"and to rid ourselves of the One World illusion."

Music to my ears.

Think global, act local.

Defund U of L by 20% till they show in word and deed that they get it. (see Aug 18 "Going to class)

Contact your MLA!

The fifth collumn in Whackademia must be stopped.

She refers to Obama as a One Worlder. That’s because he sees himself as a world ruler not the President of America. He is above America. He is part of the progressive parasites who have attached themselves to our MSM and academia and preach cultural relativism.

What she doesn’t talk about and should, is that there is no getting around the world becoming connected through economic trade. But that is very different than being a One Worlder in a political sense.

The EU started out as an economic idea, then had been on a path to One World in a political sense. The EU seems to have paused on that political idea just as the White House has lurched into it.

The message we keep hearing now is that the One Worlder enemy within is very entrenched.

U of L

University of Leftards?

or Lobotomised...

...Loonies

Lamebrains?

Have at it!

The everyman is caught between the waning Pax Americana, the rise of Islam and the Paper Tiger. However confined he may feel, civilisation starts with him. He doesn't have to tolerate the intolerable and intolerant Islamofascists nor does he have buy things made in China. He should gravitate toward a system that will allow him to simply live.
The comments after Miss Ali's essay are quite telling.
Just my quick thoughts.

She's right. We in the West have to long taken our own views as superlative. Rightly so in most cases. Having this attitude though harms us in not understanding the Other, or their motives. When you think people all have the same aspirations.
You tend to discount the many Different customs or cultural norms. Of thinking other folks employ.
Some are harmless, others deadly.
Like the Chinese. Learn what they feel from the belly, not by words. Look at their histories. How any culture relates to its young & old. Not least of all . Learn their Mythologies. That tells you what they admire or despise. The yearning of what folks want on a personnel & social level.
Humans do not all think alike.
JMO

Meh...I'm all for fighting the good fight, but I think we're too late. The soft, decadent West is too far gone.

State obligations, demographics, lax immigration policies, multicultural pixie dust, widespread historical ignorance, cultural cowardice, speech codes...the litany does not require repeating.

And certainly no offence to the always brilliant Mr. Sowell of the previous post (if only we had 10,000 more of him), but I think 2010 will only make a difference - civilization-wise - in the short term (whichever way it goes). The traitorous elite in the media and academy will ensure the next few generations are incapable of doing what's required...until they're left with no alternatives. And by that time it will be too late.

Europe will burn (both figuratively and literally) and the rest of the West will likely follow suit in short order. No doubt a phoenix will one day rise from the ashes, but there's going to be one hell of a lot of ashes first.

She is focused only on ideologies: Confucianism, Islamism, the West. And she is focused only on the descriptive, i.e., WHAT something is; she does not explore WHY each particular ideology exists. That's a basic flaw in her argument. An ideology does not exist 'in the clouds'; it exists rooted within an economic and material infrastructure...that is the CAUSE of the belief system.

Note that the first two are collectivist ideologies; the last is individualistic. Why did each emerge? Again, she ignores the causes of these three belief systems and considers the ideology as if it were a 'thing-in-itself'. It isn't; it exists in an economic infrastructure. And this economic infrastructure operates within a population size base; she also ignores this.

What she ignores, besides the economic structure and the population size, is the reality of the disappearance of space.
That is, our modern communication systems have nullified space. We can see, via satelitte, the cars and people crossing the intersection RIGHT NOW in any city on the planet. We can communicate with others, right now, all over the world. We can send information, right now, anywhere in the world. Space is no longer relevant.

Therefore, what she ignores is that economically and informationally the world is a massive complex adaptive system (CAS), a complex network of economic and social and communicative links. Links to links to links.

This complex network isn't about beliefs; it's about the infrastructure of economies; it's the steel structure that holds the building together - that we, on the outside of the building, never see.

This infrastructure IS global. And it is interconnected. There is no getting away from this reality. Therefore economically, the nodes or parts in this network have to be able to interact. They will all move into a capitalist mode. AND - to enable capitalism, their political infrastructure must be democracy. Because democracy is the political mode that enables individual free enterprise.

I therefore disagree that our current historical era is about a clash of three ideologies. No. That's superficial.

It is about an economic and communicative infrastructure that is expanding globally and has been since the end of the world wars and the end of the imperial era (nations and their colonies).

The problem as that as this CAS emerges there are some nations within this network that have not moved since the 7th c in their infrastructures and are resisting being part of the CAS. They are trying to remain tribal, not part of the network, not capitalist, with their people unable to participate in the CAS because they are not allowed free movement and communication.

So, Islam is refusing to modernize and is moving back, into a fundamentalist retreat to a 7th c ideology. Won't work. Its population base is too large for tribalism. She ignores that the economic mode is directly related to the size of the population..and the political mode is directly related to both these factors. You cannot focus only on the surface level: the ideology. You MUST look at the deeper infrastructures.

China is modernizing and most certainly isn't following either the Confucian or Communist ideology. Its people are engrossed in capitalism and democracy, i.e., the empowerment of the people, will follow.

The key problem is the Islamic states, where their oil wealth alone, is maintaining their ability to refuse to modernize and join with the world and communicate as equals.

It's not enough to focus on 'what' (the beliefs and behaviour); you must analyze 'why' these beliefs exist.

ET, you make some good points but the Chinese aren't focused on democracy or freedom. Those who are are punished. The Chinese are focused on greed and power.
Just a little quibble.

But in order to satisfy the majority who want more goods (and they all want Louis Vitton bags, and BMWs and 52" TVs)...you have to empower this majority to be capitalists..to satisfy this greed.

Therefore, the freedom to innovate, to be entrepreneurial, is a vital component. Most Chinese, to my knowledge, are uninterested in any ideology, including communism, and are uninterested in their own govt. As you probably know, a lot of what goes on in China is by bribery, private deals and so on. The old, old style of capitalism?!

// This infrastructure IS global. And it is interconnected. There is no getting away from this reality. //

One worlder, you!
Hirsi Ali might ask her Financial Historian paramour how the clash should proceed while borrowing money from one enemy civilization & using it to buy oil from the other.

May I confide in all of you that one of my secret desires is to be a fly on the wall in a room of Leftards after Hirsi Ali gave a speech akin to her recent editorial. It would be beyond amusing to see how these twits explain away her point of view. I imagine the reasons they would give would lie somewhere in the areas of "mental illness from all that she has gone through" to "trying to please The Man". But never, NEVER would they stop for a millisecond to consider that perhaps their own entire world views are deeply flawed.

"Meh...I'm all for fighting the good fight, but I think we're too late. The soft, decadent West is too far gone."

- Matt Hillier

I agree for many reasons.

I will not go trough the whole list, but consider this fact;

Muslims have higher birth rates than any Westerners...

Which means that their numbers will keep growing even if we were to stop immigration Completely right now.

Wich means the problems we have now will be only bigger in 10, 20, 50 years.

And there will be less of us to "fight" the good fight.

We are screwed.

Completely screwed.

Unless...

something REALLY BIG happens but what?...

Sadly 9/11 was not even big enough!!!

So what will it take ?

and who will have the balls to do it ?

I think we are screwed.

ET, I've seen you make this argument before, but I don't buy it. Why? It doesn't explain what happened to counties like Lebanon, where Beirut was once described as like Paris; or Iran, which was once religiously and socially tolerant; or today in Turkey, which is steadily backsliding away from secularism and toward theocracy. Islam has ruined or is ruining them all despite your assertion that it "Won't work."

