this article was updated on 23/1/07 at 0900
please click the title or the link at the bottom to read the full article.
Muslim scholars say spilling of Shiite and Sunni blood must stop
By DPA
Jan 22, 2007, 14:10 GMTDoha – Muslim scholars from around the Arab world, convening in Qatar Monday, appealed to the Iraqi people ‘to end the bloodshed’ between rival factions of Shiites and Sunnis in the war-torn country.
‘The war between the Sunnis and Shiites is splitting Iraq apart and is diverting the Muslim nation from the real enemy, that lies in waiting for the opportunity to attack us,’ read a statement published during the closure of an Islamic conference in Doha.
Some attending Sunni and Shiite scholars had reportedly exchanged insults and accused each side of trying to ‘convert’ the other.
In their statements, the scholars said that Sunnis and Shiites are members of the same faith, and so should strive to ‘stand united’ in face of challenges and obstacles.
The scholars also advised that different Islamic sects strive ‘not to offend’ each others’ belief systems.
Prominent and controversial Egyptian scholar Youssef al-Qaradawi was not at the conference that attracted around 170 scholars from across the Arab world, but sent a statement to the delegates.
In the statement, the Egyptian scholar said that the International Union of Islamic Scholars had decided to send a delegation to Iran, to help put pressure on the Iranian government to improve security situation there and to and end the internal clashes.
Tensions between Shiites and Sunnis have been increasing, not only in Iraq, but in other parts of the Arab world such as Lebanon and Bahrain.
The bloody clashes between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq have been blamed on Iran, with the country being accused of supporting the militias and enticing sectarian strife.
Recently, Iran and its Sunni ally Syria have expressed a desire to take a more active role in brokering peace in Iraq.
Monsters and Critics
My emphasis… is that brain-dead or what? Should I laugh my ass off or cry?
Disgusting. And these are the bozos people look to for spiritual guidance?
More details in today’s (23/1/07) Al-Waqt, after the break
مؤتمر الدوØÂØ© للتقريب بينالمذاهب يدين«الØÂرب الطائÙÂية» ÙÂيالعراق
الدوØÂØ©- ا٠ب:
دانمؤتمر الدوØÂØ© للتقريب بينالمذاهب الإسلامية ÙÂيختام أعماله أمس الاثنين‘’الØÂرب الطائÙÂية’’ ÙÂيالعراق، مشددا على ØÂرمة دم المسلم وعلى ضرورة تنقية المناهج ÙÂيالعالم الإسلاميمنالشØÂنالطائÙÂÙŠ. وأكد ‘’بيانالدوØÂة’’ الذيصدر ÙÂيختام المؤتمر الذياستمر ثلاثة أيام وشهد سجالات بينمشاركينسنة وشيعة ‘’إدانة ما ÙŠØÂدث ÙÂيالعراق منØÂرب طائÙÂية بينالسنة والشيعة مما يؤديإلى تÙÂتيت العراق’’. وكانت أجواء العن٠الطائÙÂÙŠÙÂيالعراق سيطرت على أعمال المؤتمر. ÙÂيما أعلنالداعية الإسلاميالشيخ يوس٠القرضاويخلال الجلسة الختامية للمؤتمر انالاتØÂاد العالميلعلماء المسلمينالذييرأسه ‘’قرر إرسال ÙˆÙÂد يمثل الاتØÂاد إلى طهران’’. وقال القرضاويانإرسال الوÙÂد هو ‘’لمØÂادثة المسؤولينهناك ÙÂيهذا’’، معتبرا أن‘’الذييملك المÙÂاتيؠÙÂيتØÂريك الأمور ÙÂيالعراق هيإيران’’. مشددا على ‘’وجوب الوصول إلى ØÂل’’ ÙÂيهذا الصدد.
وأكد البيانالختاميللمؤتمر ‘’ØÂرمة دم المسلم وماله وعرضه واستنكار الجرائم المرتكبة على الهوية المذهبية’’. كما دعا إلى ‘’عدم السماؠبالتبشير لمذهب التشيع ÙÂيبلاد السنة او للتسننÙÂيبلاد الشيعة’’. وكانالشيخ القرضاوياتهم ÙÂيالجلسة الاÙÂتتاØÂية للمؤتمر الشيعة بمØÂاولة نشر مذهبهم ÙÂيبلاد سنية. وجاء ÙÂيالتوصيات ايضا دعوة إلى ‘’اصلاؠالمناهج التعليمية بما يدعم ÙÂكرة الوØÂدة والتقريب بينالمذاهب’’، إضاÙÂØ© إلى ‘’تشكيل مجمع علمي(مقره الدوØÂØ©) يضم علماء السنة والأمامية والزيدية والأباضية يرصد المعوقات والخروقات ويضع لها الØÂلول المناسبة’’. منجهة اخرى رÙÂض العلماء المشاركون‘’رÙÂضا قاطعا كل تطاول أو اساءة إلى آل بيت رسول الله’’، مناشدين‘’اتباع المذاهب والÙÂرق الإسلامية اØÂترام مقدسات كل طرÙÂ’’. الا انهذا الØÂوار السنيالشيعيشهد سجالات ساخنة ووصÙÂÙ‡ بعض المشاركينبانه ‘’ØÂوار طرشان’’.
