Muslims have only themselves to blame for their poverty, misery and violence

[system]

Why oh why.

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Insofar as not one colonized nation was in any way capable of threatening the territorial integrity of any of the Euro colonial powers, one can safely characterize them as objects of aggression.

For both Algeria and the Ottoman Empire, and probably many others, a very strong case can be made that they were the aggressor.

Oh good lord, what sort of idiocy is this?
Bloody hell:
(a) Algeria was invaded by France in 1830. Other than harboring some minor pirates – mostly of Euro extraction – the Turkish Beys had no real power. Aggression indeed. The entire affaire of the French invasion was engineered and in fact did not revolve around piracy but rather the exploitation of a dispute between the Turkish ruler in Algiers and a French “protected” merchant. If I recall correctly, the merchant had refused to pay up. The French consul deliberately manufactured an incident to give N III an excuse to invade.
(b) As for the Ottoman Empire, it’s break up had nothing to do with the Austro-Hungarian conflicts some centuries earlier. The 19th century Ottoman Empire was nothing but an incoherent bag of provinces barely stitched together. The progressive occupation of various non-core Ottoman territories in the 19th century and early 20th century had nothing to do with the 16th century threat that the Ottomans once posed.

Only by some incredible act of ahistorical nonsense can one make a case of either being ‘aggressors’ – although of course in that special semantical universe you inhabit I am sure we can find some remarkably bollixed interpretation of events so as to justify your fundamentally uninformed opinion.

(a) The issue of development and responsibility is rather larger than ‘Christendom’ --however charmingly archaic it is-- insofar as Japan, for example, is a major donor nation.

Donor nation? What does that mean?

Look it up, word-boy.

(b) Further the issue of responsibility is the actual history of colonization, which if it has not escaped you, was undertaken by a sub-set of ostensiblely Xtian nations. There is, if only by chance, an overlap.

I think that my cohice of terms was sufficiently clear.

It’s not your ‘choice of terms’ semantics boy, it’s your analysis if I may abuse the term.

© The concept of antipathy does not of necessity enter into the issue, and certainly was not part of the discussion up the point where your intervention interjected it, as such your phrasing rather injected the idea, and falsely implied it was already in the convo. Of course, the issue of … semantical clarity does come to mind.

I have already explained how I think that it enters. Instead of responding to htat, you have simply repeated what you already said.

Precisely, giving my opinion of your explanation.

[december]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
** Lots of Muslim countries have poor educational systems, **

See, Truth Seeker, we actually agree. And, the weakness is often in technical areas. The next question is to find a remedy.

The OP said: Do you agree with Mahathir Mohamad? If so, what should be done? You have answered “Yes” to the first question. Let’s move on to the second one.

[Kimstu]

december: *The OP said: Do you agree with Mahathir Mohamad? If so, what should be done? You [TruthSeeker] have answered “Yes” to the first question. *

Well, hardly, december. To acknowledge, as TS said, that “lots of Muslim countries have poor educational systems” is not the same as agreeing with Mahathir Mohamad that “Muslims have only themselves to blame for their poverty, misery and violence.” There’s a huge difference between those two statements.

[Sparc]

Said december
The OP said: Do you agree with Mahathir Mohamad? If so, what should be done? You have answered “Yes” to the first question. Let’s move on to the second one.

You have failed to note that independent if people agree with you (which coincidently most of us still do not do, but I’ll leave that aside since I am already tardy for an appointment) your argument is moot on the basis of lacking causality. Your statement begs for an acceptance of the fact that Islam is to be equated with poor development and poor education.

This you have not shown.

You are committing a rhetoric fallacy old boy and it’s called making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

In plain English: proving that a nation has a low level of development and that it happens to be Muslim does not automatically give that one is cause of the other.

Further one might call this last post on a red herring, but I don’t have time for this…

Sparc

…carry on.

[december]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**To acknowledge, as TS said, that “lots of Muslim countries have poor educational systems” is not the same as agreeing with Mahathir Mohamad that “Muslims have only themselves to blame for their poverty, misery and violence.” There’s a huge difference between those two statements. **

Kimstu, the Thread Title was inflammatory, and that was my fault.

However, if you read the cite, MM was indeed pointing out that many Muslim nations provide poor technical education. His point, I believe, is that saying “Muslims have only themselves to blame” has a positive aspect. It implies that Muslims have the power to fix the situation.

Sparc – You and I are not discussing the same topic. I do not mean to address the cause of the technical backwardness; I’m interested in how to go about solving the problem. As I interpret MM, that’s his POV as well.

[Sparc]

Said december
Sparc – You and I are not discussing the same topic. I do not mean to address the cause of the technical backwardness; I’m interested in how to go about solving the problem. As I interpret MM, that’s his POV as

In a somewhat biblical manner thunder and hailstorms struck while December replied… hence m car will be late and I have three more minutes.

As I said, a red herring. December if you now suddenly say that it is so that Islam and education, development and what-not are disconnected (which I welcome in and of itself) you have conceded everyone’s point that opposed you and this whole thread has just evaporated. If this is what you stand by you needs best start a new one entitled ‘how are the underdeveloped countries in the world best helped to self help’ or somewhat of that order.

I’ll call you on the red herring anyway. I still think you do think that it is the Muslim’s own fault that they are (as you claim) backwards.

Ah… my car is here, got to go.

Sparc

Carry on or concede

[Kimstu]

OK, december, but I repeat my earlier suggestion that if what you want to talk about is ways of remediating “technical backwardness” specifically in poor Islamic countries, you should open a new thread on the subject and request the mods to lock this one. I think the waters here have been muddied beyond redemption.

[system]

I second Kimstu’ suggestion December. I am confident your initial posting, while colored by unforuntate prejudices in re understanding the Islamic world, was not ill-intended.

There are indeed some real real debates to be engaged but we’ve poorly framed this thread for them. Actually, why don’t I do it?

[december]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**There are indeed some real real debates to be engaged but we’ve poorly framed this thread for them. Actually, why don’t I do it? **

By all means. I would prefer that you start the new thread, Collounsbury, rather than I.