Seriously. What split the western world from the middle east? I mean, was it the crusades? Muslims to this day regret the crusades. (At least, that's what I heard.:hmm: ) Or could you in theory trace it back further, when the Persians attempted to conquer Greece? Was it Israel? Or is it just plain different ideologies?

Personally, I think it was western involvement in the Mid East, like Israel, or the democratization of Egypt and whatnot.

Istanbul, no?

Edit : sorry, I thought you were talking about geographic border

It is religion that splits the west from the middle.

The Siege of Istanbul and the destruction of the Byzantine Empire? Possibly.

Faith, the Christians saw the Muslims as heretics and the Muslims saw the Christians as people who strayed from the true religion.

Add a vast distance from the west to the Arab world, and a holy city that was being fought about and both religion who wanted to control as much land as possible and thus fought wars against eachother.

But "the western world" is different than the "Christian world". Many Christians have lived in the Arab world without problem even nowadays. Same goes for jews.

Ignorance usually starts conflicts. Both sides were ignorant of one another.

But "the western world" is different than the "Christian world". Many Christians have lived in the Arab world without problem even nowadays. Same goes for jews.

Not in Iraq a few years ago...

I would say religion and different ideas...

A variety of factors

1. European colonization of the New World and the Middle East's lack thereof. The Europeans (Haspburgs most notably) would then use the wealth gained from this to finance wars against the Ottomans and other Middle Eastern peoples, or to colonize more areas bringing in further wealth.

2. The Ottoman Empire's lack of an industrial revolution outside it's military, which left the Middle East highly undeveloped compared to Europe.

3. Rise of fundementalist and conservative religious interepation such as Wahibbism in the Middle East, compared to secularism in Europe.

4. Colonization of the entire Middle East by foreign powers, which then drew up it's borders so that they would be best for them, disregarding cultural, ethnic, and lingual differences, along with other historical splits.

5. The controversial and hasy implentation of Israel in the Middle East by Britian, which combined with the previous 4 factors and their consequences has created a million new problems.


To say that the split between East and West is due to religion or the conquest of Constantinople is wrong. Look at World War I, the Ottomans were allied with the Germans and Austrians, and before that the Ottoman state had close friendly diplomatic ties with a number of countries (before the new imperialism of course). Even today, any liberal (meaning non-fundementalist dictator led) muslim country (so three or four) can peacefully co-exist with the West, and a split is almost unnoticable.

Europe and the Middle East have been quite different culturally for a very long time. Periods of intense conflict have been fluctating.

To say that the split between East and West is due to religion or the conquest of Constantinople is wrong. Look at World War I, the Ottomans were allied with the Germans and Austrians, and before that the Ottoman state had close friendly diplomatic ties with a number of countries (before the new imperialism of course). Even today, any liberal (meaning non-fundementalist dictator led) muslim country (so three or four) can peacefully co-exist with the West, and a split is almost unnoticable.

ummm, you could have said that Turkey was even in NATO. That would have helped prove your point a bit.:p

The conflict of Byzantium with Persia/the Caliphate was a period where the two sides were quite hostile with each other. In the early 1600's the hostility gradually decreased then renewed again in the 20th century and has become more intense in the 21st century.

The crusades and other wars are just an excuse - both blocs have seen bloodier wars within themselves, that are now pretty much forgotten.

The conflict of Byzantium with Persia/the Caliphate was a period where the two sides were quite hostile with each other. In the early 1600's the hostility gradually decreased then renewed again in the 20th century and has become more intense in the 21st century.

More intense?

I would say colonizing 90% of the muslim world was pretty intense. At least in their eyes. A big humiliation also.

The west and the muslim world haven't been able to really trust eachother for 1400 years now. Turkey being in Nato was only a way to place nukes in Turkey to reach Russia. There is still big resentment in Europe to let Turkey joint the union the reason being cultural difference.

Suggested reading on subject: Orientalism by Edward Said

More intense?

I would say colonizing 90% of the muslim world was pretty intense. At least in their eyes. A big humiliation also.

The west and the muslim world haven't been able to really trust eachother for 1400 years now. Turkey being in Nato was only a way to place nukes in Turkey to reach Russia. There is still big resentment in Europe to let Turkey joint the union the reason being cultural difference.

Yes, but really I don't think that Turkey, Bosnia, and some of the countries in Northwestern Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, & Morocco) are that far away from the "West". If we can succesfully bring these 3-5 nations into the western world (not trampling on culture, but bringing in democracy/secularism etc. etc.) then we may have laid the foundations of bridging the two sides.

They were never together

Yes, but really I don't think that Turkey, Bosnia, and some of the countries in Northwestern Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, & Morocco) are that far away from the "West". If we can succesfully bring these 3-5 nations into the western world (not trampling on culture, but bringing in democracy/secularism etc. etc.) then we may have laid the foundations of bridging the two sides.

They could indeed be considered inclined to the west. But fundamentalism is growing there also. All those governement's have fundamentalist terror groups to worry about.

Secularism is the fundamentalist worst nightmare. And if they install it they better be ready for some serious attacks.

There was not really a single event that caused the separation rather cultural divergence occurred over a period of time. In the early ancient era the civilizations of the Middle East and West were often somewhat similar.

The Crusades did not fundamentally alter the connection of the Middle East and Europe over the long haul. They were primarily attempts to regain lost land and/or annex new land an type of thing which ocurred many times in history.

