What do you think are the reasons for clashes between some Muslim countries and the Western world?

[MenInG]

Seems that every other day there is some sort of little battle going on so lets see what you think is the primary reason for that.

 

[Ronaldo7]

The west think they can just invade whatever country they want.

America went overboard when they invaded Iraq and killed many thousands of innocent civilians.

 

[MenInG]

The west think they can just invade whatever country they want.

America went overboard when they invaded Iraq and killed many thousands of innocent civilians.

Vote on poll

 

[Pakpak]

Oil and resources. If the Middle East had Buddhist countries instead of Muslims ones the West would be labelling them terrorists and invading them instead.

 

[Kroll]

It's all to do with power and money (read oil when it comes to the Middle East). Apart from the far right, the West couldn't care less about religion and culture.

 

[last_knight]

Ghosts of Past.
Every next generation lives the dreams of preceding generation. Every generation interprets the dreams of preceding generation according to their perception and wih every generation this assumption progressively deviates them from the original dream.

Nothing we can do about it.

Bigger problem awaits us : Human vs AI.

 

[Tubs]

If you mean culturally, then there is an obvious disparity between enlightenment values and Abrahamic religious values. As much as US Conservatives like to act like America is built upon Judeo-Christian values, they would seem as alien as Islamic values are to them (unless they do mental backflips, as most do). The West is built upon enlightenment values, which are superior to Abrahamic ones as they aren't immutable, nor were they from a time of ignorance.

 

[sweep_shot]

USA generally tries to shove democracy down the throats of other nations. It causes issues.

If USA stops interfering in other nations, conflicts can die down a lot.

 

[AdamM97]

USA generally tries to shove democracy down the throats of other nations. It causes issues.

If USA stops interfering in other nations, conflicts can die down a lot.

They don’t. The US supports 73% of all dictatorships around the world.

Democracy is just an excuse, just like Social-Darwinism and ”The White Man’s Burden” were excuses used by the British to justify their imperialism.

 

[AdamM97]

Clashes occur because of conflict of interests.

If the Western world and the Islamic world had similar geo-political interests, they would’ve gotten along perfectly well.

 

[Bigboii]

Personally I don't even think that US has a massive problem with Muslim countries they are just easy targets after 9/11 but the real problem is political corruption in US lots of politician's get kickbacks for supporting the wars. Just a couple of weeks ago there was this corruption scandal that came out where some military equipment costed $30 but the contracters were selling it for $1000 and this went on for years before some documents were leaked and action was taken. This is just a small example of corruption and there is a lot of money bieng made from these wars and these clashes lead to wars it all boils down to money and corruption there isn't any noble idea to actually implement damocracy.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Financiallly motivated isn't an option on the poll, but consideriong most clashes are economically motivated perhaps it should have been.

 

[Minnowbasher]

Cos the western world cant mind their own business.

 

[big_gamer007]

All of the above including business interests which rich corporations and people have.

 

[MenInG]

Financiallly motivated isn't an option on the poll, but consideriong most clashes are economically motivated perhaps it should have been.

Added

 

[ElRaja]

financial motivations are a given, but fundamentally the middle east leaves itself open to foreign intervention because it has a very weak political franchise.

to the layman one dictator over another usually come down to sectarian differences, this is why it was so easy to create empires in historic times.

indonesia, india, pakistan, bangladesh nigeria between them pbly account for half or more of the worlds muslim population but these countries have been generally treated neutrally by the west, if not as allies.

 

[MenInG]

Religion/culture are major factors in this - also inability to understand Muslim cultures is an issue as well.

 

[JaDed]

Cos the western world cant mind their own business.

Which empire has ever minded its own business?

 

[Gilly]

Clashes occur because of conflict of interests.

If the Western world and the Islamic world had similar geo-political interests, they would’ve gotten along perfectly well.

Islam does not have the ability to compromise.

 

[minamino]

Iran vs USA is definitely religious driven conflict. Shah was a progressive and modern Muslim which did not bode down well with ultra conservatives who now lead the country.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Islam does not have the ability to compromise.

