This makes me wonder if the Middle Eastern Muslims, having been around longer, have simply evolved into a "purer breed" of Muslim than their more recent(?) Eastern converts? This might explain the more liberal outlook of the Easterners, so similar to the outlook of the " brand-spanking new" Muslims inhabiting the Arab Pennisula (and thrusting into Northern Africa and Southern Europe) 1500 years ago. Of course, that being said, it doesn't bode all that well for the future of the Muslims of the East.

That's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. Islam has never been 'purer' than under the four great caliphs, when the entire faith was united. The famous Muslim tolerance was damaged by the Crusades; that much is clear, as professional poets and scholars began to see the fun that could be had from war. I think the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols was far more damaging though, on much the same level as the sacking of Rome. Barbarians had razed perhaps the most cultured city in the world.

Had Islam been naturally inclined towards violence, we should have seen a great orgy of destruction rising out of North Africa and the Middle East that was directed at Asia. And yet the sultanates and the Turks did little save attempt to hold their borders. There was no dramatic increase in oppression or anything of the sort.

The European push into the Middle East was damaging, with the typical colonial tendency to kill now and allow questions never, but I think the Cold War encouraged most of today's problems. The requirements of realpolitik meant both sides enforced certain governments (like the Iranian Shah and his secret police, the Palestinian Marxists, the Afghani puppet regime etc) and social institutions that were immensely unpopular. These regimes were so well financed that nothing save an immensely violent revolution seemed to bring them to an end. I think many extremists still hold that mindset - the west can only be halted in its interfering through extreme violence. After all, that's the only thing that worked in the 20th century. Post Cold-War examples like Somalia reflect badly on the west as well, as they show that the west can be cowed simply with a high enough bodycount.

To my mind the cartoons were little more than a religious justification. The fanatics wanted to rampage, they just needed a good reason. And seeing as how they are mostly supported by the oil money of the fabulously wealthy, they can hardly go around blowing up the oligarchies, who are almost certainly the cause of most of their complaints. And so the West is very easy to turn into a scapegoat. Bad for us, sure, but the situation isn't going to improve for us if we keep giving a justification for such a ridiculous notion. Either we move in and end their problems for them - whether cheaply, through aid, or expensively, through war - or we face the politics of diversion and continue to be targets.

This just in!!!! A check from Usama bin Laden for the Democratic party in the sum of 1 billion dollors, signed by Bin Laden "to my best allies"

Islam could have proved itself violent and yet failed entirely to match the bloodthirstiness of Catholic crusaders.

I'm scratchin' my head over that one. Two bloodthirsty groups duke it out and the loser is considered less bloodthirsty and non-violent?

Hmm...

I think we've taken Gid's article far enough off-track, don't you?

--cacto

On the contrary; I think it plays right along with the topic in its own way. But I'll go along with you. I'm not going to post an article for you to "lay it all out", though. I'm not versed enough in the subject to adequately discuss it...it wouldn't be worth it.
Though, if you wanted to post on your own, I'm sure you'd have some takers.

You're not stupid, I'll give you that.

The Siege of Jerusalem 1099, part of the First Crusade:

Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even any remaining Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."

Source Link

The Siege of Jerusalem 1187, led by Saladin:

Balian handed over the keys to the Tower of David, the citadel, on October 2. It was announced that every inhabitant had about a month to pay their ransom, if they could (the length of time was perhaps 30 to 50 days, depending on the source). Saladin was generous and freed some of those who were forced into slavery; his brother Saphadin did the same, and both Balian and Heraclius, not wishing to be seen less generous than their enemies, freed many others with their own money. Saladin also allowed for an orderly march away from Jerusalem and prevented the sort of massacre that had occurred when the crusaders captured the city in 1099. Even Heraclius, who disgusted the Muslim chronicler Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani by hoarding all his wealth and the treasures of the church instead of contributing to the ransom of the poor, was escorted from the city unmolested. The ransomed inhabitants marched away in three columns; the Templars and Hospitallers led the first two, with Balian and the Patriarch leading the third. Balian and his family were permitted to flee to Tripoli.

Source: Link

Many Arabs draw an analogy between the current occupation of Iraq and the Crusades; President Bush is often referred to as a "Crusader." I am glad that this point was raised because the Crusades were a war by Christianity against Islam and I asked Gideon if we were at war with Islam. Afterall, if I as a Liberal am defending Islam, someone must be attacking it, no?

I thought we were at war with Terror, but maybe we are at war with Islam. We have no problem in working with and supporting Pakistan, an Islamic dictatorship that leads the world in honor-murders of women. If the US is at war with Islam, are they on the list? How about Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation? Are we going to go to war with all Muslims, all 1.8 billion of them?

Gideon listed seven criteria, starting with the environment and going through Fair labor. Islamic countries rank low in almost all those. But so does China, a country that has warred mightily with its Islamic population. Conservatives LIKE China these days. You know China, Walmart East. How does China rank in terms of say Free Speech?

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

I asked before and will ask again, which of my Liberal stances would you like me to change? Should I say that its okay to demonize Muslims? Should we draw up plans for Muslim interment camps in the US? Lets not recognize Hamas as the duly elected government in Palestine, because endless war is preferrable to negotiation with terrorists?

Gideon started off with the assumption that Liberals defend Islam, without ever explaining what that meant. Give me some examples and I can argue pro or con, but what we have here is a sweeping generalization that has no substance.

