Clash of Civilizations

Did you read wiki?

who reads wiki

They have a good explaniation...

Ok Ahmed, so as I understand, you are saying that because of the fact that Muslims and Europeans met and mingled, all of these violences are occuring, right?

I disagree that the meeting, or the Clash, is responsible for the genocide. Reason: The fact that Muslims are being killed is because, 1) we are weak in military terms, 2) we lack organization and unity. and 3) we allow these things to happen.

No nation in the world can dare to touch Saudia Arabia because if it does, all the Muslims in the world will stand against them. But unfortunately, they allow attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and even Kashmir due to their division. It is this age which is responsible for the deaths, not the clash.

And furthermore, if you define Clash as we did, Muslim invasion and takover of Spain was another example of it, way before the crusades. How do you think there was peace in the Kingdom of Geranada for 700 years?

I repeat that I beieve in Taqdeer, and therefore, it had to happen.

Hassan I wrote:Ok Ahmed, so as I understand, you are saying that because of the fact that Muslims and Europeans met and mingled, all of these violences are occuring, right?

I disagree that the meeting, or the Clash, is responsible for the genocide. Reason: The fact that Muslims are being killed is because, 1) we are weak in military terms, 2) we lack organization and unity. and 3) we allow these things to happen.

No nation in the world can dare to touch Saudia Arabia because if it does, all the Muslims in the world will stand against them. But unfortunately, they allow attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and even Kashmir due to their division. It is this age which is responsible for the deaths, not the clash.

And furthermore, if you define Clash as we did, Muslim invasion and takover of Spain was another example of it, way before the crusades. How do you think there was peace in the Kingdom of Geranada for 700 years?

I repeat that I beieve in Taqdeer, and therefore, it had to happen.

Hassan once again you are mixing with cultural diffusion and the class:

The Clash:

"...people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict..."

Cultural diffusion:

"...the spread of cultural items — such as ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages etc. — between individuals, whether within a single culture or from one culture to another..." (Both from Wiki)

ANd I know. EVERYTHING is Taqdeer. The Iraq war is taqdeer...but how does that change anything? Did they (the west) start the conflict or not, stop going around the topic.

No the Muslim takeover of Spain wasn't. When they went there they didnt persecute people. The Jews, Christaisn and Muslim there lived in peace. When the Christains conquered Spain from the Muslims they burned the Muslims and Jews at the stake if they refused to convert to Christainity.

Before everything else Ahmed, the defination you are using of Clash is suppose to be of the post Cold War era, and it was a theory purposed in 1993, only about 15 years ago!


Explain me one thing, do you want to talk about the meeting and mingling of religions and ideas, which is how I define Clash, or the theory which was purposed in 1993?

Hassan I wrote:Before everything else Ahmed, the defination you are using of Clash is suppose to be of the post Cold War era, and it was a theory purposed in 1993, only about 15 years ago!

My definition:

"...people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict..."

*Since the Christains conquered Spain till this day*

Is it better now Hassan?

Well then I say that the Cold War is responsible for the Clash, as the theory suggest. Let's talk about cultural diffusion!

No! Make another topic if you want...this topic is for the clash.

Why do you say that, and not the Spain recapturing? (Debate, dont just give statements)

I say that Clash was due to the Cold War and its end because the defination of it is meant to be implied after 1993. If I include stuff before it, then it would go under Cultural diffusion. (as with the Reconquista of Spain).

Hassan I wrote:I say that Clash was due to the Cold War and its end because the defination of it is meant to be implied after 1993. If I include stuff before it, then it would go under Cultural diffusion. (as with the Reconquista of Spain).

We are using my definition, in this debate, remember?

This is turning into an issue of semantics .... when Ahmed says "clash" he means conflict and war and his definition is only restricted to those two .... but when Hassan uses the word "clash" it is a broader term that covers not just conflict but just contact between two civilzations ....

Thanks for summarizing the whole issue, Sayfullah. I would make a seperate topic for the broader defination.

This is the ultimate proof, Hassan:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg