Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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.
    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.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Islam doesnt allow for many things such as interest paid on savings, scientific rationalism has decreased even enforcement of strong private property rights which have all led to the success of the west. Liberation of women most definitely. Islam makes poor capitalists.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minion)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    Firstly the Mughal Empire was not an Islamic one so you can leave that out. .
    dont be silly, it was the islamic empire that succedded the mongols rule of the moslem world. It was perhaps the largest islamic empire in all of islams history..
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    there are no accounts of a nation of people asking moslems to take over their lands and live under islamic subjigation, if you have histroical evidence of exactly that, please provide it. otherwise stating some made up dogma as fact. The facts of histroy document wars invloving the deaths of hunreds of thousands, perhaps millions - even at its largest, the moslem empire was consistently fighting uprisings, such the mughals, who never fully conquered the whole of indian subcontinent, due to consistently fighting with different regions and kingdoms, until the british arrived and kicked them out.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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) .
    perhaps there were tiny minority cases you could point to , could you not also point to the same in the modern day, ie of dissendent groups that want to break away frm current rule in isalmic countires, kurds in turkey, balouch tribes in pakistan etc etc. this does not prove one thing or the other.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    what on earth are you talking about? "caliphate did not even go up to the parts where the slave trade was the most prominent" -what does that mean? moslems slave trade trangressed most of africa, into near east and up to north africa and into balkans and central asia/europe. the arab slave trade is recorded in history as the largest and longest running in the entire history of mankind, it spanned some 1000 years which covered al the caliphates. For a moslem to capture and trade in non-arab slaves is perfectly legal in islam. It was almost certainly from the arabs established markets that the europeans leanrt the spefic details of african slavery, breeding and selction etc.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    Timbuktu was part of the renowned ancient Malian empire i referred to my in my earlier posts above- it was anexxed by the moslem forces of Musa, who was a descendant of arab abu bakr and the first moslem invaders to the surrounding regions. the point wasnt that islam didnt have floushing cities, it was that it conquered other peoples lands and stole their stuff- which is no different to any other warlords.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    moslems became rich from plundering and selling black african slaves , african and asian gold, asian spices, ethiopean coffee etc This is not draining resources to you? whats the difference to what the west has done? the primary difference is the moslems did it for longer, the west only really interferred in africa and asia for about 200 years ago, moslems invaded these places some 700 years ago. nowadays the middle east only gets its money from oil- which the west discovered for them btw. without oil where would arab countires be do you think?
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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.
    their not 'historic terms' they are fundamental elements of islamic histroy and their empire- try reading a few books, you wont learn any genuine histroy watching youtube clips.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    Firstly the Mughal Empire was not an Islamic one so you can leave that out. .
    dont be silly, it was the islamic empire that succedded the mongols rule of the moslem world. It was perhaps the largest islamic empire in all of islams history..
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    there are no accounts of a nation of people asking moslems to take over their lands and live under islamic subjigation, if you have histroical evidence of exactly that, please provide it. otherwise stating some made up dogma as fact. The facts of histroy document wars invloving the deaths of hunreds of thousands, perhaps millions - even at its largest, the moslem empire was consistently fighting uprisings, such the mughals, who never fully conquered the whole of indian subcontinent, due to consistently fighting with different regions and kingdoms, right until the british arrived and kicked them out.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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) perhaps there were tiny minority cases you could point to , could you not also point to the same in the modern day, ie of dissendent groups that want to break away frm current rule in isalmic countires, kurds in turkey, balouch tribes in pakistan etc etc. this does not prove one thing or the other.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    what on earth are you talking about? "caliphate did not even go up to the parts where the slave trade was the most prominent" -what does that mean? moslems slave trade trangressed most of africa, into near east and up to north africa and into balkans and central asia/europe. the arab slave trade is recorded in history as the largest and longest running in the entire history of mankind, it spanned some 1000 years which covered al the caliphates. For a moslem to capture and trade in non-arab slaves is perfectly legal in islam. It was almost certainly from the arabs established markets that the europeans leanrt the spefic details of african slavery, breeding and selction etc.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    Timbuktu was part of the renowned ancient Malian empire i referred to my in my earlier posts above- it was anexxed by the moslem forces of Musa, who was a descendant of arab abu bakr and the first moslem invaders to the surrounding regions. the point wasnt that islam didnt have floushing cities, it was that it conquered other peoples lands and stole their stuff- which is no different to any other warlords.
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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. .
    moslems became rich from plundering and selling black african slaves , african and asian gold, asian spices, ethiopean coffee etc This is not draining resources to you? whats the difference to what the west has done? the primary difference is the moslems did it for longer, the west only really interferred in africa and asia for about 200 years ago, moslems invaded these places some 700 years ago. nowadays the middle east only gets its money from oil- which the west discovered for them btw. without oil where would arab countires be do you think?
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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.
    their not 'historic terms' they are fundamental elements of islamic histroy and their empire- try reading a few books, you wont learn any genuine histroy watching youtube clips.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    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.
    i cant really sympathise with this sort of thinking, moslems pracitced military imperialism for centuries, then were defeated by a stonger military empire. bit like saying you were a bully who got beaten up by a bigger bully, and now you are looking for sympathy?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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. .
    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.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    That's not imperialism. The West on the other hand conquered muslim land as well as North America with the sole intent on imperialism.
    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 *****ing 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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    Dude, just look at UAE. Once they run out of oil they will have a desert with skyscrapers that serve no purpose whatsoever as everyone (except tourists) will pack up and leave.