Islam is an belief, ideology , a way of life. Its not a person who can change it's principles to please the secular ideology and it should not do so.

Please do explain what you mean?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Iran vs USA is definitely religious driven conflict. Shah was a progressive and modern Muslim which did not bode down well with ultra conservatives who now lead the country.

Shah was installed by the Yanks after removing a democratically led government.

Its not the business of others to tell other people who to live or do you believe in forcing a belief on someone?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Its nothing new, you can back to the Crusades.

Today is slightly different. Jewish and Christians extremists are the reason, they hold offices and power over the west.

Islam will prevail as God has promised in the Quran.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Seems that every other day there is some sort of little battle going on so lets see what you think is the primary reason for that.

In my personal opinion, there are a few combined factors that promote to what we witness.

Number 1. and perhaps the most important one. Muslim countries (on a majority) are weak.
And they are weak because of rampant corruption in the nations and puppet leaders on the helms.

Number 2. We live in a world of "Might is right". Which means, when the powerful interacts with the weaker, the the notion is, "What is mine is mine, what is your's is also mine".

In the light of one and two, when a conflict of interest arises between a powerful west and China or a powerful west with Russia, or a powerful west with Japan.... why is the powerful west unable to invade Russia, or China or Japan just as it invaded Iraq? Because these countries are not weak.
You try to raise your leg to kick them and they will slap in your face.

In this brutal world of international politics, where dog eats dog, there is no mercy for the weak if he has something that the powerful wants.

If the weak wants to protect it's interest and it's resources, it must get strong. And the first step to become strong is to remove corruption in the nation.

Number 3. Religious animosity.
Every since Islam arrived, it has it's enemies from day one. And that vendetta and that animosity (whether open or subtle) has not only survived but has grown over the centuries. And some of that animosity and hatred is persistent in some elements of the powerful west.

So when the powerful west sees a country or a nation, that is
a. Weak
b. It has some sort of resource that the west wants
c .and it happens to be a Muslim country

Then all three factors become impossible to ignore in new world where war has become the most profitable industry.

 

[Ronaldo7]

To add further, the west can’t mind their own business.

They talk about freedom and stuff but some countries have banned the HIJAB not even the burqa, the hijab. where’s the freedom now?

The west are such hypocrites

 

[KingKhanWC]

To add further, the west can’t mind their own business.

They talk about freedom and stuff but some countries have banned the HIJAB not even the burqa, the hijab. where’s the freedom now?

The west are such hypocrites

Most people in the west are good, honest and hard working people. Most are very tolerant and against foreign state terrorism.

The leaders or those who have the power, are simply Evil. Hypocrites is being nice.

 

[KingKhanWC]

financial motivations are a given, but fundamentally the middle east leaves itself open to foreign intervention because it has a very weak political franchise.

to the layman one dictator over another usually come down to sectarian differences, this is why it was so easy to create empires in historic times.

indonesia, india, pakistan, bangladesh nigeria between them pbly account for half or more of the worlds muslim population but these countries have been generally treated neutrally by the west, if not as allies.

This is a minor issue compared to being weak in military terms. Russia and China are also politically all over the place, strict regimes but they nukes and big armies so Yanks will not go to war with them.

 

[Bigboii]

To add further, the west can’t mind their own business.

They talk about freedom and stuff but some countries have banned the HIJAB not even the burqa, the hijab. where’s the freedom now?

The west are such hypocrites

Banning hijab is the most undemocratic thing a country can ever do how can you ban someone from bieng observent of thier religion this thing can only happen legally in Soviet Union not in a western democracy and this thing will hurt thier democracy more than it'll hurt Muslims because it sets a bad precedent.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Banning hijab is the most undemocratic thing a country can ever do how can you ban someone from bieng observent of thier religion this thing can only happen legally in Soviet Union not in a western democracy and this thing will hurt thier democracy more than it'll hurt Muslims because it sets a bad precedent.

Its not only undemocratic but a sign of the backwardness.

France is the most backward nation in Europe, it's a terrible country with strange ideas.

France allows men and women to walk around totally naked but will not allow a woman to cover her head.

