Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So what was the trigger event for radical islam?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post

    Actually you got it backwards The Mongols broke the back of Islam in the Middle East, it's last stronghold was North Africa.

    During the times of the Mongols, the three pillars of Islam was Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo. Hulegu Khan's invasion of the Middle East should have been listed as a Crusade, by hey White Christian revisionist history does not like to share that "glory" with the yellow guys from the steppes. During the times of the Mongols, the three pillars of Islam was Bagdad, Damascus, and Cairo. Unlike all their previous invasions westwards which were multi-pronged lighting strikes, the invasion was slow and methodical with lots of genocide. Whereas before, they wanted submission, tribute and booty, they wanted total capitulation in the Middle East. Baghdad was razed and the earth salted, so many killed that the River Tigris ran red and the stench of all those put to the scimitar fouled the air of miles and even the Mongols themselves that relished the smell of the dead moved their camp upwind.

    Unlike their previous indifference to religions, this time Mosques and worshipers were killed. Instead of advancing in clusters and columns, they cut a wide swath through the Middle East, a move that was later imitated by Sherman with his "March to the Sea".

    Damascus was more or less of a rinse and repeat, and later became the capitol of Hulegu's faction, the Ilkhanate. The Mongols captured the Levant, sacked Muslim Jerusalem, and had driven most Muslim forces across the Sinai and into Egypt, They achieved all that in spite of being betrayed by the Franks that allowed Muslim forces safe passage across their territory, even though the Ilkhanate in theory were allied and the Mongols were blessed by the Vatican. The Mongols and were on the verge of marching on Cairo when once again, the world was saved because yet another Mongol Great Khan had died right about when doom was inevitable and imminent.

    Hulegu withdrew to Damascus, but did not personally attend the Kuriltai to elect the new Great Khan because the newly deceased Great Khan was the last to be the universally accepted ruler. Hell, the next Great Khan also did not, and a civil war broke out, The Mongols were no longer united, oddly it was the direct descendants of Genghis' four sons and religion that divided them.

    Hulegu was the brother of Kublai, But between Hulegu conquering the Middle East, and Kublai conquering China, there are two factions that opposes them, and separated them for ever joining again as the Toluids (descendants of Tolui, youngest son of Genghis), the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate which both have now converted to Islam.

    Revisionist history says that the Mamluks drove the Mongols out of the Holy Land. That is not true, Hulegu had already left the Holy Land to take a war stance against the Mongolian factions that stood between he and Kublai. What the Mamluks defeat at the Battle of An Julat was a rear guard left behind by Hulegu that consisted of Nestorian Christians from Georgia, I was not decisive as the bulk of the Ilkhanate was not there, and Hulegu never came back because he was fighting a Mongol civil war.

    Had Mongke Khan not died when he did, Hulegu would have taken Cairo without much sweat and Islam would now be a side note in history.
    Thanks for the correction I was thinking of the Siege of Baghdad in 1258 which is clearly not North Africa.
    Last edited by Salinator; 30 Jan 19, 00:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    The Mongols pretty much broke the back of Islam in North Africa. Later the Ottoman empire's collapse lead to instability in the Arab countries. The sultan was more of a secular leader than a religious leader despite theocratic overtones. A more radical religiosity in North Africa and Iran was a natural reaction to new secular powers of France and Britain replacing the Ottoman empire. The Zionist insurrection in Palestine is evidence of how weak British and French control was after WWII while at the same time oil brought infidels in increasing numbers to the middle east further destabilizing a culture already in crisis. The radical form of Islam that emerged in Saudi Arabia and later in Iran created an environment and resources where terrorism was bound to emerge as a political tool in a convoluted web of conflicts. The hatred of Jews in the Koran made Israel a propaganda and recruiting tool uniting various traditions in hatred of foreigners who even partially supported Israel.

    Terrorism is the natural tool of weak powers confronting foreign control. Islam itself is the perfect tool for terrorist recruitment. The existence of a "holy land" unites Muslims all over the world. The number of Muslims may be the most significant factor in how common Muslim terrorists appear to be. Fanatics willing to kill themselves for an ideology are unfortunately not unusual.
    Actually you got it backwards The Mongols broke the back of Islam in the Middle East, Islam's last stronghold was North Africa.

    Hulegu Khan's invasion of the Middle East should have been listed as a Crusade, by hey White Christian revisionist history does not like to share that "glory" with the yellow guys from the steppes. During the times of the Mongols, the three pillars of Islam was Bagdad, Damascus, and Cairo. Unlike all their previous invasions westwards which were multi-pronged lighting strikes, the invasion was slow and methodical with lots of genocide. Whereas before, they wanted submission, tribute and booty, they wanted total capitulation in the Middle East. Baghdad was razed and the earth salted, so many killed that the River Tigris ran red and the stench of all those put to the scimitar fouled the air for miles and even the Mongols themselves that relished the smell of the dead moved their camp upwind.

