I think Qazi offers a different perspective, and does so in good faith. Readers of this thread should consider that Islam is not a monolithic force. Vast differences of ethnicity, language and culture exist across the Muslim world. While pockets of extremism can be found from Morocco to Indonesia, this does not represent the mainstream. The West is today confronted by one particularly violent sect known as Wahabism (and its local variants.) Likewise, any sect professing a desire to spread Sharia will naturally find itself in conflict with the forces of modernity.
My personal experience in the Arab world informs me that the people are not violent by nature. True, they can be whipped into a violent hysteria by unscrupulous leaders (Arafat comes to mind), but the cultural character of say, Egypt, is marked more by fatalism and complacency than by violence. My experiences in Turkey, Kashmir, and Malaysia indicate to me that Islam can accommodate modernity as Muslims begin to secularize.
Granted that Wahabism is a problem, we in the West must do everything we can to stop its spread. Are there Muslims who will ally with us in this endeavor? Most certainly the answer is yes, but they must be vocal about it. I particularly like this guy:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjPx_dZf7U
I understand that Sufism is a minority sect within Islam, but that is true for the mystics of any religion. In addition, Sufism is pacifist in practice which makes it eminently compatible with European culture.
As for the Koran, the book is distincly dualistic in nature. One part describes a clearly revelatory experience while another part displays the hatreds, prejudices, and power-mongering of ordinary men. Islam clearly needs a reformation, something that will be difficult to accomplish given the static and fundamentalist interpretation coming out of Wahabism.
The history of Islam, like any history, is open to some interpretation. True enough, the initial burst of Islam out of Arabia was carried on a sword of religious fervor. But the first wave eventually ran out of steam as princes settled into the business of creating medieval states. In Spain, for example, religion was only one motivating force within the dynamics of feudal warfare. Spain’s great national hero, El Cid, was a mercenary and power-broker who fought for and against both sides as suited his ambitions.
In Asia Minor the Byzantines were routed by the Turks, not the Arabs who had little success against the bulwark of Eastern Christendom. It is telling that the Seljuks named their newly won territories the Sultanate of Rum (Rome), betraying their imperial ambitions over any desire to spread Islam by the sword.
The Ottomans who followed the Seljuks would create an empire much like Trajan did during the Roman Imperium. The Ottomans relied on conquest to feed an empire that needed constant expansion to survive. Trajan showed the same methodology when he ordered Roman legions to sack Dacia, loot its wealth, and enslave the population. The problem with piratical empires of this type is that decay sets in rapidly for lack of the internal institutions necessary to generate domestic wealth. Even into the 19th Century, Ottoman Turkey lacked both banking and the printing press.
Islam is not a monolithic force. History blends many threads of which religion is just one strand. When a Muslim shows up in a thread like this, people should listen. You might disagree, but you are getting a genuine perspective, without malice, from the other side. And before you attack me personally (as some no doubt will), know that I am neither an apologist nor a revisionist. What I have written here is my interpretation based on personal experience and my knowledge of history. You are welcome to disagree, but please do so with civility.