ÙˆÙÂيهذا الإطار قال القرضاويÙÂيالجلسة الختامية ‘’اما انتنجؠالÙÂكرة (التقريب بينالمذاهب) على ارض الواقع او لنÙÂض هذه السيرة’’.
وأضا٠متوجها لمئات الØÂاضرينÙÂيالجلسة الختامية التيترأسها آية الله Ù…ØÂمد عليتسخيريرئيس مجمع التقريب بينالمذاهب ÙÂيإيران‘’عندئذ سأقول للشيخ تسخيريأغلق مجمعك وسرؠموظÙÂيك’’.
منجهته، قال استاذ الØÂضارة الاسلامية ÙÂيجامعة السوربونالÙÂرنسية Ù…ØÂمود عزب لـ’’ÙÂرانس برس’’ انالØÂاضرينÙÂيالمؤتمر ‘’جاؤوا برغبة مسبقة ومØÂددة ÙÂيإÙÂØÂام الآخر وعدم الاستماع اليه (..) مما يجعله اقرب إلى ØÂوار الطرشان’’. منناØÂيته، قال المÙÂكر الإسلاميالمغربيخالد زهرياناللقاء ‘’لا يقوم على الوضوؠ(..) إنهم يركزونعلى مواطنالخلا٠على رغم قلتها اكثر منتركيزهم على مواطنالاتÙÂاق رغم ÙˆÙÂرتها’’ .
لكنرئيسة المؤتمر الدكتورة عائشة المناعيأكدت ان‘’هناك نوعاً منالØÂدة والمصارØÂØ© الزائدة اØÂيانا لكنه ليس ØÂوار طرشان’’.
وانعقد المؤتمر تØÂت شعار ‘’دور التقريب ÙÂيالوØÂدة العملية للأمة’’ ونظمته جامعة قطر بالتعاونمع وزارة الخارجية القطرية وجامعة الأزهر بمصر والمجمع العالميللتقريب بينالمذاهب الإسلامية، وبمشاركة اكثر من216 عالما ومÙÂكرا منمختل٠المذاهب الإسلامية اتوا من44 دولة. وكانت الجلسة الاÙÂتتاØÂية شهدت سجالا بينالمشاركينالسنة والشيعة.
وبينما ØÂمل الشيخ يوس٠القرضاويبشدة على إيرانالتياتهمها بمØÂاولة نشر المذهب الشيعيÙÂيبلدانسنية، اتهم آية الله تسخيريإسرائيل بالوقو٠وراء الÙÂتنالمذهبية ÙÂيلبنانوالعراق.
وقال القرضاوي‘’لا يجوز أنيØÂاول مذهب نشر مذهبه ÙÂيبلاد خالصة للمذهب الآخر’’ ÙÂيإشارة لإيران.
وأضا٠‘’ماذا ينÙÂعكم انتدخلوا بلدا سنيا مثل مصر او السوداناو المغرب او الجزائر وغيرها منبلاد خالصة للشاÙÂعية والمالكية وانتØÂاولوا انتكسبوا اÙÂرادا للمذهب الشيعي؟’’
Al-Waqt :: 23 Jan, ’07
The salient points:
- Condemning the violence in Iraq and the spilling of Muslim blood
- Clearing religious education textbooks from sectarian content
- Qaradawi wants to send a delegation to Iran, due to their sponsorship of violence in Iraq and the delegation will demand that Iran puts a stop to this
- Stop all Shi’i missionary work in Sunni countries and vice-versa
- The creation of a religious scholar council to be based in Doha, Qatar and includes scholars from the Sunni, Shi’i, Abadhi and Zaydi branches of Islam to record any infractions and put solutions in place for those infractions
- Complete refusal of the besmirching of any member of the House of Mohammed
- Respect of the others’ rites and sects
After that the “real” fun is reported, in that each side was accusing the other of coming to the conference only to put down the other, and the conference was described as a conversation between the deaf! Qaradawi is especially aggrieved that there is apparently Shi’i missionary work being done in (according to him) in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Morocco and others and demanded an immediate stop to this work. He also advised the chair of the council to shut shop and let his employees go home, as this conference is not doing what it is supposed to do.