Clearly, at least today, the social pull of Islam is stronger in those countries, and in others like them, than economic globalism. I think in your own way you're just as guilty of what Ali ascribes to the "One World" crew she is speaking out against: seeing the world the way you want to see it (economic expansion & global communication will result in freedom) instead of the way that it is (Islam is not retreating or reforming in any meaningful sense and has not been for decades).

ET

Have you ever seen the economic and communicative infrastructure in Dubai or Shanghai? The infrastructure is global. The links are expanding. The network effect is growing, but the culture is not changing.

The real question is do civilizations and cultures affect human behaviour? I tend to think that there are cultural conditionings that can overcome the basic human drives. Look at the basic human instinct for self preservation. Even this will be overcome with military cultural conditioning and enable soldiers to join their buddies and head into certain death attacks or flying airplanes into ships.

I read your note as positing that the drive to better oneself will overcome the cultural drive back to the 7th century and this will be enabled by economic and communications networks. Forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth. If that is not what you are saying please clarify.

Sorry, but in my view the evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis.

Hirsi Ali ... is absolutely correct in her observations. The problem is it's too damned late for it to nake any difference.
ET presents a perfect example of the "why".

Screwed .... unless you want to START something.... and finish it.

The emasculation of western civilization is near enough complete to prevent anything meaningfull from happening.

How do you define a 'cult'?

Does the fact it may have 2 or 3 billion followers disqualify it from the above examination?

ET, Ali goes into the "why" in great depth in her books. The "why" is pretty simple, Islam and the increasing stranglehold of its militant factions like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Schools set up by the British in Pakistan for instance are now madrassas teaching only Islamic studies. These same schools are now in the UK and Europe. Ali warns about this and how this militancy is a real threat to our society yet to the leftist cloud dwellers its just more diversity.

As noted Turkey and other muslim countries are moving backwards also.

Listen to muslims on talk shows like Roy Green's and they say we are racist and islamophobic for criticizing the 9/11 mosque. Ali writes this is SOP for muslims.

She emphasises what ET has also mentioned before, the 180 degree difference between our focus on the individual and their rights and freedoms vs Islam's focus totally on the group. Ali states Islam and our society are simply not compatible.

Ali writes on the violence and aggression of muslims, the beatings of children and women as a way of life with honour killings as just a facet of this violence. Watch muslim males in instances like the burquas in airport security as they aggressively browbeat and threaten the security personnel who don't know how to respond to this.

They are taught from childhood the dogma of Islam. This life is nothing, it is the next one that is important. Allah will wipe away all your sins if you become a martyr hence killing infidels or muslims that you consider infidels and the 72 virgins are yours.

We identify ourselves as Canadians they identify themselves as muslim, nationality is a long way down their list.

Ian in NS - Lebanon at the time was still under French colonial influence; Iran under the era of the Shah and a western perspective. But in all cases, there was still no middle class -but a two class system - whether pre-colonial, colonial or post-colonial.

What is going on now in the ME is the same two-class system but under the rule of Muslims and the old tribes - rather than colonial influences. The key is the emergence of a middle class, which requires a civic rather than tribal political system - and this is being prevented. Theocracy is a major tactic of repressive force that is used to try to maintain this two-class tribalism. I'm saying that they can try to retain this two-class system but in the long run, it won't work because the population is TOO LARGE for a two-class structure.

Actually, there are Islamic scholars trying to reform Islam, insisting that the hadiths and even Qur'an are open to interpretation. This will continue. And the social pull of Islam is not as strong as you think; it's being used as a propaganda tactic to repress a middle class. The demonstrations last year in Iran, with hundreds of thousands demonstrating for democracy show that a middle class cannot be repressed forever

rroe- yes, I'm aware of the Dubai, UAE and Shanghai etc infrastructures and their economic global networks. The culture IS changing in these areas. In China, the focus is on capitalism and wealth and individual enterprise.

No, I am not saying that the 'drive to better oneself will overcome the cultural drive back to the 7th c. You are saying that the individual psychological agenda will overcome the collective. I'm not saying that. Cultures affect human behaviour only when 'the culture works'.

I am saying that when the population base of a nation exceeds the carrying capacity of a particular societal and political mode, then, the mode MUST change. At the moment, in the ME, the old guard rulers are trying to maintain power within a two-class or tribal mode. They are able to do this by the oil wealth. Without that wealth they would have been overthrown a generation ago. This wealth, plus their movement into theological fundamentalism, has enabled them to control the population. But it cannot last.

A metaphoric analogy might be..consider the situation of a biological organism that is small, quiet, not growing aggressively. Suddenly, it starts to explode in growth, having accessed a certain source of nutrients. BUT, equally suddenly, the organism collapses because it has exhausted that source.

Another type of organism will not rely on that single source but will adapt, change its form of existence and access multiple nutrients.

It's the same thing with the ME nations. They were tribal, which means a two-class, no change, no growth infrastructure. This mode existed pre and during the colonial era. At the same time, their population expanded beyond the carrying capacity of a two-class structure. Think of the two-class structure as the organism's structure. Think of the growth as the population. They've tried to maintain their old style with nutrients (oil) and sheer Will (fundamentalism). But it can't last.

Change like this is not easy, it's not gradual but violent. And the West must enable and encourage this change.

They MUST go to a three class system, which removes power from the old tribes and gives it to a middle class. It has nothing to do with Islam but with the infrastructure of a CAS and its organization.

The major stumblling block to the ME is that Europe developed from feudal/tribal to nations and nationalities. That fundamental mentality is difficult in the ME with it's cultural legacy roted in the old Ottoman Empire.
In the Ottoman Empire even the Turks didn't identify as Turks. Identity was first by faith then by city......A Copt from Cairo...A Jew from Damascus....A Christian from Antioch and so on. Syrians don't really feel Syrian, Jordanians Jordanian, nor Iraquis feel Iraqui.
Kurds have a seperate ethnic identity, as do Turks, Persians and Beluchi's.
Arabs are the confused faction.....
A pan-islamic caliphate is a ludicrous concept in the 21st century, The Arab Caliphate was crushed by the Ottomans....after being tested by the Kurds, the Seijecs....because the splintered nature of Islam...Sunni, Shia, Ishmali, Sufi....
Arabs at the gut level loath Iranians/Persians, Kurds, and Turks...and the feelings are mutual....they all really hate each other...
It's sorta like Ireland....British dominance is just the latest excuse----much like the existance of Isreal being an excuse for so-called Islamic militancy....

So ET, how does one determine when the culture works or when it doesn't work? It seems to me that the culture is working in the East. It is built on a self contained set of self reinforcing values that some people benefit from reinforcing and perpetuating and other people benefit from following. It seems to me that you only need two classes of people in that kind of culture; Leaders and Followers. It doesn't matter what their wealth is - if the culture rewards leaders and followers and you get rich, middle class, and poor leaders and followers, the culture works.

I don't see how comparing a culture (as opposed to a population of humans) to a bunch of fruit flys is an appropriate metaphoric analogy. As a matter of fact this seems to be an argument by false comparison designed to distract from the point under discussion.

In agreeing with the thesis put forward by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and disagreeing with your contrary view I am saying that you have put forward wishful thoughts and hopeful hypothesis, which in the real world (as opposed to the world of metaphoric analogy)are not supported by observations.

