from a few days ago in Egypt-- enjoy

[Independent]

As I understand it, that means establishing peace through treaties and negotiations where necessary, and fighting fi sabilillah where necessary. That is something we all have to think about when examining modern conflicts involving the ummah.

Unfortunately, for some Muslims this has led to the view that war against the West is not merely justified but actually necessary. Many Muslims (perhaps yourself included) think the West has in fact declared war on Islam. They link together every single event involving Muslims - Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc - and regard them as part of a single, unified plan. This is very surprising and difficult to understand for Westerners, whose plan it is supposed to be.

Unlike some religions, Muslims are widely scattered round the world and therefore come into contact with every other religion and culture. There are many lines of tension in these areas (often based on historical wars of expansion) that remain volatile to this day. Only Christians are as widely distributed.

However, unlike Christians, Muslims are brought up to see any event, involving any Muslim, anywhere in the world, as personal (ie all part of the umma). Christians simply don't draw up lists of international conflicts in the same way. There is no equivalent 'single world view' in Christian culture - or in any other culture.

Not only are Muslims encouraged to see any attacks on any Muslims as personal, they also see any act by any Western country as linked. So whilst I, for example, see acts by France as having nothing whatsoever to do with me, some Muslims treat this as all part of the evidence against me and my culture.

In effect, many Muslims think that I personally (along with all other Westerners) are at war with them. Therefore they believe they are allowed to be at war with me. This came as a shock to me when I first joined this forum. Whereas almost all Westerners like myself, certainly do not feel we have declared war on you - so any action taken against western targets feels like Muslims have declared war on us.

In other words, we have a war situation where both sides feels the other started it, and that they are only acting in self defence. Not only is this terrifically sad in itself, it's also hard to see how anyone can declare peace, even if they want to. If I don't know I'm at war in the first place, how can I stop?

At first it's only a limited number of zealots who take actual physical action. But if it scales up, then in the end no one can stay out of it. A westerner becomes a target simply because he is a westerner, and a Muslim because he is a Muslim. No matter what an individual feels, you will be forced to choose sides. There will be a huge number of people caught impossibly in the middle. For instance, westerners who have converted to Islam. Or Muslims who are 'not Muslim enough'.

Each side will respond tit-for-tat, each will blame the other for being the first to sink to the worst kind of violence.

 

[جوري]

This is a war on Islam!
individual beliefs here are irrelevant as this is simply evidence based-- what business have they being in the middle east or so called Islamic countries to begin with? tourism?

here's where it all started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement

 

[Abz2000]

Many Muslims (perhaps yourself included) think the West has in fact declared war on Islam. They link together every single event involving Muslims - Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc - and regard them as part of a single, unified plan.

of course they have - and they have made that clear for anyone who cares to scavenge down in the memory hole, of course, if you're an inner party or outer party member, you'd get your information from the ministry of truth and searching the memory hole would be tantamount to treason:

DICK CHENEY: The business of our alliance goes forward and it begins with the fundamental duty to protect our people from danger. Having stood together in every major conflict of the last 100 years, the US and Australia now stand together in the decisive struggle against terrorism.

And it is they, the terrorist, who have ambitions of empire. Their goal in the broader Middle East is to seize control of a country so they have a base from which they can launch attacks against governments that refuse to meet their demands.Their ultimate aim, and one they boldly proclaim, is to establish a caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way around to Indonesia. And it wouldn't stop there.

LOUISE YAXLEY: Dick Cheney's enthusiastic push for keeping up the war on terror begins with Baghdad.

DICK CHENEY: In Iraq our goal remains a democratic nation, that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people. Provides them with security and is an ally in the war on terror.

But for this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. So we're pursuing a new strategy that brings in reinforcements to help Iraqi forces secure the capital so that nation can move forward and the political process can turn towards reconciliation.

hmmmmmm

wondering if it's a one off statement by a loon....................

munafiqs eat this!!!!

