
Winston Churchill and Islam - ClintEhrlich
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11314580/Sir-Winston-Churchill-s-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html
======
digi_owl
The Ottoman Islam was perhaps the most progressive sort of the time.

But then the post-ww1 dividing of the empire between the British and the
French turned the place into the mess the world is still dealing with today.

Adam Curtis talk about this in part of this blog:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/2989a78a-ee94-...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/2989a78a-ee94-385e-808f-c9c7c38d1cb7)

~~~
a-guest
Progressive?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide)

~~~
vezzy-fnord
The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the Young Turk movement towards the
end of the empire. The YTs were distinguished by a stark materialism and
secularism, and actually sought to revert the theocratic nature of the empire
prior. So, not really Ottoman _Islam_ , per se.

~~~
a-guest
And this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres)

------
gotchange
Churchill is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, Hafez Asad or any other
ruthless blood thirsty Arab despot and I find it bewildering why he's still
admired by certain segments of the population in the west unless they share
the same value system and morals (or the lack thereof) and then I find it more
bewildering why they dislike militant or radical Islam vehemently since they
have a lot in common with the adherents of those ideologies.

~~~
richmarr
> Churchill is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein... I find it bewildering why
> he's still admired... unless they share the same value system and morals (or
> the lack thereof)

Just as a friendly pointer, I don't think you're going to change the mind of
anyone who respects Churchill by saying that they're amoral & comparing him to
Saddam Hussein. Regardless of where the truth may lie it doesn't seem like a
winning approach.

~~~
gotchange
I am not after changing anybody's political opinion much less Churchill's
followers' because they seem like a lost cause to me but if my comment could
be construed as a political speech, it would be more valuable if it was
targeted at enlightened people sitting on the fence and not the hardcore
ardent crowd.

~~~
richmarr
Sorry, I'm being too indirect. You come across like a zealot. If you want to
be heard by anyone who's not already on your side then you need to tone it
down.

------
mieses
Hitler and Napoleon were both into Islam too.

------
staunch
> _By October 1898, he had returned to Britain and begun his two-volume work,
> The River War, an account of the reconquest of the Sudan which was published
> the following year. In this work, Churchill warned against what he
> considered to be the dangers of the influence of Islam: "Individual Moslems
> may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the
> social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force
> exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant
> and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,
> raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity
> is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it
> (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall,
> as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill)

~~~
gotchange
\- "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

Funny that this is coming from a reactionary and status quo aficionado.

\- "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Funny again that this is coming from a colonialist and imperialistic person.
Apparently, it's bad for Islam to have expansionist and supremacist ambitions
but it's OK for Britain. Hypocrisy much?

\- "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science
against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled"

Funny that it was the other way around for Christianity and Islam in Europe's
Dark Age and Islam's Golden Age [0]

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age)

~~~
nashashmi
> "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science
> against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled"

I think this means that Christianity is "tamed" by the doubts science has laid
on it. And that science does not seem to reign Islam much.

~~~
gotchange
Muslims embraced science before Christians ever thought about it and Al-
Andalus rule in Iberia and the scientific development overseen by Muslims
there is a great testament to my viewpoint. Furthermore, Islam had a
reformation movement albeit unsuccessful hundreds of years [0] before
Christendom is engulfed in reformation debates (wars).

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila)

~~~
dogma1138
Yes but as the Christian world was coming out of the dark ages the Islamic
world went into one and has yet to emerge from it.

------
ramanamit1234
Churchill did not like a lot of non-Western nations. He had his mind made up
at a young age. He was also against Indians and Hindu thought.

Europe does not fall because there has not been an Islam v. Europe war for
centuries. It's been a slow integration of North African & Arab cultures with
a continued focus on European social values, science and leadership.