No ET, Ali does not focus on ideologies, she focuses on civilizations.
Civilization, is "a term used to describe a certain kind of development of a human society", "significantly different current culture or complex of cultures, e.g. the Islamic civilization or Western culture". It is not only an ideology.

You say Chinese want democracy, but you are wrong.
Do you know that one of the most popular books in China is "China is not happy" where US is described as the major enemy of china.
China is modernizing but that does not mean that they want "democracy US-style". China is still communist country and communists still rule the country. Chinese want their country to be a major power and that's why they look upon US and the West as the enemy - economic and military enemies.

You think that Islam is refusing to modernize and is moving back, but you are wrong. They do modernize, but they modernize only their economy. . They think their ideology/religion will conquer other ideologies/religions and they may be right because many Europeans/westerners do not feel themselves connected to western culture.

Thinking about economy about this" links to links to links" you do not see that economy in China and in Islamic countries is under control of their respective ideologies. Or to put it differently they know that they are different from "the West", they look at "the West" as the competitor and the enemy and economy is one of the facet of the struggle for primacy.
. You see technology and the economy and interconnectedness and globalization and think that all people in all cultures want the same things - but they do not. Also you assume that because you think western culture is the best it must win, but that is not certain. Unfortunately many people in "the West" can not, or do not want, to understand that. You are the best example of that

sorry ella, but I'll continue to disagree.

A so-called 'civilization' is operationally, an ideology. The phrase 'a certain kind of development of a human society' is descriptively empty. What kind of 'development'?

You are focusing only on the personal and psychological, what people 'want'. You assume that the Chinese don't 'want democracy' because they define America as an enemy. That has nothing to do with the political system of democracy. Plus, most Chinese want to go to America; for them, it is the locus of wealth - and their focus is only on attaining personal wealth. In actual fact, that book 'China is not Happy' which was intended to be anti-West, has instead done the opposite, and has "burst open the Chinese people's grievances against their own government" (Asia Times April 23, 2009).

"The Communist Party, which has held power since 1949, faces a swell of popular discontent over rampant corruption, income disparity and its failure to prevent children's deaths in last year's Sichuan earthquake, and the scandalous cover up of contaminated infant milk formula that has poisoned over 300,000 babies."

And the Chinese people don't look upon the West as an enemy; their focus is on economic networking and also, academic networking. Chinese scientists work closely with colleagues in the west, publish papers together, attend conferences together.

The Islamic economy is not modernizing. Moving into an industrial technology is not moving into a modern economy - which requires a middle class as individual small business entrepreneurs.

Again, what counts - far and beyond the expressed ideology - which is only the surface and can change, is the deeper infrastructure. This includes demographics - the actual size of the population which must be supported and organized, and the economic and political system that carries out this task. A population in the multimillions MUST have a flexible and dynamic economy, one that can react to risks. That is only possible within a middle class.

I am not into concepts such as 'the west is best'. That is totally irrelevant.

I refer strictly and only to basic dynamics: the size of the population; the resources accessible to support this population; the means of organization. Period. With a multimillion population, the only way to access resources is by a flexible rapid-response economy - this is a capitalist middle class. The only political system that empowers a middle class is democracy.

The above outline has nothing to do with ideology, with religion, with race, with 'the west'. It's pure 'energy-dynamics' of a complex adaptive system.

ET
Communist party of China faces a "swell of popular discontent over rampant corruption" every couple of years and every couple of years there are prediction that it will be "regime change" And communist party is still there.

Income disparity is large problem in china but, you see, every chinese person think that next millionaire will be he/she. It is like American Wild West - everybody thought he could get rich even though it was not true.

Chinese economy is capitalist - think of schools of fish competing for resources with each other and among themselves with communist party as sharks giving these schools direction.
They may not need democracy, they have their own system empowering "middle class" under direction of communist party.

Chinese people look at the West as a competitor and the enemy. There is academic networking and economic networking and that does not change the facts that China is at best a competitor, at worst the enemy of USA.

There is also extensive academic networking and economic networking with emirates and Saudis. Who do you think is teaching in Saudis universities or studying at American universities..........so what?

btw there is also extensive Chinese economic espionage and military espionage costing yearly America millions of dollars.
"The People's Republic of China (PRC) has and is currently utilizing a widespread effort to acquire U.S. military technology and classified information. In order to fulfill its long-term military development goals, the PRC uses a variety of efforts to obtain U.S. technology know-how; including espionage, the exploitation of commercial entities, and a network of scientific, academic, and business contacts.[1] The Chinese operate in ways that take advantage of U.S. judicial laws so as to avoid prosecution. The PRC uses a vast network of agents and contacts to collect pieces of information that is collated and put together in the PRC. "

The above outline has nothing to do with ideology, with religion, with race, with 'the west'. It's pure 'energy-dynamics' of a complex adaptive system.
Pah, ET, you are sooo wrong.

Nope - ella, you haven't convinced me. I'll stand by my analysis of why the Chinese and ME must move into capitalism and democracy. You have your view and I have mine. I don't agree with you.

By the way, when you cut and paste, it's normal to provide the source.

ET

West MUST encourage the change in the ME?? Why?

Do you think that middle class is LESS fundamentalist then other classes?
Do you really think that Muslim Brotherhood does not consist of middle class people?
Who, according to you, belongs to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria or Jordan?
What do you think Taliban did in Pakistan and is doing in Afghanistan - in Pakistan it disturbed the tribal structure in FATA and Balochistan and it is doing the same in Afghanistan. It is, you may say, a medium for change.
What do you think is the one of many grievances of al Qaeda people in the Middle East ---- the tribal structure. Only they want to go back to the beginning of Islam because they think the problem is the lack of real religiosity/faith.

What makes you think that any changes in the ME empowering middle class will be always positive for the West?

ET
It may be normal to provide the source in the academic papers but I am not writing a paper.
It also seems to me that you do not provide sources either. However, fyi, it is from Wikipedia - look under Chinese espionage in USA.
****
as for your "you did not convinced me" ---I am in good company - neither did Hirsi Ali ;-)

ella - the West must encourage change in the ME because otherwise, the repression of the people by the ME rulers will be diverted by those ME rulers, as it has been, against the West.

The definition of a middle class is its focus on the primacy of the individual and that individual's freedom of expression and actions. The US Declaration of Independence is a key document of the middle class, as is its Constitution. With regard to ideas, the focus of the middle class is the openness of its beliefs to debate and questions. Therefore, by definition, the middle class cannot be fundamentalist since its beliefs are open to change. The basic belief, that is unchangeable in a middle class is that focus on the individual and freedom.

Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood can exist within the middle class in the US but its beliefs are and must be open to debate, criticism, questions - and change.

The Taliban reject a middle class and instead, are a tribal system, mostly Pashtan tribes, who want to maintain a tribal (two-class) system, which is no-growth, no-progress, anti-individual and fundamentalist. As I've noted, this is impossible in the long term, because of the size of the population in the ME.

As for citing sources, posts on blogs are expected to cite them.

Certainly changes in the ME to enable a middle class and democracy will be positive for the West and for themselves. I won't even get into the morality of a societal system that enables the equality of men and women, stops stoning of women, honour killings, gets rid of sharia law and its 7th c beliefs and etc.