Sir Campbell Bannerman, [Prime Minister of Britain (1905-08)]
“ There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.” - 1902

(not long after followed the occupation of the holy land and handing over of it to isntrael)

During the First World War, General Edmund Allenby the British Empire commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force remained responsible for the territories, occupied during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.[2] After the war ended a military administration, named Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, was established in the captured territory of the former Ottoman Syria. The British sought to set up legitimacy for their continued control of the region and this was achieved by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922. The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone.
The Zionist Commission was formed in March 1918 and was active in promoting Zionist objectives in Palestine. On 19 April 1920, elections were held for the Assembly of Representatives of the Palestinian Jewish community.[6] The Zionist Commission received official recognition in 1922 as representative of the Palestinian Jewish community)

Lord Curzon,
After the termination of Khilafat, the secretary expressed his views when he announced to the House of Commons the following words:

"The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam".

"We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity"


Tony Blair,
In a speech at Labour Party National Conference, stated:
“What we are confronting here is an evil ideology......They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taliban states and Shariah law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.”


Charles Clarke,
In a speech on Counter Terrorism at The Heritage Foundation (a neoconservative think tank, Washington DC) stated:
“What drives these people on is ideas. And unlike the liberation movements of the post World War II era in many parts of the world, these are not in pursuit of political ideas like national independence from colonial rule, or equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed, or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and in many cases have actually been negotiated. However there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shariah law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilization and are simply not up for negotiation.”



Lord Zetland [March 24, 1940, British Secretary of State for the colonial India]
“[T]he call of Islam is one which transcends the bounds of country. It may have lost some force as a result of the abolition of Caliphate by Mustafa Kamal Pasha, but it still has a very considerable appeal as witness for example Jinnah’s insistence on our giving undertaking that Indian troops should never be employed against any Muslim state, and the solicitude which he has constantly expressed for the Arabs of Palestine.”


President Bush
“The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia"
“The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century."


**** Cheney [Vice President, Speech in Sydney, Australia February 2007]

" ...And it is they, the terrorists, who have ambitions of empire. Their goal in the broader Middle East is to seize control of a country, so they have a base from which they can launch attacks against governments that refuse to meet their demands. Their ultimate aim -- and one they boldly proclaim -- is to establish a caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia. And it wouldn't stop there.
...The war on terror is more than a contest of arms, and more than a test of will. It is a battle of ideas...."


Donald Rumsfeld [US Secretary of Defense, December 5 2005]
In a speech at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced Studies at Johns Hopkins:

"...Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East and which would threaten the legitimate governments in Europe, Africa, and Asia. This is their plan. They have said so. We make a terrible mistake if we fail to listen and learn...."


Eric Edelman [Undersecretary of Defense for Policy]

December 1, 2005, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC

"...So I think we need to be very clear. Iraq's future will either embolden terrorists and expand their reach and ability to establish a — reestablish a caliphate, or it will deal them a crippling blow. For us, failure in Iraq is just not an option..."

General John Abizaid, [Chief of US Central Command, 29th Sept. 2005]
In a speech to US law makers said:
"Al Qaeda terrorists hope to drive American influence from the Middle East and install a global Muslim leader in Saudi Arabia.....If al Qaeda terrorists manage to take control of Saudi Arabia, they will try to create and expand their influence in the region and establish a caliphate."
Abizaid said al Qaeda would subsequently move on to apply a "very narrow, strict interpretation of Shariah, Islamic law, not believed in or practiced anywhere else in the world today.......The next goal would be to expand into non-Arab Islamic countries. This would include the middle of Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia".
At another occasion,
Gen. John Abizaid said: “We are fighting the most despicable enemy ... who uses the 21st century-technology to spread their vision of a 7th-century paradise (and) try to re-create what they imagine was the pure and perfect Islamic government of the era of the prophet Muhammad.”


Gen. Richard Myers, [The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]
While addressing a Pentagon news conference stressed:
“If the Zarqawis of the world were allowed to be successful in Iraq in their view, and that would be the start of the caliphate that they envision, the stakes would be huge for the region,"


Henry Kissinger, [Nov 2004]
Asked in an interview “What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age?” He answered - “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.”