Hopefully such western countries will give up their medieval ideas and become civilised.

 

[minamino]

Its not only undemocratic but a sign of the backwardness.

France is the most backward nation in Europe, it's a terrible country with strange ideas.

France allows men and women to walk around totally naked but will not allow a woman to cover her head.

Hopefully such western countries will give up their medieval ideas and become civilised.

I don't know where you get this information? My friend went to Paris and wore hijab? Just because its banned in some places doesn't mean its in the whole country, unlike Iran where a girl couldn't even go to watch a match very recently and women have to cover their head in public.

 

[Bigboii]

I don't know where you get this information? My friend went to Paris and wore hijab? Just because its banned in some places doesn't mean its in the whole country, unlike Iran where a girl couldn't even go to watch a match very recently and women have to cover their head in public.

It actually looks bad for France than it does for Iran they are a theocratic nation not a pure democracy but France is a democracy they have more responsibility, they are the good guys you expect better from tham but I think they have a very socialist outlook where religion is bad no matter what

 

[Bigboii]

It's also about the choice whatever someone is comfortable in they can wear both Iran and France are wrong and extreme. Stop dictating women thats it.

 

[Saeed]

Usually its the so called Muslim governments killing other defenseless Muslims so that would hardly count as clashes between Western world and Muslim countries. I mean just during the past few months far more people died in protests in Iraq and Iran, killed in Syria by Syrian regime. But death of Soleimani(a leader of violent homicidal organization) is far bigger news than any one killed by his gang.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I don't know where you get this information? My friend went to Paris and wore hijab? Just because its banned in some places doesn't mean its in the whole country, unlike Iran where a girl couldn't even go to watch a match very recently and women have to cover their head in public.

lol. where did I mention Paris or any location.

On a beach a woman was arrested for covering her head in France , while on beaches other women & men are free to wear NO clothing. Does this make any sense to you?

 

[PakLFC]

Controlling Muslim lands for their wealth.

 

[MenInG]

Controlling Muslim lands for their wealth.

Well Muslims ceding lands for gaining wealth is also an issue.

 

[ElRaja]

This is a minor issue compared to being weak in military terms. Russia and China are also politically all over the place, strict regimes but they nukes and big armies so Yanks will not go to war with them.

your comparing states with borders drawn out by dying empires around 70 to 80 years ago to countries that have existed in some form or the other for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

china and russia exert their influence due to the borders they formed in a period where there was no idea of a political franchise, (and both went through some form of peoples revolution) having said that china's system of administration in its formative history was far more inclusive and meritocratic than most western empires.

maybe if these countries had naturally gained independence from the ottoman empire they would have formed some form of pan arab union which regardless of its political system would be able to push its weight around.

as it is, these countries have weak states, weak administrations, and sectarian and political groups who leverage the lack of a political system to try to take advantage of foreign invasions. in every single foreign intervention in arab countries there have been supportive indigenous elements. there's a reason why the us loves military dictators and overthrows democracies.

 

[KingKhanWC]

your comparing states with borders drawn out by dying empires around 70 to 80 years ago to countries that have existed in some form or the other for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

china and russia exert their influence due to the borders they formed in a period where there was no idea of a political franchise, (and both went through some form of peoples revolution) having said that china's system of administration in its formative history was far more inclusive and meritocratic than most western empires.

maybe if these countries had naturally gained independence from the ottoman empire they would have formed some form of pan arab union which regardless of its political system would be able to push its weight around.

as it is, these countries have weak states, weak administrations, and sectarian and political groups who leverage the lack of a political system to try to take advantage of foreign invasions. in every single foreign intervention in arab countries there have been supportive indigenous elements. there's a reason why the us loves military dictators and overthrows democracies.

This goes back to the end of WW1. Western world has been invading abusing and installing puppets since.

The way to counter this is with muscle. If Pakistan didn't have nukes, it would have been like Syria, Libya and Iraq by now or possibly even before Iraq of 2003. General Zia is dissed by a lot of Pakistanis and some is valid but if it wasn't for this man, Pakistan would be in ruins today.

Iran and Turkey should defo obtain nuclear power weapons, they have the resources to do so.