I'll just refer to empowering the people to engage in robust economic development within their own country and engaging in international economics. This empowerment will enable them to move out of their repressive societal systems, and also, strengthen their food production, health care, housing construction and thus - enable their population to live better lives. How can this not help the West?

Plus - they can move into technological development and thus, enrich the world. So far, the technological developments of the world have almost 95% come from the West. Whether it is transportation, communication, medical, physics, biology, chemistry, electronics, computers - all of these developments have emerged in the West. Why? Because of that freedom to question, explore and innovate in the middle class.

As I said, Chinese researchers are heavily into scientific collaborative research (I know a good number of them)- and it's important for the ME people to move out of dogma and into science.

So- you and I will have to continue to agree to disagree. Cheers.

The western civilization is being destroyed from inside by the perverted ruling class.

conspiracy Flake said

How do you define a 'cult'?

Does the fact it may have 2 or 3 billion followers disqualify it from the above examination?

I do not think that numbers are the key factor in deciding whether or not an ideology, political or religious, can be considered a cult.

In my opinion, Islam has a couple of key characteristics that have historically been hallmarks of cults. The one that stands out the most to me is that members are not free to speak out negatively either to each other or outsiders regarding the groups beliefs and are certainly not free to leave. Look what happened to Raheel Raza, a founding member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, who called the idea of a mosque within 300 metres of Ground Zero “a deliberate provocation” on national television. She has since been threatened via a phone call from the GZ Mosque developer who told her that he hopes "Allah Protects her" and then hung up. Pamela Gellar has also had her life threatened via twitter several times since she began speaking her thoughts on the GZ mosque-those of you who pray - please remember her in your prayers.

Worse still, is the killing of members who disobey the group code or laws, in this case Sharia Law, including parents killing their own children (Jim Jones cult members). Those who are brave enough to leave know they face the very real threat of death. Members are controlled by fear and live in emotional confinement/enslavement to the groups belief system and are forced to do acts they would probably never do outside of being a member of that group.

Frankly, I do not think it all that difficult to get over a billion members over time, under this type of emotional imprisonment coupled with the very real threats from their leaders and fellow members - public executions, brutal honor killings, and numerous terrorist acts prove the group means business.Cults do not want you to associate with anyone who does not believe as they do unless absolutely necessary and they also "sugar coat" their beliefs to make them palatable to outsiders -the rest of society so they can use society for their own means, and convert said outsiders, but the insiders know better and are fully aware of the groups ideology, beliefs and intentions,yet are not allowed to disclose this information.

Kafirs and infidels - outsiders are also targets -many have been beheaded for speaking our or warning others about Islam.

Islam is part cult, part religion and part political ideology, yet pure evil.

Now, I think many Muslims came to the West to get away from Sharia Law, yet they still refer to themselves as Muslims on forms such as the census because of their families history/heritage, but that does not necessarily mean they are practicing Muslims - they may eat some of the traditional foods or abstain, yet they do not wear the dress (hijab. burka, beards, turbans) or visit Mosques except on designated Muslim holidays (holy days) they do not pray 5 times a day and have adopted western values and freedoms, but they still believe that Allah is God - praying only when necessary. There are many Christians that are the same, identify themselves as Christians on the census form, yet only celebrate Thanksgiving Christmas, Easter - going to church only on those occasions, but they believe Jesus was the son of God and pray only when necessary.

However, those that are building the Mosques including the GZ Mosque, are not merely Muslim by heritage - they practice the letter of the law in the Koran and believe that Mohammad was the perfect man and the example all Muslims should follow outlining how others, women and outsiders are to be dealt with. These Muslims are the violent and dangerous type and they hate all who are not as zealous as they are, especially those whom we refer to as "moderate".

The information re: Raheel Raza is from the Atlas Shrugs site.

I'm no expert on China but I know a few important things first hand: Confuciusism is pretty much dead. It is very "anti-woman" and the Chinese women I know pretty much laugh in the faces of anyone that seriously buys into that "barefoot and pregnant" stuff.

The Chinese are not Communist. That is their government, not their culture. Their culture took millennia to establish and it will outlast Communism.

Thirdly, and most important the Chinese are inherently individualistic. They are born entrepreneurs. On a personal basis they really do try to achieve success by self determination. You couldn't do that in the old Solviet Republic and most Russians lack that kind of free market motivation today.

China is quickly Westernizing. China's people (not their government) on a whole are not a mortal enemy but a strong competitor and there's more similarity between them and us everyday.

By the way, Hirsi Ali is my hero. She has more bravery in her fingernail than most Liberals ever develop in a lifetime. Hat's off!

Please note - I am not saying, nor do I believe that Islam is the same as Christianity in any way, shape or form - I was simply trying to make a point and also express why I think many "moderate Muslims" do not speak out - they know they risk death in so doing.

I find this explanation of world geopolitics to rely solely on political theory, that we group ourselves into collective 'cultures'...and that explains actions...to ignore a more simple, fact based explanation. For example, the fact that the middle east has been controlled by US and British forces since WWII is glossed over completely. All historic events are ignored as potential contributers to the present situation. For example, the fact that Turkey has been considered 'moderate' actually refers to the fact that the US has funded Turkey and kept it in line with US policy...giving Turkey arms and funding while the Turkish government increasingly committed human rights abuses against it's own citizens, the Kurds. If that is considered 'moderate', I don't want to know what 'extreme' is. Now, because Turkey has strayed from it's reigns it is now considered potentially 'extreme'. The middle east has been controlled be despots for decades, propped up by the US, meant to act as facade governments.

ET:

"It is about an economic and communicative infrastructure that is expanding globally and has been since the end of the world wars and the end of the imperial era (nations and their colonies)."

I agree with 100%. I would add the intensification of geopolitics as well.

"The problem as that as this CAS emerges there are some nations within this network that have not moved since the 7th c in their infrastructures and are resisting being part of the CAS. They are trying to remain tribal, not part of the network, not capitalist, with their people unable to participate in the CAS because they are not allowed free movement and communication."

I agree that is an imbalance in this network that influences 'problems', however I disagree with your explanation of the cause of such imbalances. This network has NEVER worked towards creating balance and therefore it is not a matter of certain nodes resisting progress/inclusion. I will assume that you would agree that the US is the leader of this CAS..their foreign policy since the end of WWII has sought to prevent other 'nodes' from joining the system.

"The key problem is the Islamic states, where their oil wealth alone, is maintaining their ability to refuse to modernize and join with the world and communicate as equals."

How would wealth help one PREVENT modernization and joining with the world? You do not seem to be familiar with oil politics and the history of the ME since end WWII.

"the West must encourage change in the ME because otherwise, the repression of the people by the ME rulers will be diverted by those ME rulers, as it has been, against the West."

You're apparent lack of knowledge about US-British-ME relations is glaring. The 'west' has been encouraging 'stability' in the ME since the end of WWII. The state of the ME is a direct consequence of US foreign policy. That policy aims to secure US interests by creating facade governments/rulers acting to suppress nationalistic public sentiments and allowing the US to prosper from the vast amounts of valuable resources.

Are you unfamiliar with the history of US lead coups and regime changes? With the history of US arms and funding?

"The definition of a middle class is its focus on the primacy of the individual and that individual's freedom of expression and actions. "

Isn't the definition of a 'middle class' a GROUP/COLLECTIVE of people in a median income range? What has that to do with the individual? Are the wealthy incapable of focusing on the primacy of the individual?

"the middle class cannot be fundamentalist since its beliefs are open to change."