Patrick J. Buchanan, [June 23, 2006. Founder of magazine ‘The American Conservative’. Has served three presidents in the White House]

“If Islamic rule is an idea taking hold among the Islamic masses, how does even the best army on earth stop it?
Do we not need a new policy?”


President Vladimir Putin
The Russian leader said at a European Union summit in Brussels that western civilisation faced a mortal threat from Muslim terrorists, and claimed that they had plans to create a "worldwide caliphate".
"…The creation of a caliphate on the territory of the Russian Federation is only part one of their plan. In fact, if you are following the situation, you surely know that the radicals are pursuing a larger goal: They are talking about the creation of a world caliphate…”

The Washington Post [January 14, 2006]
The Washington Post headed an article with the title " Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely Radical, Restoration of Caliphate, Attacked by Bush, Resonates With Mainstream Muslims", arguing that such a call is not radical nor only resonant with Islamic guerrilla movements


Terrorism - From a War on Terror to a War of Ideas
by David Lazarus
"...The underlying belief of the jihadists appears to be that the re-establishment and enforcement of strict Islamic law in these territories will bring about an almost mystical rebirth of a just, pure and perfect society for all true Muslims. The appeal of such a vision is potent within the Middle East in particular and can be easily understood when one examines the general failure of modernity that prevails in most sectors of Arab society.
Any Islamist revolution throughout the entire Middle East has, however, been thwarted by authoritarian dictatorships within the region, such as those of Egypt and Saudi Arabia..."

Peter Costello (Ex Australian Treasurer), 2006, Australian Christian Lobby:

“There are countries that claim to be theocratic Islamic States, for example, The Islamic Republic of Iran, The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, The Islamic Republic of Mauritania. There are other countries that enforce religious or Sharia Law – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But for the radical Islamists even this is not enough. They have a vision of a Caliphate stretching across the Middle East toppling what they see as corrupt nation states and enforcing a more “pure” version of Islam. In our own region the ambitions of Jemaah Islamiyah is to create a Pan-Islamic State stretching down and encompassing the southern Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia.”

Alexander Downer, 2005, Centre for Muslim States and Societies (UWA):

“Let's be crystal clear about what the terrorists are seeking. Let's strip away the rhetoric and focus on the type of world they want to create. Their goal is to create a new extremist Caliphate in the Muslim world - a Taliban style theocracy. In South-East Asia they want to drive out western influence and establish a fundamentalist regime across Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines. The same for the Middle-East - a Caliphate stretching from the Caucuses to North Africa. They want to get rid of democracy in these countries and replace it with a puritanical regime that denies individual freedoms. Nothing complicated about that ideology. A perverted interpretation of Islamic law, no tolerance of diversity.”

Fazza

03-10-08, 01:03 PM

ON LOSING THE KHILAFAH


Syed Ameer Ali, of the Aligarh Muslim University and Muslim League, in the Times newspaper on the 5th March 1924:

"It is difficult to anticipate the exact effect the 'abolition' of the Caliphate will have on the minds of the Muslims of India. But so much I can safely affirm - that it will prove a disaster to both Islam and civilisation. The suppression of the time honoured institution, which was throughout the Moslem world regarded as the symbol of Islamic Unity, will cause the disintegration of Islam as a moral force. It had knit together over 250 million of the followers of the faith belonging to the Sunni communion by one common ideal."

REPORTS & POLLS

US Think Tanks
In December 2004, A report by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) state a possible scenario that by 2020 a “New Caliphate" would have been established. This 123-page report titled "Mapping the Global Future" was aimed to prepare the next Bush administration for future challenges, and was presented to US President, members of Congress, cabinet members and key officials involved in policymaking.
According to CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), Washington based think tank, this report was not a prediction, but a case exercise/study which involves observing the various events taking place in the world. These events are then connected in such a way that there might be a possibility of forming of a Caliphate state. Given that such a state may be established, then it is to be decided from today as to what needs to be done to prevent it, if it needs to be prevented. Moreover there are two organizations which did such a study, one is the CIA and the other is Shell Oil Company.


