Winston Churchill and Islam | Hacker News Reader

Winston Churchill and Islam

telegraph.co.uk

25 pointsClintEhrlich31 comments

The Ottoman Islam was perhaps the most progressive sort of the time.

But then the post-ww1 dividing of the empire between the British and the French turned the place into the mess the world is still dealing with today.

Adam Curtis talk about this in part of this blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/2989a78a-ee94-...

This situation is still perpetuated to this day. All of US and Israeli foreign policy in the Middle-East basically revolves around containing the various states there to keep there from being a unified Middle-Eastern superstate.

Which creates instability & low-level wars, which they'd prefer to having a stronger state that would contain that sort of thing, but which might challenge them on the international scene.

A Middle-Eastern superstate?

Where did you guys come up with this?

I don't think that the Elite in many ME countries would cherish the idea of sharing their power with any of their peers in neighboring countries let alone people of different countries sharing space with other people from the region. If you're talking about Pan-Arabism or Pan-Islamism, both ideologies are moribund and can't be taken seriously in any meaninful discussion.

Additionally the book Lawrence in Arabia is a fascinating historical account of the events that led to this empire dividing.

http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Deceit-Imperial-Making...

Progressive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the Young Turk movement towards the end of the empire. The YTs were distinguished by a stark materialism and secularism, and actually sought to revert the theocratic nature of the empire prior. So, not really Ottoman Islam, per se.

The no true Turk fallacy

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres

There's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devşirme

The Millet System brokered by the Ottomans was definitely advanced compared to what Europe had during the Medieval Age under the influence of the Catholic Church esp. when it comes to religious tolerance but make no mistake it's still a backward system where Muslims are favored and other people are discriminated against.

Also, not a single country was under the occupation of the Ottomans had any advancement or progress in quality of life or any other aspect of social or public life because the Turks made sure that most of the generated wealth of Vilayets be transferred to Istanbul/Asitane/High Porte where the Sultan lives and only when people revolted against them and ended their rule, the countries managed to enjoy the fruits of their labor and national wealth like in the case of Egypt in 1800s.

Churchill is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, Hafez Asad or any other ruthless blood thirsty Arab despot and I find it bewildering why he's still admired by certain segments of the population in the west unless they share the same value system and morals (or the lack thereof) and then I find it more bewildering why they dislike militant or radical Islam vehemently since they have a lot in common with the adherents of those ideologies.

> Churchill is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein... I find it bewildering why he's still admired... unless they share the same value system and morals (or the lack thereof)

Just as a friendly pointer, I don't think you're going to change the mind of anyone who respects Churchill by saying that they're amoral & comparing him to Saddam Hussein. Regardless of where the truth may lie it doesn't seem like a winning approach.

I am not after changing anybody's political opinion much less Churchill's followers' because they seem like a lost cause to me but if my comment could be construed as a political speech, it would be more valuable if it was targeted at enlightened people sitting on the fence and not the hardcore ardent crowd.

Sorry, I'm being too indirect. You come across like a zealot. If you want to be heard by anyone who's not already on your side then you need to tone it down.

Churchill may have been a old school imperial asshole. But when the people didn't vote for him, he stepped down.

Hitler and Napoleon were both into Islam too.

> By October 1898, he had returned to Britain and begun his two-volume work, The River War, an account of the reconquest of the Sudan which was published the following year. In this work, Churchill warned against what he considered to be the dangers of the influence of Islam: "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

- "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

Funny that this is coming from a reactionary and status quo aficionado.

- "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Funny again that this is coming from a colonialist and imperialistic person. Apparently, it's bad for Islam to have expansionist and supremacist ambitions but it's OK for Britain. Hypocrisy much?

- "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled"

Funny that it was the other way around for Christianity and Islam in Europe's Dark Age and Islam's Golden Age [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

> "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled"

I think this means that Christianity is "tamed" by the doubts science has laid on it. And that science does not seem to reign Islam much.

Muslims embraced science before Christians ever thought about it and Al-Andalus rule in Iberia and the scientific development overseen by Muslims there is a great testament to my viewpoint. Furthermore, Islam had a reformation movement albeit unsuccessful hundreds of years [0] before Christendom is engulfed in reformation debates (wars).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila

Yes but as the Christian world was coming out of the dark ages the Islamic world went into one and has yet to emerge from it.

Your last 'funny' point is something of a tragedy for me.

Everything was worse after the Siege of Baghdad.

Are we sure we should be getting all our lessons from historical figures?

Churchill on Gandhi:

    Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of 
    fasting, We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if 
    he died.

Churchill on using poison gas on uncivilized tribes:

    I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am 
    strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.

Churchill on white race being superior:

    I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the 
    Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not 
    admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a 
    stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it 
    that way, has come in and taken their place.

Don't confuse a Wikipedia excerpt with an endorsement of the views...

You missed this one:

> By August 1943 Churchill refused to release shipping to send food to India. Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Nazi-occupied Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis, noting that the "starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

The way you said it sounded like an endorsement (if you'd said that on Reddit, the way you said it would certainly be taken as an endorsement!). But, my mistake, sorry, carry on.

Churchill did not like a lot of non-Western nations. He had his mind made up at a young age. He was also against Indians and Hindu thought.

Europe does not fall because there has not been an Islam v. Europe war for centuries. It's been a slow integration of North African & Arab cultures with a continued focus on European social values, science and leadership.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com