Funny how your discussion of the middle class' focus on the individual remains in the realm of the collective.

"The basic belief, that is unchangeable in a middle class is that focus on the individual and freedom."

Well, you haven't even approached proving that, but nevertheless, you contradict yourself. How is the middle class incapable of 'fundamentalism', yet they hold a 'basic belief that is unchangeable' (the definition of fundamental)?

"The Taliban reject a middle class and instead, are a tribal system, mostly Pashtan tribes, who want to maintain a tribal (two-class) system, which is no-growth, no-progress, anti-individual and fundamentalist. "

The same Taliban that was aided, funded, armed, and propped up by the US right?

"I'll just refer to empowering the people to engage in robust economic development within their own country and engaging in international economics. This empowerment will enable them to move out of their repressive societal systems, and also, strengthen their food production, health care, housing construction and thus - enable their population to live better lives. How can this not help the West?"

I will help the West, and it would be great if that was happening, but I see no evidence for it. The US has been engaged in ensuring that it does not happen since the end of WWII.

ella:

"It also seems to me that you do not provide sources either."

ET is above providing sources, had you not realized that yet ;)

It's cause ET 'knows people'...
"As I said, Chinese researchers are heavily into scientific collaborative research (I know a good number of them)"

// issues of religious tolerance. But //
&
// The West's universalist pretensions //

So drop that stuff. But what to replace it with?

// The greatest advantage of Huntington's civilizational model of international relations is that it [...] allows us to distinguish friends from enemies. //

That is US "the Western," versus THEM "the Muslim and the Confucian"

But what to do --
"Once we understand how the other side is waging it" ["this clash"] ?

"divide and rule cannot be our only policy."
We must respond to
"an active propaganda campaign"
++
She's come a long way from her fight for the rights of muslim women.
She's now the consort of imperialist historian Niall Ferguson.

They could share the work -- he'll take the "divide & rule", she'll do the propaganda.

I suspect that her little obsession with Turkey is the fear that it will become part of "US" [european branch] while remaining muslim.
A conceptual contradiction to one who is now so clear about her enemies.
And possibly also the influence of a prominent Islam-watcher who wants Turkey to return to orthodox christianity.

Civilizations operate in cycles. Yet we are surprised.

Here are some facts about the reality of life. Athens disappeared a long time ago, but Democracy is alive and well. The Roman Republic died before the heyday of Rome, but its ideals inspire nations to this day. To put it mildly, great civilizations may not survive, but great ideas do.

"We in the West have to long taken our own views as superlative. Rightly so in most cases. Having this attitude though harms us in not understanding the Other, or their motives. When you think people all have the same aspirations.
You tend to discount the many Different customs or cultural norms. Of thinking other folks employ."

Very true. The dismissive attitude of the west towards all things non-west stands in stark contrast to the eastern civilizations willingness to incorporate the best from the others. China is too opaque to draw a direct example, but its southern neighbor India has shown a remarkable appetite for western norms and ideas, without really damaging its own civilizational identity. Indians will argue till the end of days that their civilization is superior, but it won't stop them from happily adopting any aspect of western civilization that they like, be it individualism or democracy. In the west, on the other hand, we prefer to deal only with superficial aspects (dim sum, yoga), while wholeheartedly ignoring any deeper aspects of their civilization. It is not uncommon to meet a Hindu who is well-versed in the Bible. But how many Christians are well-versed in the Bhagavad Gita? We are following in the footsteps of Lord Macaulay, who famously claimed that one shelf in a European library contained more wisdom than all the literary works of India. Whether this is true or not, is not the point. This kind of thinking has bred an apathy to the eastern civilizations that makes it difficult for us to understand their sudden (though not surprising) rise.

"Humans do not all think alike."

Ah, but they do. They all want the best for their children. Some civilizations provide very clear cultural guidelines for ensuring success in this regard. Others fail to provide them at all. This may well be one of the arenas in which Macaulay's thinking has harmed us.

" They will all move into a capitalist mode. AND - to enable capitalism, their political infrastructure must be democracy. Because democracy is the political mode that enables individual free enterprise. therefore disagree that our current historical era is about a clash of three ideologies. No. That's superficial."

If I could stand up on the screen and applaud, I would. A logical way of stating my more flowery sentiment easlier.

"ET, you make some good points but the Chinese aren't focused on democracy or freedom. Those who are are punished. The Chinese are focused on greed and power."

Be that as it may, a governing system that is built on a revolutionary ideology will always fear a discontented populace. A fundamental truth of life is that the richer you get the more power you expect (better known in its rough form -DYKWIA-itis). The Chinese do not live in a vacuum. They travel and they are exposed to freedom. Right now they are savoring the luxuries of prosperity, but once they start reaching the same comfort zone as we in the west have, they will start to fight for rights. In very simple terms, if the communist party is the epicenter of greed and power, many affluent parents will want their children to be a part of it. And they will demand more opportunities therein which, unsurprisingly, will force the party itself to democratize in ways inconcievable under Mao.

"Iran, which was once religiously and socially tolerant"

Can't speak for ET, but if you look deeper into the revolution in Iran, you will notice that it was carried out by a joint alliance between the secularists and the religious. They were rejecting overt western influence (including the assasination of a Prime Minister) in favor of an Iranian identity. Khomeini was a figurehead who was adopted by the elites on both sides because of his appeal to the more conservative rural regions. Of course, once the revolution took place, the religious wings turned on the secular wing and essentially decimated them. The desire to go Islamic was based on a desire to build a national identity not linked with the royal family. I should ad that the royal family had co-opted the pre-Islamic Persian civilization, rendering it ia non-option then, but it is becoming increasingly popular in Iran these days. The religious lot in that revolution learnt their lesson well - they are now trying to whitewash pre-Islamic (ie Persian) history, by adopting methods such as banning parents from naming their children after the likes of Xerxes or Darius. The revolution itself was based less on a desire to go Islamic and more on a desire to obtain a unique identity befitting its own perception of itself as a unique nation (except now its a unique Shia nation).

"Lebanon, where Beirut was once described as like Paris"

Foreign funding (Iran, Syria etc). I can assure you that the nightlife in Lebanon is as western today as it was in the 1970s. Things change during the violent periods, when you have to choose between the devil and the deep sea, but in peacetime, the place boasts some of the best nightlife in the mediterenean region, which would be impossble under a religious regime.

"Turkey, which is steadily backsliding away from secularism and toward theocracy"

Similar to Iran. The issue is not the secularism, but the fact that it is closely associated with a very strong military leadership that does not have any democratic credentials. It is less a rejection of secularism than it is of the non-accountable military stranglehold on government. The hijab is a way of asserting defiance and secularism is a target by association, not a target in itself.

Very true. The dismissive attitude of the west towards all things non-west stands in stark contrast to the eastern civilizations willingness to incorporate the best from the others.

DA, it seems to me that you don't know the attitude of the non-west cultures.
Both Chinese AND Islamic societies got into their respective decline because they dismissed western civilization and it achievements as "barbaric" (that was Chinese view) or non-believer's crap (that was Ottoman and Muslim view). Compared to them western civilization as a whole is a paragon of willingness to incorporate stuff from other cultures.
It is true that they (eastern civilizations) now incorporate some of the western achievements, but mainly in the realm of science and technology.
Tell me, what kind of science and technology achievements from "the eastern civilizations" should western civilization incorporate for its own?
******
Turkey presently is rejecting secularizm, on the other hand Iran is going in the opposite direction. (green movement, not the government)
*****
Military in Turkey, in contrast to what you are writing, is a pillar of secularizm and the inheritor of principles of Attaturk reform. That, of course, does not mean that they are pro-western OR pro-USA. Only that they follow Attaturk principles.
Your point of view is in direct opposition to kemalist ideas.