 

[Bigboii]

This goes back to the end of WW1. Western world has been invading abusing and installing puppets since.

The way to counter this is with muscle. If Pakistan didn't have nukes, it would have been like Syria, Libya and Iraq by now or possibly even before Iraq of 2003. General Zia is dissed by a lot of Pakistanis and some is valid but if it wasn't for this man, Pakistan would be in ruins today.

Iran and Turkey should defo obtain nuclear power weapons, they have the resources to do so.

Bhutto started the program and Sharif launched the nucluer bomb don't know why we should appreciate Zia

 

[humzy]

two reasons.

1. Resources

2. enlightenment period in the West and societal deterioration in the Middle East.

 

[ElRaja]

This goes back to the end of WW1. Western world has been invading abusing and installing puppets since.

The way to counter this is with muscle. If Pakistan didn't have nukes, it would have been like Syria, Libya and Iraq by now or possibly even before Iraq of 2003. General Zia is dissed by a lot of Pakistanis and some is valid but if it wasn't for this man, Pakistan would be in ruins today.

Iran and Turkey should defo obtain nuclear power weapons, they have the resources to do so.

zia and bhutto both contributed to the nuclear program, and i agree it has had its positives (i.e. the internationalisation of conflicts with india pretty much eliminating the likelihood of all out war), however both individuals are contemptible in the larger scheme of things imo.

turkey does have resources, iran less so, but the question is spending billions on weapons u cannot use worth it? maybe for iran that is more isolated, definitely not for turkey imo, no one in their right mind would attack turkey, for many reasons.

 

[Bilal7]

If you mean culturally, then there is an obvious disparity between enlightenment values and Abrahamic religious values. As much as US Conservatives like to act like America is built upon Judeo-Christian values, they would seem as alien as Islamic values are to them (unless they do mental backflips, as most do). The West is built upon enlightenment values, which are superior to Abrahamic ones as they aren't immutable, nor were they from a time of ignorance.

Yes, of course. Which is why enlightenment values have worked so well in the Muslim world...

 

[PakLFC]

Well Muslims ceding lands for gaining wealth is also an issue.

As I often say the powerful always do that. Today the west being powerful they are in a position to do as they please. This is what the likes of the Mughal's and Arab's did as well.

 

[Bilal7]

Its nothing new, you can back to the Crusades.

Today is slightly different. Jewish and Christians extremists are the reason, they hold offices and power over the west.

Islam will prevail as God has promised in the Quran.

Christianity and Judaism have already been neutered. They have vanished from the public sphere. The ongoing cultural war is between Islam and Secularism.

 

[ManFan]

The argument of religion in this is childlike thinking. It has NOTHING to do with religion.

It has EVERYTHING to do with geopolitics.

 

[JaDed]

Christianity and Judaism have already been neutered. They have vanished from the public sphere. The ongoing cultural war is between Islam and Secularism.

So which side are you on being in your Canadian home?

 

[AdamM97]

Christianity and Judaism have already been neutered. They have vanished from the public sphere. The ongoing cultural war is between Islam and Secularism.

Not necessarily. Evangelicals have a lot of influence in US politics.
Let’s not forget that George Bush called the ’War on Terror’ a continuation of the Crusades.

 

[AdamM97]

Islam does not have the ability to compromise.

Compromise on what?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Bhutto started the program and Sharif launched the nucluer bomb don't know why we should appreciate Zia

zia and bhutto both contributed to the nuclear program, and i agree it has had its positives (i.e. the internationalisation of conflicts with india pretty much eliminating the likelihood of all out war), however both individuals are contemptible in the larger scheme of things imo.

turkey does have resources, iran less so, but the question is spending billions on weapons u cannot use worth it? maybe for iran that is more isolated, definitely not for turkey imo, no one in their right mind would attack turkey, for many reasons.

Christianity and Judaism have already been neutered. They have vanished from the public sphere. The ongoing cultural war is between Islam and Secularism.