National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (NSCT)
“…Deny terrorists control of any nation they would use as a base and launching pad for terror. Our terrorist enemies are striving to claim a strategic country as a haven for terror. From this base, they could destabilize the Middle East and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. This we can never allow….”



World Public Opinion Report [April 24th, 2007]
file:///C:/Users/faraz/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg

“Large majorities in most countries support the goals of requiring a strict application of sharia, keeping out Western values, and even unifying all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state”


The Pew Global Attitudes Project [July 14, 2005]
file:///C:/Users/faraz/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.jpg
Large majorities in Pakistan (79%), Morocco (70%) and Jordan (63%) say they self-identify first as Muslims, rather than as Pakistanis, Moroccans or Jordanians. Even in Turkey, with its more secular traditions, a 43% plurality among Muslims identify primarily with their religion rather than their nationality. Indonesians are closely split with 39% self-identifying as Muslims first, 35% as Indonesians and 26% saying both equally. In Lebanon, however, just 30% of Muslims (this question was not asked of Christians) say they view themselves primarily in terms of their faith, rather than as Lebanese.


file:///C:/Users/faraz/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image006.jpg
Large majorities of Muslims in most predominantly Muslim countries surveyed think that it is very important that Islam play a more important and influential role in the world than that religion now does. In Morocco, 84% of Muslims subscribe to this view, as do 73% in Jordan, 70% in Pakistan and 64% in Indonesia. Even in Lebanon and Turkey, where fewer among the Muslim population place high importance on a larger global role for Islam, pluralities in both countries do so.


Policy Exchange
Major new survey finds younger Muslims much more likely to be inspired by political Islam. 37 percent of 16-24-year-old British Muslims would prefer to live under Islamic sharia law than under British law.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ بِطَانَةً مِّن دُونِكُمْ لاَ يَأْلُونَكُمْ خَبَالاً وَدُّواْ مَا عَنِتُّمْ قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاء مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ قَدْ بَيَّنَّا لَكُمُ الآيَاتِ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ


O you who believe!
Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your way of life since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you.
They desire to harm you severely.
Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse.
Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.
Quran 3:118

 

[Ali_008]

Unfortunately, for some Muslims this has led to the view that war against the West is not merely justified but actually necessary. Many Muslims (perhaps yourself included) think the West has in fact declared war on Islam. They link together every single event involving Muslims - Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc - and regard them as part of a single, unified plan. This is very surprising and difficult to understand for Westerners, whose plan it is supposed to be.

Unlike some religions, Muslims are widely scattered round the world and therefore come into contact with every other religion and culture. There are many lines of tension in these areas (often based on historical wars of expansion) that remain volatile to this day. Only Christians are as widely distributed.

However, unlike Christians, Muslims are brought up to see any event, involving any Muslim, anywhere in the world, as personal (ie all part of the umma). Christians simply don't draw up lists of international conflicts in the same way. There is no equivalent 'single world view' in Christian culture - or in any other culture.

Not only are Muslims encouraged to see any attacks on any Muslims as personal, they also see any act by any Western country as linked. So whilst I, for example, see acts by France as having nothing whatsoever to do with me, some Muslims treat this as all part of the evidence against me and my culture.

In effect, many Muslims think that I personally (along with all other Westerners) are at war with them. Therefore they believe they are allowed to be at war with me. This came as a shock to me when I first joined this forum. Whereas almost all Westerners like myself, certainly do not feel we have declared war on you - so any action taken against western targets feels like Muslims have declared war on us.

In other words, we have a war situation where both sides feels the other started it, and that they are only acting in self defence. Not only is this terrifically sad in itself, it's also hard to see how anyone can declare peace, even if they want to. If I don't know I'm at war in the first place, how can I stop?

