Why is the Muslim religion a "religion of peace"?

[Bengalzona]

(10-25-2015, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What's interesting is that Muslim societies have been regressing on equality in some areas. Up until about 100-150 years ago, women in Muslim cultures were treated better by the law, were afforded more freedoms, and were on much more equal footing with their male counterparts than any women in western societies. It is interesting that after the west really started to meddle hard core in the region that they started to regress in this way and become more conservative.

I like your terminology here when you use the phrase "the West" rather than Christianity. Except for certain areas of Africa, neo-Muslims don't have it in for Christians. Their problem is with Western society in general, which they view as amoral, decadent, colonialist and "anti-God". They feel that their forefathers during the past 100-150 years "catered" to Western demands, particularly with setting boundaries and dividing them into nation-states.

Early Islam did not have such set boundaries. They had Sultans and Caliphates and such. But the boundaries were never really set. They were ever-changing and depended upon how much power an individual leader had at any given time. This made a lot of sense to desert-dwelling peoples in Arabia and North Africa and seemed natural. They were particularly in-tune with having a single strongman type leader who "represented the Faith" over them. And these strongmen leaders were empowered by their claims of lineage to Muhammad. Because of these lineage claims, Islam could unify to a much greater degree than other religions like Christianity despite the vast distances of desert that they stretched.

European interest in the region increased in the 19th century. By this time, education and industrialization in the West had eclipsed technical advancements in the East. Britain and France constructed the Suez Canal shortly after our Civil War and basically turned the nascent nation-state of Egypt into a puppet state. After World War I, the ottoman Empire was dissolved and large portions of the former empire were divided up by the European states to be formed into mandates or protectorates. These proto-states would become the modern nation-states in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon).

But the people in these areas had no history of being separate peoples or of independently interacting with the world. There were tribal, ethnic and religious differences, to be sure. But outside of Egypt, there was no history of thinking of themselves as a specific nationality. Now, what made a Syrian a Syrian or an Iraqi an Iraqi was merely and imaginary line drawn on a map. And these lines had no regard for tribal, ethnic or religious differences. And the Western powers, which the people in the area saw as just another conquering entity, did not behave in the way previously conquerors had behaved by setting down and enforcing new laws. It was predictable that in each of these new proto-nations strongmen and despots would come to power. And this was encouraged by the Western powers as it tended to "keep the peace". But what made these new strongmen different was their lack of connection to the Muhammadic lineage. All of this seemed artificial to the people of the region.

It should be little wonder that some portions of the population in the Middle East would look back longingly on the "Golden Days" of Islam and seek to recreate that. And the world continues to pay a heavy price for the casual and short-sided nature that the British (primarily) and other Western powers decided to divest themselves of their former colonies, mandates and protectorates.