West will not change its stance on cartoons

[wysiwyg]

Political satire of which the Mahommed cartoons are an example is an important part of Western democracy. Cartoonists make their living enabling us to learn not to take our leaders too seriously. It is very important to the West that we don't take our leaders too seriously or at least be able not to when needed, so then we can easily replace them.

The Mahommed cartoons are political satire because Islamic laws written through his hand via the Koran and Hadiths are being promoted by Muslims as an alternative political ideology in the West. This makes Mahommed a political figure and therefore an open target for political satire.

This is a particular bitter apple for Muslims to bite, but it is the way of the West.

Saleem

[DaSangarTalib]

Anas Narrated :

I will narrate to you a narration which nobody will narrate to you after me. I heard the Prophet saying, "The Hour will not be established until from among the portents of the Hour is that the religious knowledge will be taken away (by the death of religious Scholars) and general ignorance of religion will appear; and the drinking of alcoholic drinks will be very common, and (open) illegal sexual intercourse will prevail, and men will decrease in number while women will increase so much so that, for fifty women there will only be one man to look after them."

Shahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 800i

hmmm doesn't this sound familiar??

[akulion]

Well what can you say

If we HAVE to accept their ways

then they HAVE to accept ours too I guess

But AHA they wont! Its only one sided bigotry!

[imaad_udeen]

No one has to accept the cartoons, there are channels to peacefully express ones anger.

However, violence is not an option. I think it is a bigger tragedy that so many people have died in the rioting these cartoons have sparked than the cartoons themselves.

I dont support slandering the Prophet (pbuh) but the guilty will be judged by Allah (swt).

And now we have dozens of dead Muslims who, without the rioting, would be alive today.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[akulion]

yea i dont support violent protests either

[HeiGou]

Well what can you say

If we HAVE to accept their ways

then they HAVE to accept ours too I guess

But AHA they wont! Its only one sided bigotry!

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you are accepted as a guest in a person's house, you have to obey the rules of the house. So by all means, in Saudi Arabia feel free to impose Islamic law on whomever you want. But in Denmark, it is the Danes, Muslim and non-Muslim, who make the laws. And the starting line for any discussion of these cartoons is that all Muslims have to respect that.

After all Muslims move to Europe for a reason. Europeans do not move to Muslim countries for another reason. There is no point in destroying what makes Denmark rich, free and prosperous in order to create another Pakistan.

[akulion]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Well as far as obeying the law is concerned I would agree. But as to "behavior" I dont think that is something good for anyone to do. To give up their identity and adopt another.

Europeans do not move to Muslim countries

Please check the facts on this. Europeans often move to the middle east to get better pay and employment.

There is no point in destroying what makes Denmark rich, free and prosperous in order to create another Pakistan.

Well seems you dont realize Denmark is a lot older country than Pakistan also it is much smaller so easily managed. Pakistan is on its road of progress very fast indeed Alhamdolillah. It is just above 50 years old. so I am sure if you go back in Denmarks history and look at when it was 50 you will find farfar worse.

[HeiGou]

Well as far as obeying the law is concerned I would agree. But as to "behavior" I dont think that is something good for anyone to do. To give up their identity and adopt another.

Then those Muslims should not have moved to Denmark and ought not to stay there now. If being a Muslim means intolerance and oppression, as most people around here seem to be saying, then there is no place for Muslims in Europe. As it happens I think that Muslims and non-Muslims ought to be able to get along, but if the Muslim community wants to force Europe to change, it is time for a rethink.

Please check the facts on this. Europeans often move to the middle east to get better pay and employment.

Temporarily. No one in their right mind wants to stay there and the number of immigrants, as opposed to guest workers, is neglible. Compare with any European country you care to name. There is a reason the flow of migrants is almost entirely one way.

Well seems you dont realize Denmark is a lot older country than Pakistan also it is much smaller so easily managed. Pakistan is on its road of progress very fast indeed Alhamdolillah. It is just above 50 years old. so I am sure if you go back in Denmarks history and look at when it was 50 you will find farfar worse.

Pakistan as a country is new, but it is the heir to a much older civilisation than Denmark's. If you don't like the Pakistan analogy I am happy to use Iran or Tunisia or Morocco. The worst European country is still much freer, richer and more technologically advanced than the best Muslim one. It is a pity to say so but it is true and there must be a reason for that.