    Unlike their previous indifference of religions, this time Mosques and worshipers were killed. Instead of advancing in clusters and columns, they cut a wide swath through the Middle East, a move that was later imitated by Sherman with his "March to the Sea".

    Damascus was more or less of a rinse and repeat, and later became the capitol of Hulegu's faction, the Ilkhanate. The Mongols captured the Levant, sacked Muslim Jerusalem, and drove most Muslim forces across the Sinai and into Egypt, They achieved all that in spite of being betrayed by the Franks that allowed Muslim forces safe passage across their territory, even though the Ilkhanate in theory were allied and the Mongols were blessed by the Vatican. The Mongols and were on the verge of marching on Cairo when once again, the world was saved because yet another Mongol Great Khan had died right about when doom was inevitable and imminent.

    Hulegu withdrew to Damascus, but did not personally attend the Kuriltai to elect the new Great Khan because the newly deceased Great Khan was the last to be the universally accepted ruler. Hell, the next Great Khan also did not, and a civil war broke out, The Mongols were no longer united, oddly it was the direct descendants of Genghis' four sons and religion that divided them.

    Hulegu was the brother of Kublai, But between Hulegu conquering the Middle East, and Kublai conquering China, there are two factions that opposed them, and separated them for ever joining again as the Toluids (descendants of Tolui, youngest son of Genghis), the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate which both have now converted to Islam.

    Revisionist history says that the Mamluks drove the Mongols out of the Holy Land. That is not true, Hulegu had already left the Holy Land to take a war stance against the Mongolian factions that stood between he and Kublai. What the Mamluks defeated at the Battle of An Julat was a rear guard left behind by Hulegu that consisted of Nestorian Christians from Georgia that disobeyed orders not to engage and in fact attacked when it fell for the old feigned retreated move that was perfected by the Mongols themselves. It was not decisive as the bulk of the Ilkhanate was not there, and Hulegu never came back because he was fighting a Mongol civil war.

    Had Mongke Khan not died when he did, Hulegu would have taken Cairo without much sweat and Islam would now be a side note in history.
    Last edited by Salinator; 30 Jan 19, 01:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • vikram72
    replied
    A Religion that refuses to evolve theologically.

    Wants to Convert with Force.

    Clears conquered territories without mercy.

    Kills or Converts non believers in their religion .

    This is going on from the day this Religion founded.

    At the very most Christians can have peace with them easily.

    Jews, followed by Hindu , Buddhist are more vulnerable.

    Because in their end time prophecy it is Jesus Christ will kill the Anti Christ.

    So Christians can possibly survive with them.

    They also reject further messengers of Abrahamic Religions .

    The Sufis may respect others.
    Saints Godly people.

    but Wahabi / Deobandi do not believe in Saints and enlightened persons.

    So currently the Islamic traditions of Majority of World has become quite rigid.

    Will the extreme thinking will change or not is the real worry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    What kicked off the current wave of bloodshed?

    The Soviet invasion of Afghan? The fall of the Shah? The abandonment of military actions against Israel?

    What set the spark to the tinder for the fire that is consuming the Middle East and other areas? It isn't just jihad, because they're killing far more muslims than they are infidels.

    So what set it off?
    Arab wealth mostly.

    If you look at history there are periods of expansionist Islam when the Arabs sit on the trade routes from Europe to the East and again from the 1970s when the oil money starts pouring in.

    With periods of decline into insignificance in between.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    how much is the west complicit in aiding muslim radicals in their holy crusade against russians
    lets talk about that too
    this did not start in 1970, all the way back to crimean war when british and french for their own selfish interests propped up the ailing ottoman empire which had so mercilessly massacred the christians of the balkans
    Let me correct you. Not radicals! Heroes !

    gylUa.jpg

    If AI is not developed enough in 100 years, you ll see Muhammad and George fight as brothers against Xi Jinpings family

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    I believe that radicalism started as a reaction on aggressive secularisation of orthodox muslim societies.
    After colonisation, some part of natives forced western style secularism and imitation. It was too much of a change for people.

    You can find examples like:
    - Ata turk forcing even adhaan to be on turkish, western clothing, baning Islam fully

    - in Iran shahs police uncovered women with their bayonetes and butchered protesters

    - in Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser imprisoned muslim brotherhood on their early start when all activity was giving flyers to people to teach Islam. In prison with all that molestation they became radical and violent.

    - in ussr muslim identity was max. suppressed and now they ve got sime freedom and islamic revival is happening.


    Now, i believe, war and fight went into center of religion and they have imperial mindset like we europeans had 17-19 century

    ------------------------------------

    I believe that same happened in christian world and some alt right groups became stronger after they ve being attacked and even judaism/zionism in Israel became more militant after 6 day war with neighbours.
    Last edited by Daud; 22 Jan 19, 01:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    how much is the west complicit in aiding muslim radicals in their holy crusade against russians
    lets talk about that too
    this did not start in 1970, all the way back to crimean war when british and french for their own selfish interests propped up the ailing ottoman empire which had so mercilessly massacred the christians of the balkans

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy H
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    What kicked off the current wave of bloodshed?

