LEGO the argument based on the current state of Islamic countries ignore the turmoil that most of those countries have been in for decades generally driven by outside forces.

There are a bunch of pictures of Afghanistan, mostly in Kabul in 1967-68 at http://www.pbase.com/qleap/best_afghan. Prior to the Russian invasion and all that's followed.

A bunch of picture of Iran at http://all-that-is-interesting.com/shah-iran#29 - CIA involvement in changes of government have played a horrible role in the current state of that country.

Egypt in the past http://egyptianstreets.com/2014/04/05/egypts-golden-years-in-23-vintage-photos/

A view of modern day Lebanon that does not make it into the normal news feeds http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/09/world/meast/beirut-middle-east-party-capital/

A photograph from Beirut in 1958 http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/street-beirut-abercrombie/

A lot of muslim countries are hell holes at the moment but I don't think there is a strong case for believing that's just because of the religion. It's a wide mixture of causes one of which is some really short sighted intervention from outside.

R0bert

R0bert, yes and the countries so "interfered with" since the 1920's have not been able to organise under a Caliph or some fanatic claiming to be the Mahdi and threaten Europe have they?
Do you ever think that maybe the secret services, the CIA, MI5, BND, FSB etc might actually know a bit more about the motivations and potential of the Islamic world than a lay person?
You'll note that Germany and Japan are still occupied countries as a result of losing a war, the former Ottoman lands are similarly held in submission so they can't threaten European and American interests again.
Unless you see your own interests as akin to those of the Ummah or the Islamic State or whatever's to come after Al Malhama it's time to stop crying over these interventions because the alternative is a Sultan's army at the gates of Vienna again.

"Do you ever think that maybe the secret services, the CIA, MI5, BND, FSB etc might actually know a bit more about the motivations and potential of the Islamic world than a lay person?"

Jay, I don't think that they have demonstrated that over time. More likely that those who get into power in those organisations have all to often been the socio-paths and psychopaths that do to well at clawing their way to power.

That those within the organisations who might have understood the motivations of the bulk of the Islamic world were not the ones being listened to when big policy decisions were made, rather those decisions were made based on the mindset of the types who get to the top of such organisations.

There has been a terrible toll to pay for those interventions and in my view much of the power Islamist groups now have stems fairly directly from those interventions. It's created the turmoil and resentment that is the bread and butter of recruiting for extremist causes.

R0bert

Religion is not responsible for Muslim dysfunction, RObert? Like, you are kidding?

Could I remind you that the advanced societies "interfered" with the politics of Asia, and today, the Asians are doing very well. Those Asian societies that more or less accepted secular governments, free market economies, liberal values, and democratic principles rocketed ahead of the Muslim world. Even those Asian societies which were once right wing military dictatorships eventually evolved into stable and prosperous democracies.

The fact that it is religion which is holding back Muslim advancement can be easilly understood, even by you, when you appreciate that the more Islamic a Muslim state is, the more economically and socially backward it is.

It is no surprise that those Muslim countries that are the most insular, despotic, and mullah ridden, are the most staunch supporters of Osama bin Laden and his merry band of suicidal Jihadi's.

The extreme poverty that exists in Islamic countries, is a product of their own religious beliefs and almost every Muslim country is an economic basket case. Muslim economies are growing, on average, only 1% a year. But Muslim populations are growing, on average, at a disastrous 4% a year. Muslim societies are great believers in breeding like flies and Muslim families are noted for having very large numbers of children. This factor alone is instrumental in their appalling levels of poverty, superstition, unemployment and ignorance.

Their own attitudes to family size and birth control has condemned almost an entire generation of young Muslims to be bereft of employment or a future in their own countries. These angry young men are simply becoming recruits for terrorist organisations who seek to blame everyone else but Islam for their own woes. And your ignorance and your predilection for blaming your own people for Islam's dysfunction reinforces their stupid attitudes.

Muslims covet the prosperity of the West and dream about our consumer goods and lifestyles. But they will not accept the liberal values and secular philosophies that have created that prosperity. They think that the reason why they are poor is because they are not religious enough.

Roberts link to the Egypt before Nasser shows not the influence of
Islam but the influence of the British.
His argument suggests that Egypt might well have been better off if
the Egypt was still a British protectorate.
Roberts photographs suggest the opposite of what he expected.

It was all downhill from when the Islamists took over.

Certainly Egypt is now almost a failed state. So much so it has to get
rid of half its population. The Gulf states are feeding the Egyptians
but no one asks what will happen as that charity, as it must, winds down.
Is this all the fault of the British ?
For a long time I bought the story that it was all the fault of
"Western" intervention, but actually I now suspect it was the opposite.
The Islamists cannot manage a modern economy and they like the
moslems of old can only improve their lot by raiding others.

What happened to the moslem scholars of old ?
That had an outburst of science for a few hundred years but it was
only temporary.
Did the Mongols wipe it out ? Fortunately a lot of their advancement
survived from the Islamic occupation of Spain.
Was Islam not taken so seriously by moslems at that time ?
Was cousin marriage as prevalent in those times as it is now within moslem families ?
Is that the cause ?

Bazz my post was in response the the assertion that the mess that muslim countries are in now is the result of their religion.

My point is we are not looking at a level playing field, progress towards open secular states which appears to have been working across much of the muslim world in the 50's and 60's has been trashed in part by external influences which in my view has contributed significantly to extremism.

I've got some faith in open secular society, I think for most it's a more appealing way to live than under extremist religious dogma (or any other kind of extremist dogma). I'm picking up on a point that Suseonline made earlier, I don't think under normal circumstances there is much reason to believe muslims will hold dearly to the nastier teachings of their faith than christians do. People have ways of justifying to themselves holding to a mainstream faith and ignoring many of it's teachings. History has shown an ability for muslims to do that.

It's in part heavy handed interference that's polarised things and given more power to the extremists (on both sides).

If we don't learn from that we will keep making the same mistakes.

R0bert