[akulion]

If being a Muslim means intolerance and oppression, as most people around here seem to be saying, then there is no place for Muslims in Europe.As it happens I think that Muslims and non-Muslims ought to be able to get along, but if the Muslim community wants to force Europe to change, it is time for a rethink.

I think the real case is that of the hosts insulting the guests to their country. If you think insulting someones belief by ridiculing it is ok - then I wont argue with you since you make your position clear on it.

Temporarily. No one in their right mind wants to stay there and the number of immigrants, as opposed to guest workers, is neglible. Compare with any European country you care to name. There is a reason the flow of migrants is almost entirely one way.

No one in their right mind wants to stay there? I sincerely believe you have never been to one of the middle eastern nations. They are very beautiful as well as culturally rich. And the emigation is not negligible at all it is quite significant. I wouldnt known the exact numbers but I think you may get an idea by checking out the number of Western companies running in the ME, it is huge.

Pakistan as a country is new, but it is the heir to a much older civilisation than Denmark's. If you don't like the Pakistan analogy I am happy to use Iran or Tunisia or Morocco. The worst European country is still much freer, richer and more technologically advanced than the best Muslim one. It is a pity to say so but it is true and there must be a reason for that.

Civilizations of the past were looted by the Europeans if you read history where they occupied Part of Asia enslaved people, stole their treasures and left. Much like in the South American continent with the Spanards. And if you read history of Pakistan, it was liberated from the British rule who were enslaving the people there. Europe is mostly built on "looted" treasures and slave labour during the middle ages which even carried on to the US before it was abolished. So if you still wonder what happend to the Muslims you will get your answer. The "noble Europeans" were doing what they do best - looting, enslaving and supressing others - until they fought back. Muslim nations are still emerging from the collapse of the Khilifat (which happend in early 1800's). So alhamdolillah they are progressing forth. The west tries very hard to keep them back (example sanctions against countries which try and develop nuclear technologyy, etc). And then comes around and blames Muslims.

So please read history before making assumptions - so easily people forget the slave trade and supression carried out by Europe around the world :)


Additionally you are very quick in assuming the whole world is shifting to the west - if this was the case then you would definately see a great imbalance around the world in population figures. Yet you do not. Why ?
There have been numerous studies conducted on Population migration and those studies have revealed that there is actually a balance which exists. Majority of people who are capable of immigrating to the west and vice versa do not because they are very content with the places they live in and enjoy their cultural values. Also a large part that do go over usually return with the exception of a minority.

this information may not seem "real" to you but it is infact revealed through Sociological research which has been conducted on a global basis. I dont remember any names but i remember learning about this is Sociology class :)

[i_m_tipu]

why u pep act foolishly
they want u to play
..let them know that we know their religion better than they know
..we do give better respect to their prophet than they do
Allaah knows better---what is happaning for what
may Allaah guide us....

[HeiGou]

I think the real case is that of the hosts insulting the guests to their country. If you think insulting someones belief by ridiculing it is ok - then I wont argue with you since you make your position clear on it.

I do not think it is OK. I think it is very bad manners. But I do not think it ought to be a matter of law.

I think in this case it is a matter of the host doing something he considers perfectly acceptable, and for, well not guests, but people down the street, to take offense. Danes are not protesting. Danish Muslims are not protesting. Foreign Muslims are.

No one in their right mind wants to stay there? I sincerely believe you have never been to one of the middle eastern nations. They are very beautiful as well as culturally rich. And the emigation is not negligible at all it is quite significant. I wouldnt known the exact numbers but I think you may get an idea by checking out the number of Western companies running in the ME, it is huge.

I have been to Turkey. I do not, and would not want to, dispute the beautiful and culturally rich. But people are fleeing such countries for a variety of reasons. They are no longer moving to the Middle East seeking refuge (although I will happily accept that used to be the case).

You are still not making a distinction between someone who goes to the Middle East for business purposes (and usually does everything possible to avoid the locals) and someone who goes there to live because they want to. I will accept that many companies pay their executives a fortune to work in the Gulf (because otherwise they refuse to go), but apart from some women who married Muslims, the flow of permanent residents is almost entirely one way.

Civilizations of the past were looted by the Europeans if you read history where they occupied Part of Asia enslaved people, stole their treasures and left.

Which is another issue. Besides, much the same applies to the Muslims too except the Europeans left the locals much better off.

Muslim nations are still emerging from the collapse of the Khilifat (which happend in early 1800's). So alhamdolillah they are progressing forth. The west tries very hard to keep them back (example sanctions against countries which try and develop nuclear technologyy, etc). And then comes around and blames Muslims.

Singapore is richer than Britain. It started off worse off than Malaysia. South Korea was as poor as Pakistan in 1965 (when Pakistan included Bangladesh). It is now in the OECD. At some point you will have to accept colonial rule was 50 years ago. A lot has changed. Except in parts of the Muslim world.

So please read history before making assumptions - so easily people forget the slave trade and supression carried out by Europe around the world :)

I do my share of reading history. Muslims probably took as many Black slaves as the Europeans did. But the British suppressed the slave trade in the end. What does it all mean?

Additionally you are very quick in assuming the whole world is shifting to the west - if this was the case then you would definately see a great imbalance around the world in population figures. Yet you do not. Why ?
There have been numerous studies conducted on Population migration and those studies have revealed that there is actually a balance which exists. Majority of people who are capable of immigrating to the west and vice versa do not because they are very content with the places they live in and enjoy their cultural values. Also a large part that do go over usually return with the exception of a minority.

Well there are strict immigration laws in the West to keep the Third World out for one thing. Most people are happy where they are. But few people want to move to any Muslim country and by and large they do not do so. Few people go to the West and then return. Everyone in Saudi does - partly because the Saudis make them of course.

[S_87]

This is a particular bitter apple for Muslims to bite, but it is the way of the West.

Saleem

:sl:

ok so holocaust cartoons. women covering and being respected... some so called fundamentalists promoting islam. is a pretty bitter apple for the west to bite but is the way of the muslims...

see..you have your standards. muslims do too

[knuckles]

Anas Narrated :



Shahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 800i

hmmm doesn't this sound familiar??

Sounds like ancient Roman times to me. You know the times before Muhammed?

[Muezzin]

Political satire of which the Mahommed cartoons are an example is an important part of Western democracy. Cartoonists make their living enabling us to learn not to take our leaders too seriously. It is very important to the West that we don't take our leaders too seriously or at least be able not to when needed, so then we can easily replace them.

The Mahommed cartoons are political satire because Islamic laws written through his hand via the Koran and Hadiths are being promoted by Muslims as an alternative political ideology in the West. This makes Mahommed a political figure and therefore an open target for political satire.

This is a particular bitter apple for Muslims to bite, but it is the way of the West.

Saleem

Fascinating theory. I personally just thought it was an attack on Islam, which is allowed under freedom of expression, no doubts there.

However, perhaps freedom of expression should be exercised with a little something us British people like to call 'common courtesy'. Otherwise, by the same token, if one is allowed to cause offence just because they are free to, others are free to take offence, under freedom of expression. It works both ways.

Taking offence is different than certain groups going around burning things. That's committing an offence, for which such groups should be punished according to law.

[akulion]

Danes are not protesting. Danish Muslims are not protesting. Foreign Muslims are.

They are in a veru delicate position living in that country and I can imagine must fear "retribution" in one form or another - but irrespective majority Muslims have been offended by these cartoons. The issue would have died by now since the newspaper issued an apology, but now it goes on because others are publishing those same cartoons - so obivioulsy the Danish newspaper allowed them permission. So the apology was only a cover up.
Its a whole debate on its own which seems to be going on in every thread it seems lol.

You are still not making a distinction between someone who goes to the Middle East for business purposes (and usually does everything possible to avoid the locals) and someone who goes there to live because they want to.

You are also not taking into consideration that not everyone migrates to the west - majority figures are either students, tourists or visiting family etc. That being said the working part also contributes to the balance I was talking about and is taken into consideration as well. As for people living there, I personally know of many American Reverted sisters who shifted to : Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco. I also know of Reverted Bros who shifted to Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia. And these are only a few people I have known personally and met on the net.

Other explanations that may also exist as to why people dont move there as much as they do to the west is because of:
- Political stability
- Developing Nation Status
- Low Standard of Living
But then again I dont want to make this into a very huge discussion otherwise we would have idealogies such as "dependency theory" etc etc. From politics. Which argue that for capitalism to thrive it needs to have poverty and restlessness in some part of the world so that it can get cheap labour and goods production.
But lets not go there since that will be too big a debate on its own!

Which is another issue. Besides, much the same applies to the Muslims too except the Europeans left the locals much better off.