Zia played the Americans, listen to the interview by AQ Khan and others. Bhutto started it but the Americans were against Pakistan being nuclear and would have stopped it but the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Zia was very smart using this to further Pakistans nuclear program. If it wasn't for Zia, Pakistan would be under sanctions such as Iran are and also India would have attacked much more often, even perhaps attempting to take Azad Kashmir.

Jewish and Christian Zionism have the power, it's a new breed of 'religious people' not the orthodox you have seen in the past.

This is prob the main reason why Muslim countries are being targeted , the Jewish and Christian Zionist are trying to be speed up the end times.

Millions of Americans believe that Christ will not come again until Israel wipes out its competitors and there is widespread war in the Middle East. Some of these folks want to start a huge fire of war and death and destruction, so that Jesus comes quickly.

According to French President Chirac, Bush told him that the Iraq war was needed to bring on the apocalypse:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/milli...4SWrl3sBRQ3O7BmPWl3VO-Lj2C4gYJ9j_zyiQ_SRwO528

great read.

 

[troodon]

Western World wants to bring democracy to Muslim world.

Muslim World wants to bring Sharia to Western World.

Not to forget the age old Muslim-Christian conflict.

 

[miandadrules]

Western World wants to bring democracy to Muslim world?

Muslim World wants to bring Sharia to Western World.

Not to forget the age old Muslim-Christian conflict.

How have you come to the conclusion that the west wants to ring democracy. Western powers want a complaint Muslim World that can be exploited.

 

[miandadrules]

Islam on the other hand is an expansionist, imperialistic ideology which aims to subjugate mass populations.

Thus inevitable conflict.

Two sides of the same coin.

 

[Bigboii]

Zia played the Americans, listen to the interview by AQ Khan and others. Bhutto started it but the Americans were against Pakistan being nuclear and would have stopped it but the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Zia was very smart using this to further Pakistans nuclear program. If it wasn't for Zia, Pakistan would be under sanctions such as Iran are and also India would have attacked much more often, even perhaps attempting to take Azad Kashmir.

Jewish and Christian Zionism have the power, it's a new breed of 'religious people' not the orthodox you have seen in the past.

This is prob the main reason why Muslim countries are being targeted , the Jewish and Christian Zionist are trying to be speed up the end times.



https://www.globalresearch.ca/milli...4SWrl3sBRQ3O7BmPWl3VO-Lj2C4gYJ9j_zyiQ_SRwO528

great read.

Pak is kinda lucky same happened in 9/11 where Pakistan was needed that's why there was no sanctions like Iran it's not because Zia was smart just that luck was on his side

US would rather support a brutal dictater like Zia than Iran which is an ideological nation (you can disagree with the ideolagy) thay want to install puppet leaders to control the Muslim world and to larger extent the world too

 

[troodon]

How have you come to the conclusion that the west wants to ring democracy. Western powers want a complaint Muslim World that can be exploited.

You can say they want puppet governments. It is your view. In the process, they want to instill a democracy which will benefit people in the long term.

They tried it in Afghanistan, Iraq. Of course it failed in Afghanistan.

 

[ManFan]

Islam on the other hand is an expansionist, imperialistic ideology which aims to subjugate mass populations.

Thus inevitable conflict.

Two sides of the same coin.

Which nation-state in history has not done so given the necessary resources to do so?

If religion was the cause of expansion and imperialism, then why were the great empires of the Europeans cast for thousands of years?

To spread Catholicism may be an official reason but the truth lies in the pursuit of money and power.

 

[ManFan]

You can say they want puppet governments. It is your view. In the process, they want to instill a democracy which will benefit people in the long term.

They tried it in Afghanistan, Iraq. Of course it failed in Afghanistan.

My God, are you asleep.

Democracy?

So why did they topple Mosaddegh in 53’? (Answer: BP)

 

[miandadrules]

You can say they want puppet governments. It is your view. In the process, they want to instill a democracy which will benefit people in the long term.

They tried it in Afghanistan, Iraq. Of course it failed in Afghanistan.

You seem to be going off the assumption that they are acting altruistically. What are you basing this on?

They didn’t try in Afghanistan or Iraq. It was merely a pretext for invasion.

You don’t bomb democracy in to people.

