So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?

Off topic comments hidden. If this continues suspensions will be coming next.Edited by AdminAsgara, : hide off topic content

Off topic content hidden continuation of this will result in suspensions.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by AdminAsgara, : hide off topic comments

1. Well then why are we getting these history lectures on way back when by Jar and folks getting off topic warnings about present day stuff, et al?2. The Turks, Shehites and Sunnis are all annoyed by one another today. Doesn't that relate any to Ottoman history, the nature of Islam and why they're annoyed by the West? The bottom line is that Muslim factions seem to be annoyed about just about everyone, including themselves. They don't mind blowing one another to pieces over their annoyances.3. The black slaves in America are long since dead also. So are the Native Americans of the early days. But not all's hunkydory over historical stuff.4. I know the thread's about annoyance with the West, but I think it's important to show that ME Muslims are at odds/annoyed with about everyone, including themselves.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

OK Jar. Enough said. I'm outa here. It was you who began with the Ottomans and I responded. You can just keep on lecturing your version of what's important to the question and keep on ignoring the factual answers I've given. You're impossible to work with! Why don't you do the Forum Guidelines thing and refute my stuff rather than your personal demeaning comments and false allegations that my response provided no evidence? If Buzsaw has provided no evidence, prove that to be the case. And btw, you never proveded linked evidence to much of the history you gave either.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

But why would a movement like that gain any strength? We could blame WWII on Hitler's expansionist ideas, but it only gained strength because of what the other countries did to it after WWI. We need to look way before Suleyman to get first causes.The Greeks and then the Romans controlled large sections of the Middle East as part of the Eastern Roman Empire (which became the Byzantine Empire). The capital was Constantinople, which would become a central point in Christian worship for the Eastern part of the Roman Empire for centuries (notably the Greeks).The Byzantine Empire included Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (which is a significant part of modern day Turkey).As the empire began to lose its grip on these far away lands, the Muslims began to grow in strength and anger at their ancestral homelands being subsumed by Christians. So they fought back and took Syria, placing Turkey as the Frontier land. The Romans were unable to hold on, and the Empire began to shrink as more and more states became independent. It was only a matter of time when the empire would come crashing down under the pressure from the east. Mongols as well as Muslims of course, but it was the Muslims that broke through, carried on towards Austria and were then themselves pushed back and surrounded by the (almost) united west which had once again begun to grow strong.So yeah, if we look at who started the aggression in the first place, it should the Greeks and the Romans. Perhaps you can go back further and find someone else who started it? You evidently haven't been paying attention to anything that I have said. Of course Europe had to defend itself - my point was that whether or not Europe was justified in its actions is not relevant to why the Islamic world might be annoyed with us. Personally, I think both sides had justifications for doing what they did, and we have to come to an agreement whereby we can live peacefully with one another into the future and that the first step in that process is to accept that other side has a right to agrievance. I questioned its relevance to the thread, I did not question whether justification exists. Perhaps, or perhaps it began with the west taking their pagan lands and converting them into a monotheistic religion, followed by their conversion into monotheism and their outrage that their ancestral homelands were being used to worship a man as if he were God. If you read my first post in this thread, you will learn that is precisely what I have been saying. It isn't simple and the presentation of history you put forward is very simple: the Muslims invaded our land and we retaliated - the fault lies with the aggressive religion of Islam etc etc. It isn't that simple, I think we can all agree. Its a long and complex history, which this thread intends to explore - which is why people are getting annoyed at offtopic attacks against one religion as being the sole source of the aggression. Its amazing. No matter how often this accusation is levelled at me, no matter how often I counter it, I still have to deal with again a few weeks later.I fucking hate fundamentalist religious types of all religions. Particularly the Abrahamic ones because I have had to deal with them more regularly. That includes fucking idiot Muslims who want to kill innocent people and fucking stupid Christians that think murdering doctors is OK.I hate the fucking lot of them.Hopefully the language and the repitition helps it sink in.I am not trying to defend Islam, read my first post in this thread and you will see I am actually biased against them - and for the Hapsburgs.

