1. Media reflecting culture is false - at least in countries with freedom of the press.
America does not have a homogenous culture. Does media reflect the fact that about 40% of the US consider themselves evangelical or 'born-again' (ie President Bush)?
The notion that "western" media portrays a lot of sex, dirty language, and female stereotypes is also incorrect. Free media makes these accessible, and also markets them. But because they are present does not lead to the conclusion that such stereotypes are the norm.
Sure, American media does have more of these things, and whether you consider them in a negative or positive manner is a value judgment. However, going back to the idea that American culture is heterogeneous - media is a reflection what people buy. It is not necessarily what everyone believes.
Wal-Mart made a decision to stop selling Maxim and Stuff magazines. Why? Because conservative shoppers, who make up a large percentage of Wal-Mart's buyers, lodged a protest. It was a financial decision, not a value judgment.
Take a look at the top 10 magazines in the US:
http://newslink.org/mtopus.html
Top 20 TV shows:
http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/nielsen.shtml
These do not reflect your definition of Western media.
Anyway, this is off-topic.
2. "Conversion is all good"
This is a horrific statement. You should be more specific. I have no problem with people changing religions on the basis of self-realization. But there should be no pressures, whether they be social, political, physical or economic. And, the fact of the matter is that most conversions occur due to third party interventions and some sort of pressures. Forcible conversion is not only due to the threat of violence.
I do not want to single out christianity or islam, but let's face it: it is these two religions which have converted people throughout time, and even today, are expending exorbitant resources to continue the practice. Also, these religions also are mostly intolerant, believing that salvation can only happen in their way of life.
For example, examine the persecution of Christians in Egypt.
http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/world/egy13.htm
I do not vouch for the validity of this site, but I can assure you that the main idea is true. (My friend's family was driven out of Egypt for being Christian, with many members of his family killed in the process - this was in the 70's and 80's)
In terms of North Africa, I highlight a passage from
http://www.bartleby.com/67/285.html
"The Arabs brought with them their newly founded faith of Islam. While they did not force conversion on the conquered population?mostly Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians?the Muslims made the adoption of the new faith socially and economically advantageous. By the mid-10th century a sizable part of the population had converted, and while the region was not yet predominantly Muslim, mass conversion was well advanced, to be completed in the following three centuries or so."
This is still forcible conversion, and almost as morally wrong as forcing people via violence.
Also, the idea that Northern Africa was not developed prior to the arrival of Islam is false. The ancient Romans and Greeks were in contact with civilization in Northern Africa (ie Carthage, Hannibal
-haha 5 years of studying latin comes in handy sometimes). The Roman and Byzantine empire did include parts of North Africa. There was a point in an earlier post made that the Arabs brought civilization; this is a value judgment that is not historically correct. This is like the colonizers of Australia trying to civilize the Aboriginals through Western thoughts and Christianity - civilization was already present; it just didn't fit the European model of civilization. Extending to modern times, it is possible to say that much of the Middle East is not civilized because of the dehumanization in law and culture towards women. My point is that growth is very weakly correlated to religion, to the point of insignificance, and it is civilization is a value judgment.
Although the idea whether Northern Africa was converted by the sword is controversial (and more evidence points toward the affirmative), there is no doubt Islam does convert forcibly. One need only look at the genocide that occurred in Armenia by the Turks. Armenians were a thriving culture, which had freedom of religion. I recommend the following reading to those who are interested:
http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/papazian/armenia.html
But I digress...
I did some research on Timbuktu, and agree with the idea that is was a great Islamic scholarly place.
However, I don't think it compares to those of Alexandria, Babylon, Persia, India, Rome, or Greece. Why? Becuase the scholarly work that happened only related to Islam, and not much else. Also, there is so little written about Sankore University that is not different from the mosque of the same name.
And in terms of holy books - there are so many different interpretations which people call upon to substantiate their beliefts that it is not credible to cite particular translations. However, the general idea that is portrayed in the Bible and Koran is that non-believers are to be treated differently and persuaded to convert. Though this is not violence per se, it is intolerance.
Personally, I'm appalled at the number of dollars spent on conversion, and the manpower. I think these resources could be put to better use actually bettering humanity ( ie AIDS research, helping Africa develop, etc ). Also, shouldn't these proselytizing religions focus on bringing back non-practicing members into the fold, rather than concentrate on non-believers?