 

[Local.Dada]

I don’t get why some Pakistanis view everything with a lens of Islam and Non-Islam or us vs them.

Most if not all countries look out for themselves first.

When the US attacked Afghanistan an Islamic country, wasn’t Pakistan an Islamic country an ally of the US?

Whenever India and Pak have had a conflict, do most Islamic nations get involved and see this as a Muslim conflict?

I don’t know why OP is thinking this in a “us vs them” type scenario.

The biggest conflict in the world of the 80s was Russia vs USA Cold War. it did not have anything to do with Islam.

Neither are the conflicts in Israel or Kashmir. They are territorial disputes not religious ones.

People who want to encourage innocent and vulnerable people to take up arms for a cause they believe in usually use religion as a crutch to make these territorial disputes into one .

In recent times it has been the war on terror where the so called western countries have fought against Islamic extremism with the help of other Islamic countries support.

So not sure where OP is getting this theory from.

 

[miandadrules]

Which nation-state in history has not done so given the necessary resources to do so?

If religion was the cause of expansion and imperialism, then why were the great empires of the Europeans cast for thousands of years?

To spread Catholicism may be an official reason but the truth lies in the pursuit of money and power.

My point was specific to Islam. Not sure why your bringing up other religions.

Also, are indulging in apologetics when you say which power hasn’t given the sources? So, you’re basically agreeing with my point?

Maybe I missed your point. Please state them clearly and I’m more than happy to address them.

 

[ManFan]

My point was specific to Islam. Not sure why your bringing up other religions.

Also, are indulging in apologetics when you say which power hasn’t given the sources? So, you’re basically agreeing with my point?

Maybe I missed your point. Please state them clearly and I’m more than happy to address them.

I’m saying that Islam and other religions might have been the cause for expansion when their founders were more recent in the memories of their followers.

But over time, the mirage of religion is extinguished because the human desires for wealth and control take over.

I’m not being an apologetic but stating that religion is a tool used for political and social purposes. To blame the religion is looking at the smaller picture.

 

[troodon]

You seem to be going off the assumption that they are acting altruistically. What are you basing this on?

They didn’t try in Afghanistan or Iraq. It was merely a pretext for invasion.

You don’t bomb democracy in to people.

Bombing was done on Afghanistan Taliban. Unfortunately many innocents also died. Blood is on the hands of both West as well as Taliban. But mostly Taliban.

It will be beneficial for Afghans to become a secular democracy in the future. Taliban only brings anarchy and suffering for Afghans(especially women).

 

[miandadrules]

I’m saying that Islam and other religions might have been the cause for expansion when their founders were more recent in the memories of their followers.

But over time, the mirage of religion is extinguished because the human desires for wealth and control take over.

I’m not being an apologetic but stating that religion is a tool used for political and social purposes. To blame the religion is looking at the smaller picture.

If the religion is used as a tool, it is without doubt liable for criticism. Especially when there explicit textual directions to expand and colonise.

Why are you distinguishing the lust for wealth and control from Islam? What do you think was it’s driving force?

 

[miandadrules]

Bombing was done on Afghanistan Taliban. Unfortunately many innocents also died. Blood is on the hands of both West as well as Taliban. But mostly Taliban.

It will be beneficial for Afghans to become a secular democracy in the future. Taliban only brings anarchy and suffering for Afghans(especially women).

You still haven’t provided any substance to the claim that Western Powers acted altruistically. The excuse you have used can easily be switched to any side of a conflict.

It’s a tautology that western powers by their very nature act altruistically and any negative consequences were due to bumbling efforts to do good.

 

[Local.Dada]

Bombing was done on Afghanistan Taliban. Unfortunately many innocents also died. Blood is on the hands of both West as well as Taliban. But mostly Taliban.

It will be beneficial for Afghans to become a secular democracy in the future. Taliban only brings anarchy and suffering for Afghans(especially women).

Surprisingly with the help and resources from Pakistan so don’t think it will qualify as a West vs Islam conflict.

Afghanistan can never become secular. I mean just because you have one extreme of the Taliban doesn’t mean the other population is this extremely secular peace loving “pran from Zanjeer” types.