Not if Islam has its own internal driving ideology, which is what I'm saying and Buz too I believe. It was NOT provoked by anything previous. There was this "new revelation" supposedly from God that supposedly supplanted the revelations of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament and demanded that the world be eventually subjugated to Allah. That's all that was needed, Modulous. Mohammed's personal zeal flared out in converting people by violence when they would not do it voluntarily and that set the tone, and that zeal for Allah became the driving force of Islam in general.Wasn't the Roman Empire pretty much moribund by then anyway? Mohammed was born in the late 6th century. The Roman Empire was supposedly dead by the middle of the 5th century. And Rome did not have an evil reputation among its conquered peoples, did it? Certainly Judea wasn't happy with it, but their methods of government were generally fair and constructive as I've understood it.As I picture the middle east at the time, the eastern wing of the Christian church was scattered throughout the region, and the population was a mixture of Christians -- mostly Arabs, but native to the region in any case, and Jews and pagan Arabs, nothing particularly incendiary there. Mohammed was inspired by the Bible to some extent in the formation of his new religion, and seems to have had more identification with Biblical religion than with the pagan religions, since he was a zealous defender of his monotheistic vision against the pagan idols. Nevertheless, despite some peaceable statements about Jews and Christians, Islam also calls for the forced subjugation of Jews and Christians, which was practiced at least sporadically in subsequent history. This all comes from the ideology that is Islam, not from anything in the historical situation. Yes, but where's the evidence of discontent to the degree you are implying in the comparison with the Treaty of Versailles? Nothing of the sort occurred in the region. The Byzantine Empire was predominantly Christian, and I think predominantly Arab, though I could be wrong about that. But we're talking about many Arab or native Christians in the region at the time Mohammed lived. There WERE no Muslims at the time, Modulous. There were a great many Christians in the region, however, ARAB Christians. Fought BACK? Against whom? They certainly slaughtered a lot of native Christians and Jews in the effort to convert them, but there was no other motivation that I've ever heard of. WHAT Romans? The Empire was long dead by the time Mohammed came along. A century and a half at least, and Byzantium had taken its place in the East, presiding over a territory that included some sizeable Christian population, and I've never heard of Byantium being this violent conquerer, but perhaps you can enlighten me on the history of that empire. I think you have your time frame way out of whack. Do you have a source for any of this? Well, I think you are the one who needs to supply some evidence for your suppositions at this point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just did a quick read on Byzantium and I see nothing that suggests a restive population that sought vengeance against the conquerers. The area had been Hellenized since before Alexander the Great, and then Christianized. Then Constantine moved to Constantinople and a period of great cultural expansion seems to have followed. Nothing I've read suggests some violent objection against their rule. This doesn't sound like a civilization rife with internal conflict to me. It looks to me like Islam just emerged in the middle of this flourishing civilization and moved to take it for Allah.Edit: Byzantium time lineEdit: The more I read the more it appears that the middle east per se was not dominated by Byzantium at all --see map of Byzantium in 565 So the Muslims attacked it from outside. Motive: Take the world for Allah. So far I see no other motive for this early period of the conquests of Islam.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : second editEdited by Faith, : added map link

Indeed, you're not far off, Faith. Before I get into the early history of Islam, I want to make sure we don't derail things too much, however.Jar: I think you may have started this thread in the middle of the story. Although the Ottoman influence is crucial to understanding modern history, to understand the Ottomans it might be necessary to go further back in time. From some of the responses that have cropped up here since last Thursday, there is a great deal of misunderstanding of earlier history - especially that of the Eastern Roman Empire and the roots of Islam. Let me know if you want me to do a synopsis.