"Both Chinese AND Islamic societies got into their respective decline because they dismissed western civilization and it achievements as "barbaric" (that was Chinese view) or non-believer's crap (that was Ottoman and Muslim view)."

Ah, but I do know about the two civilizations at hand. The Chinese, despite their stance on barbaric others, adopted Buddhism wholeheartedly, as well as several innovations and ideas that came along the silk route. Indeed, you would be wise to look at the evolution of the cities along the silk route. The use of the term barbaric, applied to all outsiders, has more to do with the appropriately-described barbaric invasions by the Mongols than it has to do with any open rejection of all foreign ideas. We, in the west, often forget that there were commercial, trade, spiritual and even educational links across South east and South Asia. The Chinese state routinely sent students and scholars to Nalanda university in India until the 12th century. This notion that they viewed all outsiders as barbaric is a bit too simplistic. It only came into play because of the Mongols, and it only became a big deal in the west because of the Opium wars.

I would be equally wary of accepting the simplistic explanation of Islam, too, the obvious example being India, where it incorporated many local Hindu beliefs and spawned numerous schools of thought. The fundamentals of Islam have remained the same, of course, but the influence is evident in various strands of Islam, such as sufiism. Mughal India has left many legacies, not the least of which is its apparent unwillingness to wipe out or convert the local Hindu population, despite the latter's inherently anti-Islamic polytheistic beliefs. Similar forms of integration are evident in the Levantine region, where local Islamic variants have picked up all manner of beliefs (and saints) from the Christians who preceded them. Granted these are all subtle changes, but the difference between Islam in, say, India, and Islam in Saudi Arabia, and Islam in Syria will tell you its own tale about the ability or willingness of Islam to integrate. Wahabbism, after all, has to be exported from Saudi Arabia.

"It is true that they (eastern civilizations) now incorporate some of the western achievements, but mainly in the realm of science and technology."

Another simplistic reading. They don't just incorporate learning how to use computers. They have also incorporated economic beliefs and ideologies (communism was not a Chinese invention), as well as institutions (Parliamentary democracy in India or Malaysia). You are boiling it down to very superficial changes. Look deeper. Consider the role of the individual in modern day China or India as opposed to the 15th century versions of themselves.

"Tell me, what kind of science and technology achievements from "the eastern civilizations" should western civilization incorporate for its own?"

In a globalised world, it is difficult to attribute new innovations to any particular part of the world. To put it mildly, you don't know where half of the stuff is being designed and made. It would be a bit questionable to state that the west created "software" and the Indians mastered it. etc etc.

Nowadays, the focus is on ideas, not on the invention (or reinvention) of gunpowder. There are no geographical limits on innovations. Most of the scientific and technological innovations you use today come from work done in several different countries.

However, if you do want more traditional ideas from the east, consider the family oriented approach that they maintain. In particular, contrast the manner in which Asian families 'interfere' in their child's education to the independence westerners grant to theirs. The flip side is that Asian families will pay an arm and a leg to get their children educated in technical fields, while western parents will remove themselves from the process, watching dispassionately from the sidelines as their children take out huge loans to go and study subjects that are not geared towards the job market. Thats just one example of the philosophical differences between east and west. I am sure you will find many more. However, as things stand, we, like Macaulay, will insist that everything is right with us and everything is wrong with the east. It doesn't work that way.

"Military in Turkey, in contrast to what you are writing, is a pillar of secularizm and the inheritor of principles of Attaturk reform."

I don't oppose Ataturk and his reforms. However, if you scratch below the surface, you will find that the military regime that upholds Ataturk ideals, is also despised because of its habit of playing God in Turkish politics. It occupies a role not entirely dissimilar to that of the Guardian council in Iran. It maintains an iron grip on power and is essentially not answerable to the people. Suffice to say, it is not a fully democratic system, and this is provoking a lot of anger in some segments of society, many of whom are donning the hijab as a sign of protest (as opposed to a symbol of growing religiousness). They are not religions - they are anti-military, which, for all the virtues of Ataturk's philosophy, is deeply popular because of its secretive ways and less than honorable conduct.

With regard to Iran, the reverse is not surprising. Most urban people were rejecting the Shah, not embracing Islam. Its hardly a surprise that their children are agitating against Islam. They signed up for a country wihtout a shah, but they werent expecting a country run by religious clerics. The inclusion of Islam was, as in Turkey, brought about by opposition to the Shah, not some growing religious belief in Iran. Even now, the religious militias are recruited from impoverished rural areas because no one in the urban areas will join them.

Devil's:

I very much enjoy your thoughts.

"we prefer to deal only with superficial aspects (dim sum, yoga)"

So very true, perhaps a general theme in the west...obsession with the superficial..in all aspects. Individualism stands for superficially expressing that individualism through appearance; interest in current events never ventures past superficial, shallow, thus inaccurate, summaries of select events; exploring the arts rarely strays from following popular opinion.

"Ah, but they do. They all want the best for their children."

I agree 100%..even deeper than tangible events, we all want something that is not easily described by words...peace of mind, self-contentment, 'happiness'...descriptions that barely approach a true understanding.

" it is closely associated with a very strong military leadership that does not have any democratic credentials."

VERY strong and active military leadership, Turkey's use of it has left a trail of atrocities upon its own people.

"In a globalised world, it is difficult to attribute new innovations to any particular part of the world...It would be a bit questionable to state that the west created "software" and the Indians mastered it...Nowadays, the focus is on ideas."

For sure, as well, it takes ingenuity to 'master' and apply technology. The east has made advancements in automobiles, manufacturing, physics, software, and medicine, just to name a few.

Correct. One would be wise to look at cities along silk route. Should I remind you that Constantinople, Antioch, Aleppo, Damascus, Rome and Venice lay also on the Silk Road? We in the west did not forget that there were many commercial, trade and educational links between China, India and Italian cities. How, do you think, silk and spices come to be present in Italy and in Europe? We found and grew them in our climate? That does not contradict the fact that Chinese did look down at others and call themselves "middle kingdom" aka Zhōngguó. Chinese at the time you are talking about - introduction of buddism- did not need to introduce much of the other's innovation because, you see, they were innovators. But they got stagnant and complacent, did not innovate further AND did not try to borrow things and inventions from others. Because they thought themselves better than others.

I would be equally wary, if I were you, of talking about India. . Contrary to what you are writing invading caliphate armies did try to convert Hindu population. Not so many years ago the Buddha statues in Afghanistan were on the list of UNESCO heritage sites. So what do you think was the ruling religion in this region - in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And talking about conquerors and their plunder, the spoils from the Caliphate wars with India were used for building and beautification of Baghdad.
You are also wrong writing about Sufism. Sufism did not come from India but rather to India through Persia.
Incorporation of some Hindu beliefs into Islam was on par with incorporation of pagan beliefs into Christianity - majority of people have to have some connection with the past. It was nothing to do with the ability of Islam to integrate but everything to do with the human nature. Also it is not polytheistic beliefs that are anti-Islamic but it is Islam which is inherently anty-polytheistic - after all polytheism precedes Islam.