At first it's only a limited number of zealots who take actual physical action. But if it scales up, then in the end no one can stay out of it. A westerner becomes a target simply because he is a westerner, and a Muslim because he is a Muslim. No matter what an individual feels, you will be forced to choose sides. There will be a huge number of people caught impossibly in the middle. For instance, westerners who have converted to Islam. Or Muslims who are 'not Muslim enough'.

Each side will respond tit-for-tat, each will blame the other for being the first to sink to the worst kind of violence.

Ignorance is a universal ailment, and not limited to a particular country or a particular religion. We do acknowledge that there are a lot of westerners who feel for the sufferings of the Muslims around the world, but at the same time there are other westerners as well who rejoice at the same suffering and openly declare their desire for annihilation of the entire Middle East - of course excluding Israel. Similarly, there are Muslims who acknowledge these sympathetic western brothers, but there are other Muslims as well who consider all westerners to be enemies of Islam. This bad habit of generalization is prevalent on both the sides.

What is needed to be understood is that it is perceived to be a war against Islam, because there is a similarity to all the targets of the west which inevitably leads to the belief that there is a pattern - a pattern of extermination of Muslims. This particular ideology may not be applicable to every westerner, but it is to every westerner leader, but again there are exceptions to leaders as well. You are surprised at Muslims believing the west to be at war with them, but you don't seem to have any such reservations about the westerners living with the belief of Muslims trying to take over the world and kill every Jew, every Christian, every non-Muslim they can get their hands on.

I don't believe that every American, or every Britisher or every Jew is against Muslims, but there are people in those groups that are working day and night to create a negative image of Islam, and justify the killing of its followers. So, you do the math, and relate why Muslims have beliefs such as the ones you claimed.

You also mentioned about Muslims being a scattered community. Bro, if my country is attacked; and if I'm living on, practically, the other side of the world, I'll still feel targeted. Its not about being a Muslim, its just a human emotion - comes when you have a sense of belonging.

 

[sister herb]

The so-called west needs usually enemy. Before islam it was the reds (communist) during the Cold War. Unfortunately the East too needs enemy - in this case muslims.

They are infidels - kuffaar - to be an enemy. It is easy to blame someone else - even when problems have cause by incoherence by islamic ummah.

It is always easier to blame others than look to the mirror and find out that reason to problems finds from our own actions.

 

[sister herb]

You are a great example in how to practice forgiveness, sister herb. Not many would be able to live up to such an example. I'm not sure I could!

You are right, peace IS the only way!

How we say... Allah gives hard life to those He loves the most and whose He knows can carry it.

Allah gave me life I didn´t expect at all and I thank Him about it.

Allah made me pacifist!

 

[Independent]

This bad habit of generalization is prevalent on both the sides

This is very important and we need to fight against it. The trouble is, once things go past a certain point, it doesn't matter what any individual thinks. We will all be forced to choose sides. For many people, this point has already been passed. i don't have any desire to fight anyone.

there is a similarity to all the targets of the west which inevitably leads to the belief that there is a pattern - a pattern of extermination of Muslims.

In the reply above from Abz, there are references to so many events in so many countries. This makes it very hard to reply without writing a book. Fundamentally I don't believe this view is correct - but I wholly understand that many Muslims do.

I remember I was in Turkey many years ago. I caught a bit of a tv programme that covered 3 world events of the time - Bosnia, East Timor and somewhere else I forget. My first thought was: how could they possibly see these unrelated incidents as connected? I knew then it spelt trouble. If this message has been put across in Muslim media for decades, then no wonder that's the way people think now. HOWEVER - it's not the way Muslims used to think when Islamic states held the military edge. There was no talk of conspiracies prior to recent decades.