Well on the contorary - Even the jewels in the Queens Sceptre and Crown are made from the Biggest Jewel in the world stolen from India. So they didnt leave them off better - they were driven off and had to withdraw because of political unrest on all avenues. And I would not say they left them better off at all - they left them with leaders - constitutions and systems which were all designed to have them "loyal" to the British even after independance. They conveniently named it the "Common Wealth". But many see how this is a subtle control mechanism left behind by the British for one. Furthermore if Islamic nations try and have Islamic rulership and laws sddenly they are donned with the "terrorist nation" status. Which is plain and simple supression. Its either "their" way or "no way"

Singapore is richer than Britain. It started off worse off than Malaysia. South Korea was as poor as Pakistan in 1965 (when Pakistan included Bangladesh). It is now in the OECD. At some point you will have to accept colonial rule was 50 years ago. A lot has changed. Except in parts of the Muslim world.

Singapore, Germany, Japan, North Korea, Isreal these are nations whose economies were literally built up by the west. They cannot serve as examples at all since they had no responsibility for defence expenditure, or any military expenditure at all. Do the same for any nation around the world u wil get the same results.

Countries like Pakistan, Turkey, etc have had to build on their own block by block - and they seems to be well on their path to progress. Now if you took a huge army put it in defence of these countries - invested heavily n their industry and let them sit back and relax I am sure you would see similar if not better results.

So you cannot compare "fake ecnomies" to "real ones" fake ones being which were simply given to them on a silver platter.

I do my share of reading history. Muslims probably took as many Black slaves as the Europeans did. But the British suppressed the slave trade in the end. What does it all mean?

On the controrary Muslims were commanded to liberate slaves. So even though a very small % of them may have had slaves who were treaded ill, but in majority Muslims did not have slaves and neither were they treated like animals. But in the west the slavery was all about treating the Africans like animals for many many years. Where they were made to work and treated in the worst imaginable conditions.

Well there are strict immigration laws in the West to keep the Third World out for one thing. Most people are happy where they are. But few people want to move to any Muslim country and by and large they do not do so. Few people go to the West and then return. Everyone in Saudi does - partly because the Saudis make them of course.

well the interesting thing is that the Sociological studies I mentioned pointed out some things as follows:
- People who return often do so due to family ties
- People who return often do so because of culture differences
- Returning people : Unable to fit in
- Returning people: Nationalistic identity
- Returning: land or valuables back home which were inherited giving them a new start in their home nations

Peopel who decide to stay are in majority:
- People who integrated and adopted western values
- Unabe to return home due to political unrest, etc
- People who started their own families there
- People who started their own businesses and met success
- People frustrated with level of services back home

Now I dont remember them all but what is very interesting enough is that my teacher was an American who had initially challenged the whole class on the question, "Do you think everyone wants to go to the west?"

Needless to say at the end of the Class she had presented enough evidence to everyone to show that infact this was a common myth that people assume. Not everyone wants to go to the west - infact the majority of people stay in their home nations.

I just say tha even I used to think the same that everyone wants to go to the west, ut in fact the reality of numbers shows that the number of immigrants is far less than most countries want. Take Canada for example - they desperately need immigrants because currently their "working age group" of people has reached an alarming age of "40+" so they need younger professionals in many feilds.

Same way in the USA they NEED people to come to the USA to offer more working professionals etc. As you already may know US is a huge country where land outweighs number of people.

So as funny as it may sound - the argument of "you foreigners stay home" is actually not supported by governments of western nations because its a case of "demand of labour and skilled professionals" which the west often finds hard to find inside its own borders to satisfy its needs.


Anyways to the original thread starter, just a small correction - The greeting is not Saleem (unless thats your name and ur signing it)

The correct greeting is "Salam" which means "Peace"

[Ghazi]

Political satire of which the Mahommed cartoons are an example is an important part of Western democracy. Cartoonists make their living enabling us to learn not to take our leaders too seriously. It is very important to the West that we don't take our leaders too seriously or at least be able not to when needed, so then we can easily replace them.

The Mahommed cartoons are political satire because Islamic laws written through his hand via the Koran and Hadiths are being promoted by Muslims as an alternative political ideology in the West. This makes Mahommed a political figure and therefore an open target for political satire.

This is a particular bitter apple for Muslims to bite, but it is the way of the West.

Saleem

Salaam

Not to sound offensive but who made you spoke person for the west, I mean that might be the view of some people, but your forget one thing islam is spread world wide, people of all parts of the world are muslim and I don't think everyone in the west feels that way.

[DaSangarTalib]

Sounds like ancient Roman times to me. You know the times before Muhammed?