I think that part of the story is very important, but I also realize that we have dealt with just the part from around the beginning of WWI and have taken nearly half the thread without even covering the creation of all of the current nations of the Middle East. There is alot of material to be covered.Would it be possible for you to propose a new topic where you could lead a discussion of the early history?Also, just to add to the workload, I have not tried to address the creation of the current North African nations. In particular, the history of modern Egypt and the part played by France and Great Britain in that area will become essential to understanding the later history of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. If you could post some of the history of North Africa here in this thread it would be appreciated.I have intentionally held off talking about the Al-Saud, about the clash between France and Great Britian in the Middle East hoping you would first lay the groundwork of North Africa so folk can see it in context.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ouch! That's a tall order. I'll try and get something up about Egypt today or tomorrow. However, the early history is going to have to wait a bit. I think it would be very interesting - especially since the actual history provides some justification to our colleagues who assert Islam was founded as a religion of conquest. OTOH, there are also some parts that would be very disturbing to those same folks. Like the reason why a large Christian army fought side-by-side with the Umayyid armies of Amr ibn al-As at the Second Battle of Alexandria - against other Christians? A battle, btw, which resulted in almost 900 years of complete tolerance for their allies by the Moslems - including exemption from the jizyah. Not to mention the uncomfortable parallels with Christianity - such as the Islamic version of the "Council of Nicea" under Othman ~650... Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

IMHO it is not only interesting, it is esential to understand that there is no one uniform driving force in this matter, anymore than there is in any other area. The world of Islam is no more a monolithic structure than the West. The Nations of the Middle East that exist today are mostly the result of Western penmanship, borders drawn on the basis of the interests of France and Great Britain. But we need to realize that France and Great Britain each had their own agenda, decisions were made based on the perceived needs of each power, not based on the peoples of the area itself. So too, during the growth of Islam, needs, alliances and confrontation were often based on the unique needs of the power at the time. Often this meant that Christian West and Muslim east were allied against other Christian and Muslim power structures. It was not simply an issue of Christianity vs Islam, not now, not then.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But what drove the conversion to Islam? Mohammed and his successors must have tapped into a desire...a zeitgeist as it were much like Hitler. Its like saying that Nazism has its own internal driving ideology and that explains everything. It doesn't. No. The Holy Roman Empire continued into the 17th Century. Did you read what I wrote about the Byzantine Empire? You should take a look into it. No Muslims in the 15th Century? So who invaded Constantinople? The Eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire. The Greek speaking part of it. Check out when Constantinople fell, (1453) and the siege of Vienna (1529/1532) and the Battle of Vienna (1683) the latter of which I discussed as the definitive start of the decline of the Ottoman Empire as a superpower.

Yes, yes they did. That's why I said they attacked Syria.

The "conversion" was forced on the Arabs at point of sword, Mod. Otherwise they already believed in a god named Allah, so it wasn't brand new to them; they just had to get rid of the other gods. You are just speculating. If you KNEW there were historical factors, that would be something else, but just as a speculation I don't think it's necessary, considering how Islam got started. But that was a EUROPEAN manifestation, not connected to Byzantium or the Middle East, and not a continuation of the old Roman Empire either, something they just called by that name for old times' sake or something like that. And wasn't the Third Reich modeled on the same idea, a third revival of the old Empire? Admittedly my history is very patchy.OK for the rest I'll go back and read what you wrote about Byzantium. I thought you were trying to explain Muslim motivation for retaliation against the old Greek and Roman Empires. The OTTOMAN motivation probably had some political motivation against Byzantium but that was much later. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I thought you were trying to give a historical reason for the original conquests of Islam. If you are talking about a later rebellion to Byzantium, while I think the Turks had some gripe against incompetent Byzantine rule or something along those lines, what you go on to say about a general rebellion on behalf of their "ancestral lands" looks to me to be motivated by Islam, not by any real political cause, even from what you say here: OK, this occupation by Byzantium PRECEDED the existence of Islam as I understand it from the maps. There was a large Syrian Christian population for instance. This idea of their "ancestral homelands" is just some fantasy of their own invention since Islam didn't exist when Byzantium first occupied the area and there were many Arab Christians. All this is motivated by Islam itself, not by any actual history of conquest of Muslim nations, because Islam didn't exist when Byzantium was formed, and again, there was a sizeable native Christian population that would hardly have felt that Islam had some ancestral right to the lands they'd always lived on. I believe -- based only on what you have said -- that this is nothing but Muslim revisionist history, and has nothing to do with any actual political facts that could possibly justify their actions.Where is the historical evidence of Middle Eastern uprisings against the occupation by Greece and later Rome and later Byzantium AT THE TIME they first occupied them? That's what's needed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.