Looking at the list from Abz - he is focusing on Islamic references only. You could just as easily construct a story of West versus Communism, or Britain versus France, Catholic versus Protestant etc, depending on which period you look at. Does the evidence really support the idea that Islam is the West's main target, rather than all these other conflicts?

if you take the US, the biggest wars in their history are (chronologically) the War of Independence, the Civil War, WW1 and WW2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Not one of these has anything to do with Islamic issues. Many of them are against other western countries. In what way can it be credible that the west has been acting in a single, unified way against Islamic targets, when by far the larger part of their wars have been against each other or other non Muslim targets?

Of if you go back in history, when Islamic states were militarily superior and the Ottomans were still expanding in Europe - at various times Venice and France allied with the Ottomans against other Western states. They did this even though there was very serious danger than the west would be entirely over-run by the Ottomans. It just does not make sense to see this a consistently pressed war against Islam.

The west's main wars have been against other western powers. (And for that matter, not a few Muslim wars have been against other Muslim powers). Although at times people call upon ideologies, I see no consistent pattern. And given the western electoral system, whereby who gets into power is difficult to predict, it's impossible to see how any form of secret agenda could be continued across so many governments in so many generations.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

A shallow and naive analysis. Western powers have always been strongly opposed the 'third world' taking an independent course of development that doesn't benefit their interests. So they'll be against any ideology that doesn't benefit them whether that be communism, socialism or other forms of government (eg Islamic).

And contrary to what you say, policy made by powerful western states (like the USA) have been remarkably consistent over the decades when it comes to international affairs.

To save you the trouble Independent, the operative principle is

'How will this benefit me'

 

[Independent]

'How will this benefit me'

How is this is different from any state, at any time in history - Islamic states just the same? When did a state or empire ever have altruism as its number one principle?

 

[Ali_008]

^^^ I agree with you, but during most of those wars, there wasn't an obsession of oil, was there? The aim may not be the extermination of Muslims, but it definitely is oil. Muslims are just a roadblock to it, because it is their monopoly. The west wants oil - total control over it, and that will only happen when they make those areas their territory.

How do they do that? Kill the citizens.

How do you justify that? Make it appear that killing them cleansed the world of social poisons.

How do you do that? Find a similarity, and make it stink.

In the process, if others are found to be sharing that similarity then turn a deaf ear to their cries, and as long as people sharing this particular similarity are being killed, blame it on that stinking common factor - in this case, it is Islam. In the chase of oil, the leaders of the west made Islam their enemy.

 

[sister herb]

Of course the west wants oil and other natural recources what ever it is - even the ivory. Arab/Islamic countries should now to learn to process their natural recources and sell them to the west.

 

[Independent]

The aim may not be the extermination of Muslims, but it definitely is oil. Muslims are just a roadblock to it, because it is their monopoly. The west wants oil - total control over it, and that will only happen when they make those areas their territory

There is no doubt that oil has given the region an importance it would not otherwise have had. However, it's not as important as you suggest for several reasons:

1. 'Monopoly on oil' is an exaggeration
2. Not all the wars are connected with oil
3. The strategic importance of ME oil is in decline - especially since the major development of shale oil which may make the US self sufficient in oil in the next decade.

In terms of access to oil, the most important war was Gulf War 1 (the liberation of Kuwait) which was supported by most Muslim states. None of the other ME wars have resulted in increased access to oil, by the west or anybody else.

Above all, it needs to be understood that the west is the primary customer of ME oil. This should be a mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, if the west's primary motivation is oil (and there is some truth to this) then this is not an ideological war - it's a resource war. And it is not west v islam, but individual western states pursuing their own interests.

 

[Signor]

Of if you go back in history, when Islamic states were militarily superior and the Ottomans were still expanding in Europe - at various times Venice and France allied with the Ottomans against other Western states. They did this even though there was very serious danger than the west would be entirely over-run by the Ottomans. It just does not make sense to see this a consistently pressed war against Islam.

The west's main wars have been against other western powers. (And for that matter, not a few Muslim wars have been against other Muslim powers). Although at times people call upon ideologies, I see no consistent pattern. And given the western electoral system, whereby who gets into power is difficult to predict, it's impossible to see how any form of secret agenda could be continued across so many governments in so many generations.

