years and NorthAfrica for centuries without expansion. .

That's not imperialism. The West on the other hand conquered muslim land as well as North America with the sole intent on imperialism.

Many non-muslims have a misconception of why muslim lands are in such bad conditions, constantly engaging in extreme violence, and their hatred towards the West. Many blame the islamic texts for the reason.

The evidence appears to disagree with this notion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TojC0uY5cW8

Is the West and its imperialism the blame for the growth of radical islam and the establishment of poor and conflicting muslim states?

Let's have a dialogue.

Where the hell did you get that Islamic Caliphates murdered and raped? The Islamic Caliphate was ruled by Shariah Law which is against rape and murder and both had the death penalty. When you are talking about conquering land, when the state expanded the people themselves accepted it and wanted Islam to rule them because they saw how just the ruling was, the Jews of Southern Europe wanted the Muslims to come there and get rid of the oppression from the Christians which we did. Crime and Poverty were virtually eradicated because the state knew it had a duty upon its people to serve them and not to control them which is the complete opposite today. When the muslims conquered new land it wasn't to take its resources and suck it dry like our modern states do (e.g. go into Iraq take all the oil) but instead it was to fairly distribute and give resources to the poor places they conquered.

So please, learn history before making false judgments about what the caliphate was all about.

i dont think you fully understand the term Imperialism. Please stop using it till you have learnt what it means. Equally your understanding of history is somewhat distorted - Moslems didnt rule spain, they invaded and took control of parts of southern spain and Iberian Peninsula, they attmepted to push into northern and also france, but were defeated by the Franks. The occupied on the mainland for les than 100 years , and held small parts of the southern tip such as granada for longer (berbers etc). and msolems didnt rule india either, they held parts of northwestern and northern india for about 400 years. moslems held north africa once the roman empire collasped right up until the mongols defeated the islamic empires and then few hundred years later, the modern europeans defeated the turks ottomans. --- not sure how do you think the moslems acquired these territories int he first place- do you think they magically came into their posesstion at the click of mohammeds fingers? No, they had to build armies invade and conquer them in military battle - that is what is known as expansion of empire. Its no different to what the europeans later did to moslem lands, so i dont see why you are being so hypocritical. And this made up around 1000 years of islamic histroy in total. During that time the moslems themselves were conquerd and ruled by the mongols ( a histroic feat in itself seeing as they sacked baghdad with a fraction of the man power of the moslems) I dont hear you bitching about the imperialism of gengis khan??you should be aware too, despite the spectre of imperialism, the west brought massive advancement to all the countries they colonised- arab moslems would have electricity if it werent for the british.

I urge anyone to read about Operation Ajax 1953 - how the US and the UK overthrew the first (and to date, only) democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister and replaced him with a dictatorship. This prime minister was a liberal, pro-human rights politician who nationalised Iranian oil and was therefore overthrown by the west, who replaced him with a brutal dictatorship(s)
Look at Iran now.

West=bad
East=worse

edit: this is no conspiracy theory btw, it's an undisputed historical event acknowledged by both west and east.

Response: To the contrary, it is rather clear that you have no idea what imperialism is and your logic of history is irrational. How do we know? Simple. You have not one source that you can provide tha says that the muslims rule in Spain did not last for centuries as well as their rule in India. The amount of centuries does not even matter. .

As such, that means that the empires were in dominant control, yet they did not expand. So this is not imperialism. The same applies to North Africa. No regime was in the way to prevent expansion in Africa at the time when muslims first gained control. Yet they did not expand. .

Now this usually triggers the same response by those who insist on propagating that muslims were imperialists by stating that the muslims did try to expand but were defeated. Yet such an argument fails to support imperialism because if the muslims were defeated, then they would not have ruled for centuries in any land. .

The result of defeat is not a century of rule by the ones defeated. In order for the muslims to rule any land in Spain for centuries without being conquered by Europe, that means that Europe could not defeat them at the time. This means that the muslims could easily conquer Europe within these centuries. Yet they never did. That proves that the reason for not conquering Europe was because they had no ambition to do so because they were not imperialists. .

Unlike western conquest. They set out to defeat the muslim lands and seeked more land to conquer, such as America. Thus the evidence is clear who the imperialist were. .

No one denies that battles were fought and armies were built by muslims to invade territories and lands, so there is no hypocrisy. However, invasion and battles does not mean imperialsim.

Is the West and its imperialism the blame for the growth of radical islam and the establishment of poor and conflicting muslim states?

Let's have a dialogue.

Humiliation is the exact word I'd use for it. From being a great civilisation that extends from Morocco to China and almost kicked Christian Europe's arses, to having your lands taken from you by those same Christian Europeans a few centuries later... well, it's not very nice.

In the West, some talk about 'Islamization' of our society, which is nonsense, .

Teachers in several local schools have told The Sunday Telegraph that they feel “under pressure” from local Muslim extremists, who have mounted campaigns through both parents and pupils – and, in one case, through another teacher - to enforce the compulsory wearing of the veil for Muslim girls. “It was totally orchestrated,” said one teacher. “The atmosphere became extremely unpleasant for a while, with constant verbal aggression from both the children and some parents against the head over this issue.”

One teacher at the Bigland Green primary school, Nicholas Kafouris, last year took the council to an employment tribunal, saying he was forced out of his job for complaining that Muslim pupils were engaging in racist and anti-Semitic bullying and saying they supported terrorism...

Even during meetings of the local council, prominent supporters of Tower Hamlets’ controversial directly-elected mayor, Lutfur Rahman – dropped by the Labour Party for his links to Islamic fundamentalism - have persistently targeted gay councillors with homophobic abuse and intimidation from the public gallery.

The Labour leader, Josh Peck, was attacked with animal noises and cries of “Unnatural acts! Unnatural acts!” when he rose to speak. The Conservative leader, Peter Golds, was repeatedly heckled as “Mrs Golds” and a “poofter”.

Response: The youtube clip is a clip from the history channel itself, so it is very much credible.

As for islamic imperialism, there has never been a such. An imperialists continues to conquer until all is under control. Yet the muslims ruled Spain for 800 years without expansion. They ruled India for 1000 years and NorthAfrica for centuries without expansion. That's not imperialism. The West on the other hand conquered muslim land as well as North America with the sole intent on imperialism.

Funnily enough, imperialism has *always* been the driving force for terrorism. Ever since the first documented suicide terrorists. I mean the very first people to use suicide terrorism were Jews, when the Romans controlled Jerusalem
We don't really hear of that...