O ye that reject faith

I worship not that, which ye worship,

Nor will ye worship that, which I worship,

And i shall not worship that, which ye worship,

Nor will ye worship that, which I worship,

To you be your way and to me mine.

[Surah 109 Al Kâfirûn]

[Protected_Diamond]

:sl:

:love: that surah masha Allah :happy:

:w:

[HeiGou]

They are in a veru delicate position living in that country and I can imagine must fear "retribution" in one form or another - but irrespective majority Muslims have been offended by these cartoons. The issue would have died by now since the newspaper issued an apology, but now it goes on because others are publishing those same cartoons - so obivioulsy the Danish newspaper allowed them permission. So the apology was only a cover up.

Fearing retribution in Denmark is not sensible as it is a very safe, tolerant, liberal democratic society. Those radicals who took those cartoons (and added a few more) to the Middle East did not fear retribution. It is no longer important if most Muslims were offended. That should have been avoided. Now it is an issue of who rules in Denmark - the Danes or the Egyptians. The issue would have died if the Muslims of the world respected Denmark's rights. There is no evidence that an apology would have worked. There was and is no reason whatsoever to justify giving one. The bottom line is that some radical Muslims have decided to use this incident for political gains and they have been highly successful.

You are also not taking into consideration that not everyone migrates to the west - majority figures are either students, tourists or visiting family etc. That being said the working part also contributes to the balance I was talking about and is taken into consideration as well. As for people living there, I personally know of many American Reverted sisters who shifted to : Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco. I also know of Reverted Bros who shifted to Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia. And these are only a few people I have known personally and met on the net.

I accept that a small number of students and tourists visit and go home. But the Muslim population of Britain is, what?, 7 million? The British population of Pakistan or Somalia is roughly nil. No doubt some converts go to the Middle East and perhaps even stay there. Especially if they marry Muslims who want to go home. And yet this is statistical noise. The movement of population is, by and large, one way - from the poorer countries of the world (which is more and more the same as the Muslim ones) to the richer ones (which until recently meant Christian ones).

Other explanations that may also exist as to why people dont move there as much as they do to the west is because of:
- Political stability
- Developing Nation Status
- Low Standard of Living
But then again I dont want to make this into a very huge discussion otherwise we would have idealogies such as "dependency theory" etc etc. From politics. Which argue that for capitalism to thrive it needs to have poverty and restlessness in some part of the world so that it can get cheap labour and goods production.

I do not deny any of this. One of the reasons Denmark is politically stable is because it is tolerant. Caving into the protests would end this. One reason that it is not a Developing nation is that it has a high standard of living (your two last points combined) and that is, no doubt, in part because it is tolerant. Caving into the protests would end this. Those countries of the world that do not tolerate free speech are poor. The Danes must refuse to be intimidated and turn Denmark into another Syria. The Muslims of the world may love Muhammed more than their families (although I suspect in reality there is little evidence of that) but what they really love to do is move to the West precisely because of that tolerance.

Well on the contorary - Even the jewels in the Queens Sceptre and Crown are made from the Biggest Jewel in the world stolen from India. So they didnt leave them off better - they were driven off and had to withdraw because of political unrest on all avenues. And I would not say they left them better off at all - they left them with leaders - constitutions and systems which were all designed to have them "loyal" to the British even after independance. They conveniently named it the "Common Wealth". But many see how this is a subtle control mechanism left behind by the British for one. Furthermore if Islamic nations try and have Islamic rulership and laws sddenly they are donned with the "terrorist nation" status. Which is plain and simple supression. Its either "their" way or "no way"

So what if the Crown Jewels are made from jewels taken from India? Before the Muslim invasions the Muslim population of India was small (not nothing, but minor). The Muslim invasions resulted in the mass destruction of Indian cultural artifacts, mass enslavement of population, and the conversion or forced colonisation of India resulting in about 25 percent of the population being Muslim. The British did not even try to convert another quarter. They preserved most of India's heritage. By any measure the Indians were better off under British rule than Muslim rule and the Indians demonstrated this by declining to revolt (by and large).

Pakistan has been allowed to become Islamic, or try to, and no one has accused them of terrorism.

Singapore, Germany, Japan, North Korea, Isreal these are nations whose economies were literally built up by the west. They cannot serve as examples at all since they had no responsibility for defence expenditure, or any military expenditure at all. Do the same for any nation around the world u wil get the same results.