Greeting to you Independent

I want to correct you a little bit,something not only for you but may be difficult for my fellow Muslims to understand.Concept of "Islamic State" only compromises of period from Rule of Muhammad(SAAWS) in Medinah to Last pious caliph and companion of Prophet(SAAWS) Ali(R.A),if you want to have a look at Real "Islamic State",Read each and everything about this period only from friends and foes of Islam,from Muslim to Non Muslim with non prejudiced attitudeThe rest of Muslim empires no matter how advanced or how mighty they had been are only Muslim states not Islamic States.

Thankyou

 

[Independent]

The rest of Muslim empires no matter how advanced or how mighty they had been are only Muslim states not Islamic States.

Thank you for the correction - it's very difficult not to make mistakes or tread on toes with these terms - but you're right, I should say Muslim states. However - if there really is an all-out, consistent ideological war between the west and Islam (which I am disagreeing with) there is no distinction.

Perhaps I am wrong - perhaps I'm not seeing something - but it should be possible to at least ask the question.

 

[Signor]

However - if there really is an all-out, consistent ideological war between the west and Islam (which I am disagreeing with) there is no distinction.

Ever heard of term "Clash of Civilizations",predicted by Arnold Joseph Toynbee,endorsed By Samuel P. Huntington and later By Dr Bilal Philips,All three have written there books on same topic with nearly similar title.Reading them will open some new doors.

 

[Independent]

Ever heard of term "Clash of Civilizations",predicted by Arnold Joseph Toynbee,endorsed By Samuel P. Huntington and later By Dr Bilal Philips,All three have written there books on same topic with nearly similar title.Reading them will open some new doors.

In terms of overviews i prefer authors such as Paul Kennedy (Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) and Nial Ferguson ('The War of the Worlds'), but all views are interesting.

Fundamentally, I find that an Islamocentric view of Western policy over the centuries simply leaves out too much history. In fact, almost all the important parts - until you get back to the Ottoman wars and earlier Muslim invasions (which obviously also don't support a western obsession theme.)

 

[Abz2000]

herb....


Of course the west wants oil and other natural recources what ever it is - even the ivory. Arab/Islamic countries should now to learn to process their natural recources and sell them to the west.

Then they can only accept dollars or something similar which the fascists print to their hearts content, any indication of "we're going to stop accepting dollars and trade for gold" is like a declaration of war.

It's quite clear they've seen the truth as a threat to their upside down orwellian world of control over the masses,
Just that we're lagging behind in understanding it, and while they're turning the see saw upside down on us, we're still trying to get near the middle of it to level it out, maybe out of fear of being seen as aggressors.
It's quite clear they don't care much about how many tog us they have to upset or kill to achieve their agenda, but to give them credit, they do try to keep the masses pacified and not over upset via careful calulations and propaganda in case what they perceive as their side of the see saw starts pulling the other way.

 

[sister herb]

Salam alaykum

Unfortunately also islamic world lives same Orwelian world, in same cycle. The leaders control masses. They too kill each others. I don´t see much differencies between the western world.

 

[Abz2000]