The Middle East really split from the West when the Western culture began to develop into something different. Greece became a different type of culture from the Middle East, especially Persia which loosened the ties of Europe's general ancestry from the Middle East. The changes of the 1400s onward broke the ties much further than before.

So the difference is primarily cultural. The different ideas and experiences regarding government separate Western and non-Western areas a substantial amount. They also separate Eastern European with Western European to some degree.

The religions frequently seen in Europe and the West are actually quite similar and in fact are often the same as those often observed in the Middle East which is a unifing factor.

What causes the conflict is primarily cultural differences and the differences of opinions on how the state should be run. There is not one single issue that causes the conflict although some factors do weigh more than others. This runs the gamut from economic differences such as: capitalism, welfare capitalism, socialism, egalitarianism, etc to political ideas to cultural practices, to border disputes. Individualism versus collectivism even shows up in some ways. Modernization as opposed to Westernization causes conflict. There are clashes over the borders (generally set up by Western state) which bring the West into the fray. The desire of the West to maintain access to oil and the desire of many Arab states and Persia/Iran to maintain more oil profits is a major cause of conflict.

The debate over whether one can modernize without Westernizing is a pretty important issue in many countries. It seems possible to acquire modern technology and a free market economic system without becoming culturally Western however the governments in many states still clash over the amount of Western ideas which should be implemented in their countries.

I do not think there is a simple political or economic solution that would end the conflict. Remember, both the Middle East (to a large degree) and the West are universalist in their outlooks. Both generally believe that they have ideas which if implemented globally would be beneficial (I am not saying this is at all a bad thing).

Why is 18th, 19th, and 20th imperialism in the "east" not listed as an option?

They could indeed be considered inclined to the west. But fundamentalism is growing there also. All those governement's have fundamentalist terror groups to worry about.

Secularism is the fundamentalist worst nightmare. And if they install it they better be ready for some serious attacks.

True, but also I think those 5 countries are the ones who have the best chance of making it through.

Double Post :(

Why is 18th, 19th, and 20th imperialism in the "east" not listed as an option?

Which countries have they colonized?

Which countries have they colonized?
You're joking right?

Although I could be mistaken, I think Duddha means that the many segments of the East were colonized by the West (although the East did colonize on its own too).

You're joking right?

Sorry I misunderstood your post. :blush:

I thought you meant imperialism By the east, not in the east.

Your right that is a mojar factor that explains the problems nowadays. Even borders of the countries like Iraq have been drawn by the west.

I thought you meant imperialism By the east, not in the east.

:) understood

Remember, it was the muslim's that hit christian Europe first, not the Europeans. They stormed into france until stopped in the epic battle of Tours in 731.

@Duddha - Would be under western intervention in Mideast.:p

Remember, it was the muslim's that hit christian Europe first, not the Europeans. They stormed into france until stopped in the epic battle of Tours in 731.

You mean the Moors did.

You mean the Moors did.

The Moors were Islamic. What's your point?

Give it a decade or two and west and middle east might become best buddies. Looking at history, it seems divisions like this can change quite quickly, at least if there's some common interest. The European anti-arab sentiment are likely to backlash eventually (doesn't some hiphoppers beards look like those of imams, perhaps as a strike against a paranoid arabophobic establishment?). Already a lot of Europeans are trying to comprehend the current situation by getting a better understanding of the arabs, reading books etc. There are a lot of fairly secular arabs living in Europe which will work as a cultural bridge.

I think the only way a country can keep its culture is to become more rich and powerful and the quickest way there is democracy.

Religion. The various nations of Europe spent centuries killing each other. Dislike bred from Islamic expansion and the Crusades is long over.

Unless, of course, some of you have Saladin or Richard the Lionhearted's faces on a dartboard or something.

Huh? Since when have the East and West ever not been apart?

Remember, it was the muslim's that hit christian Europe first, not the Europeans. They stormed into france until stopped in the epic battle of Tours in 731.

What was the religion of Carthage?

What was the religion of Carthage?


Phonecian paganism.

Phonecian paganism.

How about Egypt and the lands to the east that the Romans conquered? Just to be clear, I'm just trying to point out that deciding who "started" it doesn't really have much relevance... Especially when the start was over 1000 years ago.

The Moors were Islamic. What's your point?

That it was a state conquering territory for more power, not a group of fanatics waging holy war and murdering anyone who didn't convert. Saying that the Moorish invasion of Europe was Muslims invading Christianity first is like saying that the British taking Muslim lands as colonies was Christianity invading Islam.

I think people are too quick to generalize a struggle between two large groups (east and west). The Middle East is not fighting a unified effort to destroy the Western and the same applies to the West and always has. The Moors invaded Spain because some had been kicked out of the ME. I believe it was the last Umayad prince escaping from the Abbasid caliphite. Both were Arab. The Ottomans were not fighting Christianity. They fought very bloody wars with the Persians and other Turkish groups.

And I don't think the Muslims regret the Crusades. They didn't start the Crusades themselves but their actions led to it. And afterall they were ultimately succesful in beating back the Crusaders (although there were a few losses).

There was not a split because they were never together. When Persia invaded Greece, severall greeks talked about a "war against the East".
The Empire of Alexander was known to be the "Union of East and West"(and thus a split between East and West was already acknowledged)

Moved to History, since the reasonings seem to delve more into distant history.

... could you in theory trace it back further, when the Persians attempted to conquer Greece? Or when the Greeks conquered Persia? :D

To give a serious answer: I think it's the concept of pluralism that separates us from the Arabs.