As for the rest ---- Do you really think that your sentence In a globalized world, it is difficult to attribute new innovations to any particular part of the world. To put it mildly, you don't know where half of the stuff is being designed and made. is an answer to any question? Or that Asiatic "family oriented approach" where parents interfere with their children education is a "philosophical difference"?
You are saying that I do "simplistic reading" -- maybe, it is a blog and not a symposium on, let's say, "Partial likelihood analysis of spatio-temporal point process data". So may be I do simplistic. You, on the other hand, waffle.

The above is addressed, of course, to Devil's Advocate.

"How, do you think, silk and spices come to be present in Italy and in Europe?"

Initially by ship. The Romans used to sail from Egypt to Southern India, which was the main hub for spices. You can still find hordes of Roman gold coins in the region. Trade links between India and China also used the sea route. The Silk route was not a creation of west. It was already there (and very well developed) by the time Marco Polo showed up.

"But they got stagnant and complacent, did not innovate further AND did not try to borrow things and inventions from others. Because they thought themselves better than others."

Civilizations are cyclical. It went through its low phase and now it is returning to its high phase. One generations reluctance to adpot outsider practices is not enough evidence to support your blanket statement about their rejection of outsiders. Communism, after all, is a very western invention. Chinese students do not swarm to American business schools to mock western business ideas; they come here to learn them. Even if they are doing this with the most pragmatic focus, it does affect their worldview.

"Contrary to what you are writing invading caliphate armies did try to convert Hindu population."

Wrong. One or two overzealous types may have tried it, which is quite normal since you see other religions try the same thing with other religious groups coming to India (the Portugese even managed to carry out a violent inquisition in Goa at the behest of a man who would later become a saint). However, the first wave of Islamic zealots focused their raids primarily on an gold-filled temple named Somnath. Yes, they used religious language to justify it, but it was ultimately a smash and grab. Make some money and leave. Throughout history you had these sort of characters all over the world. Of course, the evidence speaks for itself - namely that there are more Hindus in South Asia than there are muslims. Furthermore, any reading of Indian history will show you that even the most zealous of muslim rulers (Aurganzeb) had Hindus in his employ - often in high positions (PMs, leaders of th army, treasury ministers etc).

As for the Caliphate wars, it would be a bit nonsensical to attribute smash-and-grabs only to Islam. British spoils of war from India, particularly those imposed in the aftermath of victory (annual tributes and trade 'concessions') built and beautified England (and probably Canada). A lesser known fact about British rule of India is that it went from being worth 25% of the global GDP in the 16th century (before the British) to less than 2% (end of British rule). Where do you think the money went? And what Caliphate wars are you talking about. India's second "Golden Age' came under Muslim rule by Turkic muslims who were born and who lived in India. The modern administrative structure, that the British ended up co-opting, was set up by an Afghan named Sher Shah. And throughout it all, Islamic rulers did not forcibly try to convert Hinduism. Indeed, being non-muslim barely hurt your chances of advancement in the government (which was the most important employer at the time). The Hindu king Hemu, who was ultimately defeated by Akbar (one of the few Indian rulers to be recognized as "the great"), became a king after serving as a general in a muslim army. Revisionist history in the aftermath of 9/11 is all well and good, but the facts don't change. For all their ills, the muslim rulers left extensive records and the British preserved them. Perhaps you should read them, instead of engaging in what appears to be a game of guessing and poorly carried out deduction.

"You are also wrong writing about Sufism. Sufism did not come from India but rather to India through Persia."

Read carefully. I did not say that Sufiism originated in India. I did, however, say that
Hindu influence in Islam is visible in Sufiism. Don't put words in my mouth. The main sufi shrines are still in India and they are frequented by people of all the religions of India.

"It was nothing to do with the ability of Islam to integrate but everything to do with the human nature"

I am not sure what you are trying to say. On the one hand you keep treating Islam as a rigid doctrine that tolerates no outside thought. On the other hand, you tacitly admit that changes have been made but attribute it to human nature. You cannot eat your cake and have it too (or was it have your cake and eat it too). If it views outside thought as wrong, surely we would see a series of inquisitions across the Islamic India every few years? Fact of the matter is that we have not. Different variants have been allowed to flourish in different regions. Ismailis in Western India, Sunnis in the North etc.

"Also it is not polytheistic beliefs that are anti-Islamic but it is Islam which is inherently anty-polytheistic - after all polytheism precedes Islam."

You're right. A semantical slip on my part.What I meant to say is Polytheistic Hinduism is especially anti-thetical to monotheistic Islam. Indeed, polytheism and idolatory are amongst the biggest sins. However, despite that, temples survive and, crucially, Hinduism survives. As does Buddhism. And Sikhism. And Jainism. And all the other-isms that have survived the test of time.

With regard to the rest, your overly simplistic analysis of technological innovation and science prompted the statement you now deride. Like it or not, innovation may have been most abundant in the west in the 19th and 20th centuries, but in the 21st century, innovation is emerging rapidly in all parts of the world. In other words, the western technological and scientific lead, while still advanced, is beginning to slip.

"Or that Asiatic "family oriented approach" where parents interfere with their children education is a "philosophical difference"?"

Indeed, It stands in direct contrast to the western world's stance on individualism and independence. There is a reason that western university's engineering classes are filling up with Asians and it does not have anything to do with any racial dispositions towards learning the subjects. It is, I would state, one of the fundamental philosophical differences between east and west right now. We let our children study what they want as long as they take out the loans to cover themselves. Asian families place a tight grip on their children's education from an early age, and loan or no loan, maintain that grip till the 'children' are out of university. The flip side of that is that they provide all the funding that they can, leaving their children to study instead of working pointless part time jobs to cover rising expenses. Philosophical difference? Yes, very much so. Very different philosophy on the approach to life.

Devil's Advocate

The discussion started from your statement that ."The dismissive attitude of the west towards all things non-west stands in stark contrast to the eastern civilizations willingness to incorporate the best from the others." I showed it is not true and you implicitly confirmed it. One evidence for the "non-dismissive attitude of the west" being evidenced in the manufacture of silk in medieval Europe. Which come into being in exactly the same way Chinese recently started to manufacture many of their goods. Your words attributing to me claims that "innovation is not emerging rapidly in all parts of the word". "And that technological lead of the west is beginning to slip" are your own thoughts which have nothing to do with the discussion on "dismissive attitude of the West" versus "non-dismissive attitude of the East "

You are wrong also in many other things:
1) You claim that caliphate armies did not try to convert Hindu people, your evidence for that is the fact that there are more Hindu people in India then Muslims. But you refuse to take into consideration facts that:
- Hindu people at that time had highly civilized culture therefore it was much more difficult to conquer and convert people with strong kingdoms and high civilization then people with no civilization and no strong state.
- that territories of present Pakistan and Afghanistan (on the outskirts of Hindustani territory) were Hindu/Buddhists and now are exclusively Muslim.
- that for 300 years Muslim armies tried to conquer Hindu people before they finally got their foothold on the Hindu land.

It is quite evident that what caliphate armies did was far removed from " smash and grab." However if you are right and Caliphate armies did not try to convert Hindu people then its war with Hindu kingdoms and the establishment of various sultanates is simply imperialistic land usurpation which has nothing to do with Quranic command to convert infidels but everything to do with Caliphate people greed.