    Take any other well-off country which is not hostile to the Western world and you will see exactly the same situation - once the oil runs out they're done, because nobody is interested in anything else there.

    Why? Remote ****holes populated by delusional savages, that's why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    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.
    It's funny how only Muslims state this, yet every historian of repute states the exact opposite.

    It's almost as if your trying to re-write history to make you seem nicer.

    Weird that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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 *****ing 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.

    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 thise 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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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: I agree. It's not a conspiracy theory and is a known fact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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. .
    At one point you take issue with the amount of centuries quoted, then you say the amount is unimportant. In a histroical context it is important to point out that you claiming a load of exageratted rubbish lke "a 1000" should be highlighted for exactly that, rubbish. the facts i quoted are common knowlege to anyone that has read about the history of the regions we are talking about.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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. .
    In order to get to spain, india, africa, persia etc the emprie of islam had to expand didnt it?- as i pointed out to you earleir, islam was formed in a tiny part of arabia, by arabs. Mohammed didnt click his figures and then come into control of all these forgein regions. He, and his later caliphs all had to spend many years of bloody war to invade and subjigate and lay claim to those foreign lands The primary reason why there are so many moslems in asia and africa is becuase of 700 odd years of rule by moslem invaders. No different to what the British, french etc did in the 17th centuries- they jsut did it a lot quicker. You still sound clueless on the meaining of Imperialism.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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. .
    they ruled largely for the time up to and including their defeat. Rise of Islamic imperialism coincided with the decline of the roman and persian empires. And the expansion of empire went from the arabian peninsula as far east as northern india and far west as southern spain. but towards the ends of this time the moslems were defeated by, most notebly the mongols, and the european christians. You that over the length of human histroy, empires form almost every corner have at some point held control of most of middle east and central europe- from greeks persians, romans moslems (of various races) mongols, goths, huns and western europeans.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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. .
    the moslems made their attemtps to invade europe, the first came almost right after mohammeds death, wth the ummayads- it was these intial attpemts that later gave charlemain and the church the excuse of the succession of Crusades. Moslems never got beyond the balkans, souther spain and sicilly and were driven back by local forces. They would have advanced as far as they were able to , militarily. You should also note that when i say moslems, i dont mean every moslem, as by this time moslems also fought against each others armies too. The berbers moors and ottoman turks were the ones who largely were in conflict with europe- and the mughals conflicted with the british in afganistan and india. Both were defeated ultimatly by superior armies, prior to this they made imperial advances becuase they had superior armies ( largely due to the use of the most advanced use of gunpower) Inbetween these two eras the mongols arrived and masacred the moslems and taking over both middle east and central europe. They did this with comparatively tiny armies.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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. .
    i think if america was genuine interst in conquering moslems lands, it would have little problems, it walked into iraq inside 4 days. I dubt anyone will defend the wests 'imperialism' but it seems entirely hypocirtical to hear a moslem critise about it, when islam was built on such. modern america has interest in exterminating islamists, and going after those that make open threats. it has no interst in occupying moslem countires, bar maybe a few strategic military bases on allied ground.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    of course it does
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Suggesting that western Imperialism is the cause of your woes is simply a scapegoat, if it were true then we would expect to see this pattern repeated not only in Asia but especially Africa.

    The main cause of your woes are politically instability caused by religious factions, a predisposition towards theocracy and dictatorship and the subjugation of a large part of your labour force.

    Here in the west we largely see the opposite, religion is important but does not define our laws, we don't see Catholics and Jews trying to kill each other and we value liberty. Turkey to a degree is showing you Muslims the way, it wants to join the EU and is engaging in substantial social liberalization to do so, given the resources commanded by Iran it's a real shame that the theocracy rules.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    I thought the cause of poor and conflicting muslim states had more to do with the restrictive approach to science going back several centuries after Islamic countries at one stage were doing very well in terms of science and innovation. Also, I understand that societies that don't prohibit cousin marriage can result in greater "clannishness". There is less social trust of those beyond family and it's harder to develop the institutions necessary for economic development.

    No doubt the conflict with Israel and the Iraq invasion have helped the cause of radicals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    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, .
    1. It's not nonsense - if you develop a majority then you get to impose your culture and laws. There are numerous examples.

    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”.
    2. What does the West gain from importing large numbers from people who hold a grudge against them? Can you explain the logic to me?

    Those countries don't appear to be welcoming in large numbers of Christians or Jews. It seems the normal preservation instinct has been shamed out of European leaders.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    Actually they tried to expand into France and were defeated in 732. The ottomans also tried to expand into Vienna several times and were defeated. Then there was le panto.

    The Muslim never controlled the entire of India so that is just false anyway.

    So obviously like all empires. They were imperialists
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    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...
    Ok then. Explain how imperialism drove the Tamil Tigers to blow themselves up
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.