And once you figure out the (right) answer to that question, please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'.
The real lesson here is what better way to mobilise a generation of a nation into militancy than occupy their country, sell off their assets, kill 5% of the population and then insult their religion.
The real lesson is that christianity endured 300 years of this aggression, before Pope Urban made christianity do an about turn, and began the (very minimal) Crusades against islam. They were a failure, and islamic violence against European christendom continued until the Siege of Vienna (when Jan Sobieski defeated the muslim army on September 11, 1683).
Watch just 1 minute of this video to see what happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
The muslim attack against Europe continued beyond this. The white slave trade continued for hundreds of years (it was stopped by a joint British/US naval bombardment of Algeria in 1815). In 1951 the UN report on slavery calculated that 5% of the population of Saudi Arabia and Yemen were still slaves.
Buddhism did not respond in the same way as christianity to islamic aggression. Many experts on the history of buddhism say that buddhism died about 1000 years ago (e.g. Conze). And they explicitly attribute this death of buddhism to the onslaught of the islamic invasion & destruction in India.
The real lesson is that some religions are actually militant political movements wrapped up in religion. Islam is one such religion. Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind.
This is just plain bullshit! The introduction of islam to much of the world was through trade, just the same as the christians. And if you take slavery, trade and military occupations to be evidence that "The real lesson is that some religions are actually militant political movements wrapped up in religion." then I am afraid you will have to say the same of christianity.
Once again, the point is that extremists / militants use religion (or any other reason) to justify occupation, oppression and murder. To fight militant-ism you have to do just two things. 1.resist. 2.not become one.
ps: were you serious about that video you linked? seems like dumb paranoid aryan propaganda to me..
However that should not be interpreted as praise of Islam. In fact, I think that comparison is extraordinary damming.
Large group takes over world, then spreads religion. vs Large group spreads religion, and takes over world.
Yeah, REAL moral high ground there.
As for the pagan citizens of the Empire who didn't convert after that, the Parabalani made short work of them...
Would you care to provide evidence for that assertion about trade rather than jihad? There is evidence that for areas like Indonesia & Malaysia, trade was the route. For almost everywhere else, it was by war. Next you'll be telling me that the hundreds of years in which islam used violence to dominate Spain was a Golden Age of tolerance and multi-culturalism.
Ibn Ishaq's book "The Life of Mohammed" was known by muslims for hundreds of years as "The Book of Battles". Muslims must emulate Mohammed. In the 13 years he was in Mecca, he attained 150 followers. In Medina he embraced war, assassination, slave-taking and robbery. By the time he died, all of Arabia was muslim.
Essentially, Islam was spread by the sword.
Attacking that video as "dumb paranoid aryan propaganda" is an ad hominem fallacy. Deal with the facts.
So would you please care to provide evidence to this assertion? How someone with a mere 150 followers could control a whole nation ?
s/is islamic became muslim/was colonial became christian/
"Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind."
Try a search for the word "crusade" on wikipedia. You might find it enlightening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
== Middle Eastern situation ==
In 636 CE, Muslim forces led by the Arab Rashidun Caliphs defeated the Eastern Roman/Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk, conquering Palestine...
== Western European situation ==
The western European idea of the Crusades came in response to the deterioration of the Byzantine Empire caused by a new wave of Turkish Muslim attacks...
I'll take moslem Spain over Torquemada any day.
It is complete stupidity to assert Islamic violence over European Christendom, when Europe became Christian because of the violence of the Roman Empire.
So what if Europe had been conquered by Genghis Khan and subsequently turned moslem? The Albigensians were exterminated by Catholics. Do you find that somehow better than if they had been exterminated by Sunnis? Do you think the Albigensians enjoyed being slaughtered by Catholics more?
At their basis, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are exactly the same horrid Old Testament garbage. If anything, Islam is less offensive because some of the worst bits of the Old Testament have been cut out, the same way Java is less offensive than C++.
No need to rewrite anything, it's both their hostility and philosophical differences that scare us. Overcoming that fear and reaffirming our values is the basis for one of the most important texts in the European culture — The Song of Roland.
EDIT: I do know what you mean and I'm sorry but those are just feel-good platitudes. West quite obviously is not afraid of militant Christians or atheists. Mostly because there aren't really any left, and those who still hang around don't regularly erupt in violence, but also because they're much more like us and it's easier for us to understand their particular extremism.
I think you also misunderstand. Militants are a small subset of society which also includes some muslims, some christians, hindus, atheists etc. Point is, vast majority of muslims are peaceful, just the same as christians or atheists.
The west is RUN by militant christians (and militant jews and militant atheists etc). They use armies to inflict their particular brand of extremism. They killed about a million iraquis. They murder people in cold blood by dropping missiles from drones from 50,000 ft up. Pretty fucking extreme if you ask me.
Point I was trying to make is the militancy is an end in itself and the belief structures are simply bent to serve it.. in refutation of the idea that militancy in the muslim world is peculiarly religious.
They find religious justifications for operational killings in order not to abandon their religion, not because their religion demands it. US forces just abandon religion when it suits them and call themselves a secular nation. The British made themselves a whole new religion answerable to the head of state. These are all just ways of twisting religion to serve power.
The "Muslim militants" under discussion launch attacks for specifically Muslim motives, with carefully constructed justifications cross-referenced to precise verses from the Koran and Hadiths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/342577631....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-green-phd/anders-behring-...
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/...
The Wikipedia entry for "Song of Roland" ends with the actions of Roland's avengers:
"The traitor is torn limb from limb by galloping horses and thirty of his relatives are hung for good measure."
What differences in philosophy and hostility were you referring to again?