2) I assumed that it is self evident what I meant by " It was nothing to do with the ability of Islam to integrate but everything to do with the human nature" In simple words: Islam is rigid religious doctrine controlling believers life however it is performed by humans and humans are not perfect or rigid. Therefore Islam has been changed and is being changed by humans who are believers in that religion.
I think it is simple, isn't it?

3) However, despite that, temples survive and, crucially, Hinduism survives. As does Buddhism. And Sikhism. And Jainism. And all the other-isms that have survived the test of time.
Correct, but not because of Islam but in spite of Islam

4) A tight grip on children as a reason why western university's engineering classes are filling up with Asians does not take into consideration fact that in Middle East parents also have a tight grip on children. Studying engineering is good and well, being good at engineering without paying for papers (like some foreign students do) is another matter.

****
btw I think that you do try too hard. Claims like "any reading of India history", . "engaging in what appears to be a game of guessing and poorly carried out deduction." and putting words in my mouth (attribution of "smash-and-grabs only to Islam".)are somewhat childish.

Sorry to butt in here.

"I showed it is not true and you implicitly confirmed it. "

You hardly put together a rational argument ella, you've far from proved anything.

Your reactive defensiveness makes that quite evident on its own.

Ella, I think you are confusing yourself by making blanket statements. When I say the west is dismissive of eastern ideas, I speak not of the 15th century, but of today. The dismissiveness towards eastern civilizations is a relatively more recent phenomenon directly related to colonialism and the so-called "white man's burden". The entire colonial spree was justified on the basis of bringing civilization to savages. Accepting that the easterners had civilization, let lone one worth learning from, was (is) the anti-thesis of colonialism. You are applying blanket statements across various eras and then holding me to them. I view history in a more nuanced manner. It is not one solid, but rather a sum of many often contradictory parts. Indeed, just to give you an idea, during the heyday of Moghul rule in India, when the Moghuls were arguably one of the richest kingdoms in the world, Queen Elizabeth sent a letter to the Emperor Akbar, stating that "word of (his) humanity" had reached England. Note that she did not refer to his wealth, which was on a scale unimaginable in Tudor England, but rather to his humanity, which draws directly from civilization and culture. Two hundred years later, Macaulay stated the exact opposite. Therefore, I have little choice but to reject your attempts at making blanket statements and attributing them to me.

"Hindu people at that time had highly civilized culture therefore it was much more difficult to conquer and convert people with strong kingdoms and high civilization."

After claiming that Muslims tried to convert the Hindus, you now state that they failed. What is the point of your argument exactly? That they tried? What next? Will you take a similar derogatory attitude towards Christian missionaries and rice christians? For what its worth, Moghul India was the largest pre-British unified territory of what has now become modern India. Nor was there any shortage of prominent Hindu leaders in that era - the most famous one being Akbar's prime minister Birbal.

"that territories of present Pakistan and Afghanistan (on the outskirts of Hindustani territory) were Hindu/Buddhists and now are exclusively Muslim."

Ah, to revise history without knowing any of it. The Hindu and Sikh population in Afghanistan was alive and well till the the Pakistan-sponsored Taliban showed up. Similarly, Pakistan had many Hindus and Buddhist before this little episode in history that we call the 1947 Partition of India, when more than 10 million people swapped homes. The partition plan, incidentally, was done according to the local population of muslims. Some parts of pre-partition did, in fact, have more muslims than hindus jsut as some parts of India did (and do) have more christians than hindus. And some have more Sikhs than Hindus. Does that mean that Sikhism and Christianity were imposed by force? Stop creating strawmen. Lets put it this way, many parts of Europe were not Christian before the advent of Christianity. Does the spread of Christianity automatically mean that force was used to propagate it?

"that for 300 years Muslim armies tried to conquer Hindu people before they finally got their foothold on the Hindu land."

Oh dear. More revisionist history. There were oddball plunderers like Ghazi and Taimur, who showed up every couple of years to raid cities and loot them, but there was never any real desire to stay on India. The Afghan chieftains who came initially - the ones who set up the first muslim kingdoms of India, always thought of India (mostly the north) as a staging post to rebuild and retake Afghanistan/Central Asia (Samarkhand et al). Even Babur, who founded the Mughal dynasty in the 16th century, arrived there thinking it was only a temporary stay. He was uninterested in staying in India and saw itonly as a means to get back to his beloved Kabul. All of this is detailed in his autobiography Baburnama. Read it - might help you distinguish fact from fiction. Prior to the mughals, muslim leaders didn't really care about conquering India. They rarely ventured South of the northern reaches of the Deccan plateau. It was fertile land (fed the army) and a staging post (relatively far from the turmoil in Iran and modern day Central Asia).

"It is quite evident that what caliphate armies did was far removed from " smash and grab.""

Please describe 'caliphate armis'. I know the term has become popular in the post 9/11 word, but it is meaningless jargon here, because the caliphate in Baghdad held little sway over the rulers of Samarkand, Kabul etc, who did most of the pillaging in India. Arab armies only showed up in India prior to the 10th century AD. Shia Iran began to serve as a buffer after that and the Shia kings played a crucial role in the history of the region through the mughal periods. For example, the Mughal court operated in the Persian language, not Arabic. This entire notion that something called the caliphate was calling the shots in India is about as laughable as stating that the Vatican was controlling independent America in the 1800s. It is, to put it mildly, an absurd assertion. But by all means, go ahead and tell me what you mean by the "caliphate armies". They never existed in India. The Afghan and Mughal and Persian armies do figure, but they were all independent of each other, and certainly not subject to a caliphate.

"Therefore Islam has been changed and is being changed by humans who are believers in that religion."

Very simple, if a little contradictory. If it is rigid, how is it showing the capacity to absorb the changes? It stands to reason that hte people who have changed Islam away from its true form are, effectively, not muslims. If it is too rigid, it won't be flexible; it will break. Thats a simple rule of physics. It can only absorb changes if it has the capacity to absorb them, which it cannot have if it is rigid.

"Correct, but not because of Islam but in spite of Islam"

When did I ever say they survived because of Islam. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that Islam was hell-bent on destroying them. If it was, then given the fact that Mughal India under the zealot Aurangzeb covered most of modern day India, surely the number of Hindus would have decreased dramatically under Muslim rule. It did not, which suggests that they weren't out to kill/convert everyone. You're beginning to go in cirlces now. For what its worth, even the zealot Aurangzeb employed Hindus as generals in his army.

"A tight grip on children as a reason why western university's engineering classes are filling up with Asians does not take into consideration fact that in Middle East parents also have a tight grip on children."

What? I think you are trying to prove something but it is not altogether clear. Most engineering classes also have a proportionate number of middle eastern students.

"Studying engineering is good and well, being good at engineering without paying for papers (like some foreign students do) is another matter"

This is priceless. Let us disregard the blatantly obvious - ie, to get an engineering degree you have to pass exams, not just submit papers. Are you telling me that foreign students also get imitators to write their exams for them. Most undergraduate courses involve exams. If you have been to university you will recall that they check ID cards. Impersonation is virtually impossible. But lets ignore all of that and look at your statement - "some foreign students" cheat? So do some local students. Where does that leave us? Are you suggesting that foreign students are more likely to cheat than local students, because if so, I would like to see some sort of proof. You can't just make claims of this sort without providing some sort of proof or source.