Ok first to clear up some misconceptions about what i said
In no way do i claim that western ideology is superior to islamic ideology. I consider islam to be the most progressive and most natural of human ideologies.
However if one is to compare the practical application of both ideologies, then western ideology is clearly the winner. They have a weaker ideology, yet they are more prosperous.
The problem lies in the fact that muslims seem to think that merely claiming to be superior is enough to convince the world of your superiority. That is of course not the case. There must be an ideal implementation of islamic ideology before anybody can rightfully claim that it is perfect.
Let's say toyota develops a supercar on paper that in principle is supposed to be the best car in the world. But you cannot expect honda to believe or accept the validity of that claim until toyota's car is made, tested and driving on the highway. In the same way the Quran gives the blueprint for the perfect society, yet nobody seems to be able to understand the instructions and that has led to so much infighting that it has never been implemented. Until the Quranic blueprint is shown in practice one cannot expect others to believe that claim.
That is why i always counsel self-analysis and introspection to all muslims before they fall into the trap of unsubstantiated condemnation. Dammit you have to SHOW that it works, not just CLAIM that it does.
@ Mirza Ghalib
As a person of mixed western and pakistani heritage i can assure you that your perception of western ideology is very narrow. They may have a different civilizational perspective from you, but the accusation of having a "blood ideology" cannot be substantiated.
No doubt the West has the upper hand today, and no doubt they exploit the rest of the world. But this "blood ideology" is a HUMAN CONDITION and not exclusive to the west.
During the heyday of "muslim civilization" the muslims were the conquerors. Conquest required warfare and bloodshed. Sure they made up for it in some ways by bringing progres to the conquered areas. But then again the british gave pakistan its irrigation and train system. They laid the foundation for our civil and bureaucratic services. A lot of Pakistan's infrastructure and its capacity to function as a world citizen is due to the british. So how are they any different from the muslim conquerors of history? I'm talking about those who paid lip service to the khilafat, who hoarded wealth and who controlled a huge part of the world. WHy should the West consider them any different from the way we consider the british?
My point is merely that the evils you ascribe exclusively to the West are HUMAN EVILS. They can be found in any civilization in any part of the world at any time in history. It has nothing to do with their ideology.
@ Salam
My point that their achievements validates THEIR OWN BELIEF of the superiority of their ideology. Muslims on the other hand have no such achievements with which to substantiate their superiority.
Please don't give me the "muslims have invented XYZ and gave the world XYZ" argument. Even the barbarian mongol raiders gave the world many things. The glory of yesteryear is no basis for present hubris.
Rather the MOST IMPORTANT thing to realize is that inspite of such stellar success, muslim power waned and disappeared in the world.
My point is that if muslims are to convince anybody in the world they have to pull themselves together and SHOW that nothing can stand in the way of Islam. Yet they don't.. Instead they continue to show that Islam is such a weak ideology that it needs to resort to violence and bloodshed (just like the west) in order to triumph. That proves nothing other than the West's prejudice right.
Mind you, this is not how i feel. I am explaining to you why CLAIMS of superiority have no validity unless PROVEN. One cannot expect the west to change their perception of muslims if muslims cannot disprove their prejudice through action.
@ javedsheikh
I agree with you completely. Western Salespersons are simply better. But then again they have the advantage of a well functioning society with a bunch of positive indicators to "prove" it.
@ Sufisoul
It is very unwise to condemn western civilization without having lived it first. You exhibit the same level of prejudice against the west that ignorant westerners have against muslims.
No doubt the West lags behind in certain values, but on the other hand they are far superior in others. FOr instance the west is much less corrupt than most muslim countries. So who has the moral high ground. The answer is nobody.
As long as communication takes place from the moral high ground, all avenues of resolution and peace remain closed.
Posted 2 years ago on 20 May 2010 8:04
# 