It’s not like there isn’t any religious persecution in Afghanistan outside of the Taliban.

What countries like Pak and Afghanistan need is to become self- sufficient and prosperous and look out for their economic benefit first like Arab countries. All these Arab counties are not secular but while they don’t give minorities including non Arab Muslims all the rights, you can earn a good living as long as you don’t step on the wrong side. Win win for all. They get to keep their Islamic identity and if you do your work you can make a lot o money.

 

[ManFan]

If the religion is used as a tool, it is without doubt liable for criticism. Especially when there explicit textual directions to expand and colonise.

Why are you distinguishing the lust for wealth and control from Islam? What do you think was it’s driving force?

Like I said, it could be blamed in its embryonic stages but not in the present day. Although the motive for wealth and power was still there, the religious influence was more pure in the sense that it was the dominant factor. Because Islam and its followers were not the stronger in the beginning and took on much greater powers later on.

The same religious motives cease to exist. In fact they eroded by 732 A.D, when the conquest of modern-day France and Germany was lost due to a fear of losing war booty at the battle of Tours.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Islam on the other hand is an expansionist, imperialistic ideology which aims to subjugate mass populations.

Thus inevitable conflict.

Two sides of the same coin.

What would you suggest as an alternative to these two sides of the same coin?

 

[Local.Dada]

What would you suggest as an alternative to these two sides of the same coin?

Countries having conflicts and territorial disputes are inevitable. So for starters counties looking at their economic benefit rather than some religious ideology would be a sweet start.

The thread title itself says West vs Islam while west being what a concept,region, identity?

 

[ManFan]

Countries having conflicts and territorial disputes are inevitable. So for starters counties looking at their economic benefit rather than some religious ideology would be a sweet start.

The thread title itself says West vs Islam while west being what a concept,region, identity?

Do you not think countries are already looking at their economic benefit and not religion?

Why else would Pakistan, the self-proclaimed “Islamic Republic”, overlook the treatment of Chinese Muslims (Uyghur) in China, where the government bans Muslim names and associated vocabulary?

 

[Local.Dada]

Do you not think countries are already looking at their economic benefit and not religion?

Why else would Pakistan, the self-proclaimed “Islamic Republic”, overlook the treatment of Chinese Muslims (Uyghur) in China, where the government bans Muslim names and associated vocabulary?

You will hear a 100 different reasons about pakistan overlooking the treatment of uyghur Muslims on this very forum.

Ironically the Kashmir dispute is not a religious one its a territorial one but few view it as a Hindu-Muslim conflict while an actual act of oppression based on religion is overlooked.

 

[ManFan]

You will hear a 100 different reasons about pakistan overlooking the treatment of uyghur Muslims on this very forum.

Ironically the Kashmir dispute is not a religious one its a territorial one but few view it as a Hindu-Muslim conflict while an actual act of oppression based on religion is overlooked.

Yes; so the point remains that religion is a backdrop for political concerns.

 

[Local.Dada]

Yes; so the point remains that religion is a backdrop for political concerns.

Only in Pakistan though. For example Arab countries have conflicts among themselves for the oil market and other rivalries.

US has great relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

India has great relationship with Middle
East and Israel. In fact till recently we were very close with Iran as well.

Most European counties and Canada are not involved in any conflict.

China’s oppression of their Muslims population while wrong is still an internal issue . China does trade with anyone and everyone in the world.

So not sure where there is a clash of religious ideologies.

Isis is condemned by most Islamic countries if not all, even though the root cause of their origin is their interpretation of religion, it’s not like anyone I know looks at it as a war on Islam.

As I said only few countries out there are viewing it in this lens which is hindering their own progress.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Countries having conflicts and territorial disputes are inevitable. So for starters counties looking at their economic benefit rather than some religious ideology would be a sweet start.

The thread title itself says West vs Islam while west being what a concept,region, identity?

I wasn't asking for your opinion.

 

[ManFan]

Only in Pakistan though. For example Arab countries have conflicts among themselves for the oil market and other rivalries.