    The Soviet invasion of Afghan? The fall of the Shah? The abandonment of military actions against Israel?

    What set the spark to the tinder for the fire that is consuming the Middle East and other areas? It isn't just jihad, because they're killing far more muslims than they are infidels.

    So what set it off?
    Hi AJR

    For what its worth try getting hold of A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East by the esteemed historian Professor Lawrence Freedman.

    Regards

    Andy H

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by At ease View Post
    So what was the trigger event for radical islam?

    The Koran.
    YUP!
    Islam has been "radical" ever since Mohammad grabbed a sword and led his followers in conquest and forced conversions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Persephone
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    A complex answer that I need to keep short; 1979.

    The combination of Iran's huge backward step into the 7th century, the terrorist occupation of Mecca, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a triple-whammy that made everyone in the world sit up and take notice, especially the muslims.
    People were scared over there, and the Holier than Thou Religious Militants took advantage of it.

    Progress in the Muddle East was reversed, and it has all been downhill ever since.
    You nailed it. The next trigger will be when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dies. When Khamenei dies, the Islamic Republic will face an unprecedented crisis.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    A complex answer that I need to keep short; 1979.

    The combination of Iran's huge backward step into the 7th century, the terrorist occupation of Mecca, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a triple-whammy that made everyone in the world sit up and take notice, especially the muslims.
    People were scared over there, and the Holier than Thou Religious Militants took advantage of it.

    Progress in the Muddle East was reversed, and it has all been downhill ever since.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johan Banér
    replied
    There never was a single trigger event. As always it's been a developing situtation, and a chain of contingent factors.

    But choosing a short answer: 1990's Algeria.

    Ideologically political Islams, as has been radicalised in the least decades, has a bunch of founding figures, ideologues writing and publishing, beginning already before WWII. 1930's Egypt was a the place for it.

    But it's not as if they had that many takers then.

    What then happened after WWII was decolonization + nationalist revolutions in varioius Arab countries. These revolutions were Arab nationalist, secular but not democratic.

    Two things then opened the way for radical Islamism as potential credible political alternative to the powers-that-be. First of all that the Arab nationalist governments never opened themselves to real forms of participatory politics. They remained autocracies. (I.e. no democracy, and western policies was fine with that, mostly concluding the Mid East was not "ready" for democracy.)

    That would probably have worked more or less had they just delivered a better life for people generally. (The big Selling Point currently of Chinese politics, and sorta kinda for Putinism in Russia.) I.e. the nationalist revolutions produced government-by-generals who promised a bright future, invested in general education for people, secular reform etc., and then (unless there was oil) failed to provide the promised better life.

    The non-petro Arab world has been moving crab-wise economically, and consequently in whether it can offer people a better life, for decades. While east Asia has taken off an caught up the west etc.

    That crab-wise move provided a discontent looking for political alternatives. And if it wasn't going to be revolutionary Marxism, there was the option of political Islam.

    The starter probably really was Algeria. The Islamists won the general election in 1992, and promptly were thwarted by a military coup and continued rule-by-general. Which could also be clearly seen to be supported by the west. And then there was The Mother Of Islamist Civil Wars... Veteran fighters from it has turned up pretty much everywhere the crap has hit the fan since, from Bosnia to Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by bill shack View Post
    i believe that the trigger event of the present war by muslims against the west was started during the First desert storm. I watched a interview with al qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, and he stated that having non muslim troops in saudi arabia was an insult to muslims that he could not accept .



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
    Various Islamic groups were attacking Western targets throughout the 80s.
    It has ever been thus.

    Leave a comment:


  • bill shack
    replied
    i believe that the trigger event of the present war by muslims against the west was started during the First desert storm. I watched a interview with al qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, and he stated that having non muslim troops in saudi arabia was an insult to muslims that he could not accept .



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

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    i cannot think of any decent person who does not HATE roman empire and all its evils

    i do agree with latter part of your post though, Muhammad did style himself as an old testament prophet.But how can you defend the shocking barbarity of the old testement ?


    I'm pro-israel precisely because it is a secular jewish state founded by primarily EUROPEAN jews and serves as an outpost of european civilization in the middle east , if israel would follow the ways of the old testement prophets then they would look like a jewish version of isis
    I also support israel as they are the natural enemies of arabs ( not neccessarily muslims ), christian and secular arabs are just as bad as religious muslim arabs
    I believe that Israel is one of the very few countries that was founded by an 'almost equivlent population exchange'.
    The willingness of the Arab Islamic world to rob ,then ship out their ancient Jewish communities even before the foundation of Israel shows that they were birds kept in a gilded cage. I pointed out to a Syrian that the 40,000 Moslems expelled from the Golan Heights was four fifths of the 50,000 Jews expelled form Syria after 1945.
    His response was that the Syrian Jews 'went to France and Brooklyn' - he did acknowledge that the leaving was not voluntary.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X