Are you seriously asking why the land-grabbing Romans were punished with more land-grabbing?
Nope. Go back, try again.
Mechanicalsalvation said:
What I am seeing is that just like in early medieval era when islamic civilization has gained great momentum of its expansion and development to which backward Christian Europeans had managed to react at least partialy succesfully through crusades but mainly through establisment of trade and sharing of knowledge, so simmilarly when this new civilization-momentum lies on the side of the West it seems due to circumstances even harder for the muslim world to put up with it.
It is certainly true that by conquering vast swathes of land of former Persian and Byzantine territories, Muslims came into contact with Greek philosophy as well as Jewish and Persian stories and ways of thinking. These new insights were immediately combatted, most notably by Al Hanbal, founder of Hanbalism, the most influential and also the most conservative of the four Islamic schools of law to this day. Whole libraries were burnt and masses of infidel scholars and dissenting Muslims alike were executed. The cities in which Al Hanbal initially did not prevail, were the big centers of trade at the time, such as Cairo, Damaskus and Bagdad, which by virtue of their traditions of cultural diversity had a more tolerant approach.
But even there, the openness towards to foreign insights were limited. In many cases, Jewish and Christian scholars were responsible for translating and preserving the ancient Greek manuscripts. Islamic scholars, on the other hand, would translate the texts, and, noticing they were in conflict with the Koran, burn them afterwards. They at least kept the translations (which is not surprising in light of the years of work it would have taken). But in general, the scientific progress in the region was made not because of Islam, but despite of it.
And it wasn't a more advanced culture the crusaders were reacting to, but the brutal expansion of Islam by means of jihad. Don't forget, not only was the Byzantine Emipre decimated, Muslims had also conquered the south of Italy and the Iberian peninsula, and had tried to advance further into France. After they had slaughtered hundreds of millions of people in India, Africa and the Middle East, the Europeans were the first real resistance they faced.
What you refer to as the current "civilization-momentum" of the West is largely due to secular and moral progress over the centuries, in particular the breaking of the hegemony of the church. Only by setting aside religious beliefs and replacing them with views of science and morality which are founded in the real world, was the West able to prosper. This is a development which has not yet happened in the Muslim world. They neither have had a reformation, nor an enlightenment to challenge the views of Islamic orthodoxy. Other non-Western countries, like India or in South America and even in some non-Muslim parts of Africa, once far behind the West in regard to civilizational development, are catching up swiftly, thanks to their increasing orientation towards liberal values and their lack of all too virulent detrimental dogmas.
In the Muslim world on the other hand, the reason many Muslims give for the the scientific and cultural superiority of the West is that they have moved too far away from the roots of Islam, and have not combatted non-Islamic ideas enough. This is the thinking that leads to Spain translating more books into Spanish every year than the entire Arab world has ever translated into Arabian. In large parts of the Muslim world, the Koran is the only book Muslims will ever read. Even elementary concepts, like cause and effect, the root of all scientific research, are widely rejected, since Allah is seen as the only possible cause for everything.
For progress to happen in the Muslim world, Islamic orthodoxy must be broken. Among other things, women must be allowed to participate in public life. This has led to the flourishing of societies throughout history and around the globe. The West has nothing to do with all this, other than being able to help challenge the Islamic religious right and empowering Muslim reformers, which is what I have been advocating all along. Unfortunately, the denial of the problems with Islam has the exact opposite effect.
jackelgull said:
I feel like pointing out that a lot of the violent verses came out in times of war, when the Muslim Umma was under attack, and address those contemporary situations.
Actually the verses largely advocate offensive warfare. Though it is often stated, in its early decades Islam was not under attack, quite the contrary. Mohammed himself first conquered Medina, where he is said to have personally cut off the heads of 800 Jews who refused to convert to Islam, before he came back to Mekka, conquering the city and killing or driving out anyone who would not submit. Moreover, the verses don't have any geographical or historical references, they are written in the form of everlasting instructions. Over 100 verses in the Koran command Muslims to wage war with nonbelievers in order to spread Islamic rule.
As I said before, it is laudable that you don't take these verses literally, but certainly you can see that it is very easy to draw a line from Islamic scripture to committing acts of violence.