Only that the so called "Islamic world" is not being governed by Islam, and Muslims admit this,Whereas the western world bathes in its degenerate ideals and feels the need to export its "perfect" vesrsion to those trying to escape from it in the "Islamic world".أَلَم تَرَ إِلَى الَّذينَ أوتوا نَصيبًا مِنَ الكِتٰبِ يُؤمِنونَ بِالجِبتِ وَالطّٰغوتِ وَيَقولونَ لِلَّذينَ كَفَروا هٰؤُلاءِ أَهدىٰ مِنَ الَّذينَ ءامَنوا سَبيلًاHast thou not turned Thy vision to those who were given a portion of the Book? they believe in sorcery and Evil, and say to the Unbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way Than the believers!Quran 4:51-------فَتَرَى الَّذينَ فى قُلوبِهِم مَرَضٌ يُسٰرِعونَ فيهِم يَقولونَ نَخشىٰ أَن تُصيبَنا دائِرَةٌ ۚ فَعَسَى اللَّهُ أَن يَأتِىَ بِالفَتحِ أَو أَمرٍ مِن عِندِهِ فَيُصبِحوا عَلىٰ ما أَسَرّوا فى أَنفُسِهِم نٰدِمينَThose in whose hearts is a disease - thou seest how eagerly they run about amongst them, saying: \"We do fear lest a change of fortune bring us disaster.\" Ah! perhaps Allah will give (thee) victory, or a decision according to His will. Then will they repent of the thoughts which they secretly harboured in their hearts. Quran 5:52.......Only, some of us just try to pretend our way and the way of shayateen are the same.Saudi Arabia is not Islam or khilafah - get it?... I still recall some of the comments about brother anwar, so no love yet.......بَشِّرِ المُنٰفِقينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُم عَذابًا أَليمًاTo the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;-الَّذينَ يَتَّخِذونَ الكٰفِرينَ أَولِياءَ مِن دونِ المُؤمِنينَ ۚ أَيَبتَغونَ عِندَهُمُ العِزَّةَ فَإِنَّ العِزَّةَ لِلَّهِ جَميعًاYea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.Quran 4:138-139--------Not my fault that "edit post" discards all syntax and merges the whole post into one hotchpotch of Indistinguishable words, a bit like some of the members here.

 

[Ali_008]

There is no doubt that oil has given the region an importance it would not otherwise have had. However, it's not as important as you suggest for several reasons:

1. 'Monopoly on oil' is an exaggeration
2. Not all the wars are connected with oil
3. The strategic importance of ME oil is in decline - especially since the major development of shale oil which may make the US self sufficient in oil in the next decade.

In terms of access to oil, the most important war was Gulf War 1 (the liberation of Kuwait) which was supported by most Muslim states. None of the other ME wars have resulted in increased access to oil, by the west or anybody else.

Above all, it needs to be understood that the west is the primary customer of ME oil. This should be a mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, if the west's primary motivation is oil (and there is some truth to this) then this is not an ideological war - it's a resource war. And it is not west v islam, but individual western states pursuing their own interests.

The advancements in oil industry have been going on since Henry Ford invented the motor car. I think every country in the world has its own share of oil in its ground, but what makes the Middle-Eastern oil so special is the affinity that automobiles have for it. Believe me, there is oil literally under every inch of earth, but somehow its the Arab sands that most make it suitable for our requirements. The shale oil is just one of those advancements. Until and unless, you actually see it being sold on the regular market, you can be sure that we'll be relying on ME for the supply.

Secondly, as I mentioned before oil made Islam and westerners enemies. It started with oil, but they wanted full control, and they had to get the Muslims out of the way. They target Muslims, and if you say they don't then why is the western media so consistent in portraying Islam in the bad light? When there is some court case on the news, the reporter easily communicates both the sides plight, but when it comes to something involving some terrorist attack by Muslims, we just hear that those terrorists said "AllahuAkbar" and blew up. How about letting the viewer know that these terrorists are not working according to, but rather against the commandments of Islam? I am yet to see a reporter utter words such as "it was another crime by hooligans who claim to be working for Islam, and are defaming this religion of peace." As a matter of fact, anything that has anything positive about Islam is rather opposed and suppressed. You see movies and books like Thousand Splendid Suns, Dictator, Hurt Locker, and such that encourage hatred towards Muslims gain widespread popularity, but a movie like "Body of Lies" - which has Leonardo DiCaprio clearly saying that the Qur'an doesn't contain any verse that encourages killing of innocent civilians - is eclipsed with other ridiculous movies. Body of Lies is an awesome action thriller movie, gets a lot less attention than it deserves, and if you ask me, that's because it has pro-Muslim statements coming from the mouth of one of the most popular actors on earth.

West is the primary customer of oil. Customer being the keyword here. Don't you ever wish you never had to pay for the things you love? Food for thought