US has great relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

India has great relationship with Middle
East and Israel. In fact till recently we were very close with Iran as well.

Most European counties and Canada are not involved in any conflict.

China’s oppression of their Muslims population while wrong is still an internal issue . China does trade with anyone and everyone in the world.

So not sure where there is a clash of religious ideologies.

Isis is condemned by most Islamic countries if not all, even though the root cause of their origin is their interpretation of religion, it’s not like anyone I know looks at it as a war on Islam.

As I said only few countries out there are viewing it in this lens which is hindering their own progress.

My choice of words was wrong.

I meant that religious concerns carry no importance in international affairs.

So we agree on that.

 

[Tubs]

Yes, of course. Which is why enlightenment values have worked so well in the Muslim world...

Sorry, what do you mean by that? I don't even think anyone has attempted to implement those values in the Muslim world. They would quickly be dismissed as kufr and the proponents of those ideals will be in big trouble.

 

[Bigboii]

Islam on the other hand is an expansionist, imperialistic ideology which aims to subjugate mass populations.

Thus inevitable conflict.

Two sides of the same coin.

I don't know why threads about Muslims or Islam suddenly become ways to bash Islam

It's kinda annoying because I know lots of pakpassion users are really smart people but they look at Muslims or Islam as black or white

The point of a religion is to expand and bring in as many in thier camp as possible it's not "expansionist" or "imperialistic" That's the whole point of a religion = expand the message (if religions don't do that they die off) no major religion in the world had survived without the use of violence you don't call it expansionist you call it the evolution of a religion

Frankly to describe the reason of conflict between Muslims and west as "hey Muslims are crazy savages who like to fight and force thier ideology on to others" is a very lazy explaination of this situation
Christians went to africa and America's to expand Christianity where violence was used
Bhuddists in myanmar are killing muslims and taking back "thier land"
Hindus are persecuting muslims and trying to take back thier temples
Are all these religions "expansionist" and "imperialistic" ?
Hell yeah they are and that's the point of a religion to expand thier ideology cause at the end of the day as humans we like expand and be imperialistic

I am not justifying the use of violence but rather I am trying to say that as humans we have been doing imperialistic and expansionist stuff for centuries it's not the fault of religion, rather it's the way we are build so you can't oversimplify this situation as Islam wants to expand that's why all of these conflicts are happening

 

[Bigboii]

Every religion likes to expand and be imperialistic so why is Islam bieng labeled out as the cause of the problem between Muslims and west? Why is west not having problem with another religion it shows that miandadrules is grossly oversimplifying this situation

 

[Bigboii]

Save me your apologetics.

Wait so you are painting Islam with a broad brush as too that it's a violent religion and than am saying religion is not violent, people are due to thier circumstances and it happens in every part of the world and in every religion.
Religion can be used but is not the reason for the vioalence to occur it is because of thier circumstances and am calling you out for oversimplifying the situation and in the process painting the ideolagy of billions of people as the "problem" in an open forum and than I became whatever you mean by "apologetics"

Class act buddy

 

[MenInG]

I don’t get why some Pakistanis view everything with a lens of Islam and Non-Islam or us vs them.

Most if not all countries look out for themselves first.

When the US attacked Afghanistan an Islamic country, wasn’t Pakistan an Islamic country an ally of the US?

Whenever India and Pak have had a conflict, do most Islamic nations get involved and see this as a Muslim conflict?

I don’t know why OP is thinking this in a “us vs them” type scenario.

The biggest conflict in the world of the 80s was Russia vs USA Cold War. it did not have anything to do with Islam.

Neither are the conflicts in Israel or Kashmir. They are territorial disputes not religious ones.

People who want to encourage innocent and vulnerable people to take up arms for a cause they believe in usually use religion as a crutch to make these territorial disputes into one .

In recent times it has been the war on terror where the so called western countries have fought against Islamic extremism with the help of other Islamic countries support.

So not sure where OP is getting this theory from.

I am not putting forwards any theory - simply asking why there is a clash.

You are free to put forward your "theory"



====

Also can we get this thread back on track - no need to discuss relative merits of religions etc