North Korea? Men do sixteen years in the Army! It is more or less true for Japan and Germany. But it is not true for South Korea (which until recently had a larger Army than the United States does) nor Singapore. Nor is it true that their economies were "built up" by the West. Neither got a lot of aid. Certainly nothing compared to Egypt or Pakistan.

Countries like Pakistan, Turkey, etc have had to build on their own block by block - and they seems to be well on their path to progress. Now if you took a huge army put it in defence of these countries - invested heavily n their industry and let them sit back and relax I am sure you would see similar if not better results.

You think that Pakistan has made any economic progress on a per head basis?

And Turkey has been the beneficiary of massive help from Europe and the US including access to markets.

So you cannot compare "fake ecnomies" to "real ones" fake ones being which were simply given to them on a silver platter.

This is a statement that fails to apply to Singapore or South Korea. Dubai perhaps.

On the controrary Muslims were commanded to liberate slaves. So even though a very small % of them may have had slaves who were treaded ill, but in majority Muslims did not have slaves and neither were they treated like animals. But in the west the slavery was all about treating the Africans like animals for many many years. Where they were made to work and treated in the worst imaginable conditions.

I do not deny that Muslims are commanded to liberate slaves. But the fact is probably about as many Blacks were taken to the Middle East as slaves as to the Americas. America is full of descedents of African slaves. Ten percent of the American population. Where are the descendents of the African slaves in the Middle East? Do you think it would be a reasonable assumption that the Blacks in the ME were simply worked to death and did not leave any number of descendents while in the Americas they were worked but treated well enough that they could afford to have children? How do you explain the near total lack of Africans in the Middle East?

Needless to say at the end of the Class she had presented enough evidence to everyone to show that infact this was a common myth that people assume. Not everyone wants to go to the west - infact the majority of people stay in their home nations.

I am sure that there are people who do not want to go to the West. But the majority of people who want to go anywhere want to move from poor countries to rich ones. From repressive countries to free ones. From the Muslim world to the post-Christian world. I am sure there are people happy in Saudi Arabia. But you do not see Westerners dying to get in to Saudi Arabia the way that Africans do to get to Spain.

I just say tha even I used to think the same that everyone wants to go to the west, ut in fact the reality of numbers shows that the number of immigrants is far less than most countries want. Take Canada for example - they desperately need immigrants because currently their "working age group" of people has reached an alarming age of "40+" so they need younger professionals in many feilds.

Canada wants young professionals. They do not want illiterate Third World peasants. How many young professionals are there in Mali? The problem is that the skills required are Western skills. Muslim countries have some of those skills, but not enough - not enough for their own needs. So there has been a fuss in the UK about Britain taking doctors and nurses from Africa.

[akulion]

Ekk!!

Man I just came back from Class after writing 2 Analytical Essays and doing 3 Reading comprehensions in only 2 hours!! However all this writing is good for me since it will help me get a better grasp on analytical writing, I hope.

Lol and now reading all this! EEK!

Anyways, it seems that we disagree on a number of points. Some of them I would agree with you on, those being the immigration patterns being greater from the developing nations to the develped nations. But then again I would point out that this is a pattern that has always existed in the world. When Rome was on top, people used to go to rome. When Baghdad was on top, people used to go there, etc etc. So it is not surprising that people in general tend to flock to places where they feel they may have a better chance of advancement. However that being said, it is by no means a comclusion that the west is better than the east or vice versa. I believe it also all depends on a persons perception of life. For example in India and Pakistan you had leaders like Ghandi and Jinnah who stood against all sorts of hardships to try and bring their people out of British rule and on the other hand you have people like Benezi Buttho and Altaf Hussein (2 Pakistani Politicians) who at the first sight of trouble took asylum in the west. The above argument also applies to common people in a land - some do not want to go aborad and some do.

However I do strongly disagree with you that under Islamc rule people were enslaved and supressed. History records the facts and I think it leaves little space for argument that under Islamic rule, the kliphate was the light of the world. It was the most technologicaly as well as socially advanced state in the world at that time. Not only do we see liberation of people from the slavery of the Church where women were being killed and being labelled "witches" , scientists being killed called "heritics" and deniers of Christ beinge killed called "blasphemers" but we also see how people were allowed to worship in freedom and in security. It is against the fundamental teaching of Islam to make someone muslim via force or coersion. And Muslims were and still are well aware of this fact.

Anyways, I think with respect to each others opinions we should call this discussion to an end if it is ok with you. And end on the note that we can agree to disagree on smoe points.

Salam Alaikum