Yeah the Islam is okay but the Muslim fundamentalists are the problem..

To give mij own opinion based on Experience..

Europe:

Ten years ago France was the only country were they said Multiculture is not working and that their are issues with the Muslim minority..Basically every other country in Europe was shocked or laughed with France.. 'where is your Equality now France?' 'Well it are French ofcourse you can expect it from those idiots'.. 'Sheesh only 4% in France are moslims (2000) and they have this kind of problems'....'France is an Social Economic disaster that the Muslim population is acting like that is ofcourse because of the social econmic problems'..

Then I agreed with the rest of Europe;.. Sure their were some minor issues in the rest of Western/Northern Europe... but in ten years everything will be better... The new generation muslims born in Europe will be not so extreme in their thinking;...

It took not long before countries followed France's stand thx to all kind of accidents.....

Denmark was one of the first...That was triggered thx to the Mohammed Cartoon.. Was kind of a shock how big the mess was for just a simple cartoon;. And especially that Denmark was following France considering the Scandinavian countries were known as being openminded;...Not much later Sweden followed, I can still see the documentary of the Swedisch girls changing their hair color because they are scared of the Muslim minority for rape/violence etc;..

Then Netherlands and Belgium both rather known then for their openmind. Their view about Drugs, first supporters of Gay marriage etc... had both accidents that lead them to what France said ten years ago... Austria follwed;.Switerland followed...(Ban of minnarets)...

Leaders of important countries like Germany/Uk saying that multicultural has failed...

- The Jewish Community is leaving EU because many are suffering of the muslim minority...
- Homosexuals who immigrated from non-European countries are leaving the big cities or EU because the Muslim community is giving them a hard time to live;..
-Fundamentalist Mulsim organisations are popping up like Mushrooms
- Muslims who converted have problems...the most famous one HIrsin Ali who now needs bodyguards for her opinion;.
- Open Muslim women have problems to lead a decent life because they easily get the vicitim of Violence and rape because they chose no to wear an Headscarf..
- Honor killing... Is happening more...

And I could go on...

if the Islam was so an peacefull religion;.how come so many countries are suffering from it? Most countries named belong in the top 20 best to live in countries of the wrold...all with different societies.. still they basically all are suffering from the Islam;...

If you don't live in Europe it is harder to understand what is going on but what I know is that people have a hard time believing that in ten years the situation will be better;..

Where USA is now today is basically what the rest of Europe was ten years ago...

But I already see friends with who I lived with in NY changing their Opinion.... Thx to little things that are happening... The censoring of Mohammed in South Park, The rise against violence of the Jewish community..,

the Mosq in New York, Isn't it great that you are supporting the build of the New Mosq close to Ground Zero? And call all those people who think this will increase the muslim fundamentalist in USA idiots? Isn't it then great to read the opinion of the new Imam in that mosquee? ' homosexuality is the result of "violent emotional or sexual abuse at some point in the life of the gay people"' ' He also said that if a Muslim leaves the faith and "preaches their views, they're jailed".' This guy will preach for thousands of Muslims in Ny;.With views that belongs to someone sitting in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan... Isn't it great that you supported the build of the Mosquee in the name tolerance while knowing someone like him will be the Imam?

I never thought that Islam is bad per se, however I think that it may be inadequate for a modern western-style society. Its main downside is that it lacks a central authority able to reform it, according to changing times. In facts, I find that Iran is more likely to progress, if its central authority will decide to take that step.

My pessimism comes from knowing that revolutions tend to start out with the best intentions, and the government that emerges after the revolution rarely embodies the vision of those intentions.

For the most part, these countries do not have strong political movements that are able to govern by themselves and (most likely) the initial government will be formed by a coalition that is best able to cobble together enough support to govern; when you add to this that there is a high likelihood that a variety of extremist movements will gain significant support in an election, it becomes highly probable that one or more extremist parties will play a major part in the new government. If this happens these extremist movements will try to use their power to shape the country to suit their needs.

These extremists movements are not all going to be radical fundimentalist-Islamic movements, but some will be and they will probably be some of the stronger movements; mainly because when votes are split dozens of ways, a voting block of 5% or 10% really has a massive impact.

The thing with honour killings it mainly has to with marrying within your own caste and if that doesn't happening your gonna get the chop. Don't know how people can use religion as a basis for this.

Anyway peoples opinions won;t change about Islam which isn't suprising at all. So we have to make the change we have to show them how it is meant to be, one person at a time. It will be a struggle but hopefully we'll get out of this phase sooner rather then later.

Phase is a good way to describe it, though i'd still like to know why Islam and why now

I don't really have the answer to that. Maybe I'm just way too liberal for my own good.

Through this whole thread why am I thinking of Gundam Seed Destiny

1. I mentioned Crusades as one small part of an overall topic.

2. While the first Crusade was a military defensive initiation, the others were not.

3. The Holy Land had already, peacefully, been under Muslim control for over 300 years by the time of the firts Crusade  and during all that time, and all the time after, Muslims freely allowed Jews and Christians to worship at their respective sites. However, during the Christian ruled times the Jews and Muslims were allowed no such freedoms and in fact the Dome of the Rock and entire Temple area were used as a trash heap and horse stable.

4. The Christian bible in has numerous war related verses about defeating your enemies. While primarily existing in the OT, it also exists in other parts. Principally, you have to realize the time frame it was written, Christians were a small minority under duress from Jews and Roman power and/or it was stories about Jesus, a single Jew whose purpose was to redirect Jews. Not start a revolution and new religion.

5. EVERY verse in the Qur'an about fighting others is:
 A) not referring to jews/christians as they are considered beleivers and/or people of the book, not infidels.
 B) always prefaced by talk about existing wars (at the time of the writing) and conflicts with other polytheist Arabs
 C) always followed by talk about reconcilation, push to get peace, accepting peace, treaties, etc and that the aggressor in a war is not liked by God.

6. Yes Christianity has changed and matured into a religion far closer to its actual teaching, while Islam is definately not there. But, that is the point of my thread. To demonstrate that this is not new to any religion and its not the basis of Islam. People of all faiths, espeially nonMuslims, need to quit reiterating and trying to prove that Islam is evil and violent, but instead need to focus on the real message Islam was and is defined as in the Qur'an.

In other words, by trying to continuously prove and show Islam as violent and evil, you are only supporting the cause of the extremists. But, by focusing on what the Qur'an actually says in total and the history of Islamic culture before the 1800's, you can then start a process where modern Muslim societies will realize that they are not following Islam.

Finally, Islam is not stuck in the Dark Ages, because that implies Islam acted like this during those centuries, when in fact it did not. The Dark Ages left Christianity and centuries later developed in the Islamic world. However, just as Muslim controlled Spain helped ignited the philosophies and ideologies that pushed the beginnings of the Renassance, Christian controlled western world should help ignite the modern philosphies of democracy, peace, freedoms that had already existed in Islamic cultures for centuries before.

The way I've always figured it...

The most obvious explanation is that, while there are exceptions, generally there's a high degree of correlation between poverty and religiosity. But clearly something deeper must be going on to explain the aggression. I think globalism and western multiculturalism both factor in pretty heavily here. Globalism because people are now more aware of what other people around the world are doing and what they have. Sayyid Qutb was an influential Islamist whose trip to America in the '40s seemed to have a profound impact on him, and a lot of the regression in the Islamic world strikes me as a similar backlash against modernity.

And multiculturalism because it's a nil, and you can't beat something with nothing. The timidity that this non-value breeds only emboldens the absolute worst elements in Islamdom. The most vociferous western feminists seem to pipe right down when it comes to the treatment of women in the Islamic world because, thanks to the insane hierarchy of political correctness, "Muslim" trumps "woman" every time. It's pretty hard to empower reformers and democrats in Islamic countries when you're busy fawning over the hardliners and how authentically anti-US/Bush/capitalism/whatever they are.

I'll keep this short and sweet:

A few rotten apples spoil the whole bunch for some.  It's ignorant and silly.

Actually, the crusades weren't even like that.

A funny example that happens in Civ 4: Beyond the Sword is that Vatican City is added as a wonder.  It works as a UN for anyone who has that relgion.  That's essentialy what the Vatican was.

Back then, when you were an invading army in a war you ALWAYS gained economically.   When you were a defendeding army you ALWAYS lost.

Even when you "won" a war by pushing back invaders... in reality, they gained money, and your economy got devestated.  

Why?  Lack of Potatoes.  Seriously.  Whenver there was a War, you would load your men up with enough food to make the jounary.

Say for example you are in England and your building up a huge army to crush France.  You load up your army with food, send them off to france, and by the time they got to france,  their food supply ran out.  So they're in Normandy looting the countryside for grain, and the peasents starve and lose all their food and whatever nice stuff they have.  Your crime goes down because all of the unemployed people have been set to war to earn a quick buck and steal whatever wasn't nailed down, and your economy gets a boom in demand for weapons and such.

So now your in Paris.  You need to raise up an army to fight against them.  You give them food and send them out.  Their food runs out/or spoils by the time they get to Normandy soo..... they have to pillage the countryside for food.  Probably stealing whatever was nailed down.

If the attackers are repelled they just retreat back to England... with everything they took that wasn't nailed down!  Meanwhile your population in the invaded areas has dropped by 66% and the local economies are ruined.

As such Europeon Nations were in a constant state of "I need to invade them before they invade me!"

Enter the Catholic Church, and the Crusades... the perfect way to export all the unemployed into non-allied countries to kill everything their and loot everything that wasn't nailed down.  Throw in the added religious justification so people will be willing to travel that far... and there you go. 

Problem solved.

Edit: Oh and why lack of potatoes was the answer... is that potatoes can last forever in the ground, but once picked go bad quickly, which meant that soldiers couldn't use them for war rations and food supplies.

Which meant after their introduction from America I wanna say... every farmer planted enough Potatoes to make sure that even in times of war they would have food.