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

You mistake foreign politics with a political movement.  There is a vast difference as I have demonstrated to kingbee.

Leauki said:

"That's because they are uneducated." All of them? Kind of a sweeping generalization, don't you think? What do you call it when one makes a sweeping generalization that encompasses almost 2 billion people?

"They don't know about the history of the crusades and they ignore what is actually going on in Iraq." They don't know the history of the Crusades? Any support for that? Among those that "ignore what is actually going on in Iraq" would you include the Iraqi people themselves? Are you saying that YOU really know because you watch TV?

"Today Christians (and atheists and Jews and others) invade and don't kill the inhabitants of the invaded country." Ah, I would like to summon forth the ghosts of those that died in Lebanon at the hands of the Christian Phalangists to rebut your argument.

"A thousand years ago Islam was the superior culture and Christianity was barbaric. But times have changed." And you are comfortable with your role as judge?

"Anything you say about the glorious past of Islam makes it clearer how wrong things have gone in today's Islam." Let me make this clear. Islam is not monolithic. The Shiites are not the same as the Sunnis, Indonesia is not Saudi Arabis, not all Muslims are the same.

This isn't personal and Leuki, you have written some good posts. But throughout this blog people have made overly broad generalizations. There is a wide diversity of belief among Muslims, as among any people. There are many Muslims, for example, who were not angered by the recent cartoons. There are many Muslims who want peace with Israel. When you lump all Muslims together, you do them and yourself a disservice.

wow I'm absolutely amazed. Many people here regard the defense of Islam as equal to defense of terrorism.

You're wondering why many of them are chanting "we're misunderstood!!!" ?

The points in the blog entry was more of a list of (generally perceived) traits of a Islam-dominated country and not Islam per se.

Coming from a Muslim country I truly understand how many freedoms are stifled for followers of other religions, but this post does so little to illuminate the facts.

Saddam's regime was secular and many in the Muslim world opposed it because of that. Of course the minute a non-Muslim nation invades him they'll be right behind his back.

All US citizens are second class citizens. Some ethnic groups as well as women are still fighting for true "equality".

So, what you're saying is American "liberals AREN'T fighting for racial and gender equality? Thanks for your honesty.

My point wasn't that the US was numero uno in ANY of these areas, much less all of them, but that ALL of these are pet "causes" of the left; odd that they would give Muslim nations a free pass in ALL of these areas

(and, for the record, I believe that the US offers far more promise in ALL of these areas than just about any other nation on earth).

"So, what you're saying is American "liberals AREN'T fighting for racial and gender equality? Thanks for your honesty."


You may be saying that; I am not. You can break down equality into sections and title them, but they are only parts of the whole. The same holds for classes (subclasses). While you are all second class citizens, some enjoy higher and more privileges than others.


"My point wasn't that the US was numero uno in ANY of these areas, much less all of them, but that ALL of these are pet "causes" of the left; odd that they would give Muslim nations a free pass in ALL of these areas"


What evidence is there that supports the "left" giving Muslim nations a FREE PASS in ALL of these areas?


"(and, for the record, I believe that the US offers far more promise in ALL of these areas than just about any other nation on earth)."


1. It is your belief, however that does not constitute that it is right / correct.

2. "far more promise"... It is helpful (for one's psyche), to have hope that the future will bring the desired condition. However, the track record indicates otherwise. [A group was promised 40 acres and a mule: didn't happen; the US broke all treaties with the Native Americans; development and implementation of an alternative fuel and a "supercar"... canned that as well]

'til dawn...

"The only one moaning (if anyone is) over second class status is you. "

Huh? That's a desperate move. I don't recognize second-class status as being a valid characterization. I dunno if you are imposing some sort of 'downtrodden' status because of some socialist ideal or Liberal idea of equality, but it isn't valid at all.

I'm not moaning about my status, I'm deriding your characterization of it.

"Huh? That's a desperate move..."


It wasn't; your feelings are noted.


"I'm not moaning about my status, I'm deriding your characterization of it."


Sure you are. Take it up with your government:


Read 'em and weep...

"The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."
In re Merriam, 36 N. E. 505, 141 N. Y. 479, affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287.

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

(15) “United States” means -

(A) a Federal corporation:

United States Code, Title 28 - Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, §3002. Definitions, (15)(A), p. 564

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15) ''United States'' means -

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States

[That makes you a franchise / property.]

“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own...”
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588

"The term 'Citizen of the United States' must be understood to mean those who were citizens of the State as such after the Union had commenced and the several States had assumed their sovereignty. Before that period there were no citizens of the United States."
Inhabitants of Manchester v. Inhabitants of Boston, 16 Mass. 230, 235.

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are protected by the 14th Amendment, against abridgment by the states, are those which arise out of the essential nature and characteristics of the national government, the federal Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress, as distinguished from those belonging to the Citizens of a state;. . . . " Gardner v. Ray, 157 S. W. 1147, 1150; Hammer v. State, 89 N. E. 850, 851, 173 Ind. 199, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034.

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state.
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"Except as modified by statute, the place of birth governs citizenship status".
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815; 28 L.Ed.2d 499; 91 S.Ct. 1060 (1971).

And the Buck Act seals your fate on "Rogers v. Bellei".

*********************************************

"Do you have "proof" of this, or is it merely your "opinion" that we don't?"


That you don't what?

'til dawn...