Taskheeri, the chair of the conference who is from Iran, let a salvo against Israel for inciting religious and sectarian hatred in the region.
Well, the attendees included 216 Muslim religious scholars from 44 countries, all of whom seem to have been at each others throats before the conference even started. And the Sunna believe that the Shi’a are doing the dirty and spreading their sect through missionary work in “exclusively Sunni countries” while the Shi’a I am sure had some retort which was not included in this report.
All in all, 216 bozos from 44 countries can’t agree to set their differences aside and show us – as role models – how we regular Muslims can live side-by-side without violence and with respect for the others’ faith and views.
What was that joke about good lawyers being dead lawyers? Or they’re best at the bottom of the sea? I think I can live with lawyers well enough, but I would hazard a guess that the term lawyer in these jokes should be replaced with clerics!
Comments
Notice he did say who that “real enemy” is. If he was more specific, then people might listen to him/them.
Not so long ago when our esteemed “scholars†from both sides of the aisle got together it used to garner the observations one would equate with street mimes: bizarre, a tad pathetic and sadly irrelevant at the end of an experience that was an utter waste of time.
And yet now when we desperately need them to stand up and say “Enough!” to those driven mad by sectarian blood lust these Ulama (Wise or Learned ones) turn around and succumb to petty bickering themselves?!? Once upon a time I’d find this circus act mildly amusing, but now to have these buffoons actually stroke the flames of hatred while a generation of Sunnis and Shi’as are permanently scarred and indoctrinated with sectarian vitriol…. Well I can unequivocally say that crying is the appropriate response in this situation.
Maybe we can mail them a picture of a sunni man making out with a shia woman and say “what problem?”
:biggrin:
-Ibn
I see that every night! :biggrin:
“Maybe we can mail them a picture of a sunni man making out with a shia woman ”
I’m curious to know if there’s much intermarriage between Sunnis and Shia?
Far past brain-dead…and that’s what irks me most; some of these scholars preaching peace every Friday and using Muslim conventions as a chance to insult each other in the face.
Jay, yes there are plenty of them in Bahrain especially but I suspect all over the world too. I don’t have statistics though and am not sure if they even exist, but from personal experience I know of several couples who are mixed.
I’m glad the scholars meet and argue, bicker, discuss, etc. I would prefer this than to go on the streets and shed blood.
:alien:
The problem is, obviously, that shedding blood is the islamic reaction :
Koran 60:9 clearly states that forgiveness, or even honesty cannot be provided to those who fight over matters of faith.
So should you laugh -> if you’re a muslim and believe in the correctness of the quran, then yes, you should laugh, and kill shiites or sunnis depending on what you believe. Koran 9:5.
So you should cry -> yes you should cry. Cry that you’re a muslim, and people who say they represent faith say that you agree with this senseless violence. What if they’re right ? Go and check the holy text. Make up your own idea. Of course, if the imams disagree with you will they attack ? History seems to indicate they will.
Perhaps you should take a look at people who actually do live in peace. America has now known peace between hundreds of different sects for 200 years. Perhaps you should go and check out why.
Well it’s not as if its playful banter… A civil discussion where the finer points of ecumenism are mulled over –Sure I have no problem with that, but the sort of vitriol spread by these “religious leaders†quickly translates into violence in the streets by their followers and lest we also forget those sick opportunists who jump on any excuse to go on a rampage. These Scholars have a grave responsibility to promote harmony within the communities and avoid even the slightest whiff of sectarianism during this critical time.
The difference, Mr. Ahmed, is that people are taking those clerics to book. No longer do people just look down and walk away, people are taking these so called “religious leaders” to task and telling them exactly what they think of them.
Here’s one reaction from the excellent Reem Khalifa at Al-Wasat this morning:
ريم خليÙÂØ©
الوضع الذيتعيشه المنطقة العربية ولاسيما منطقة الخليج يبدو غير مطمئنمنالناØÂية النÙÂسية، وخصوصًا ÙÂيظل إطلاق تصريØÂات بعضها غير مسئول ولا تصب ÙÂيصالؠشعوب هذه البقعة منالعالم التيعايشت ثلاث ØÂروب منمطلع الثمانينات ÙÂيالقرنالماضي، وربما رابعة ÙÂيالانتظار! ÙÂلنيكونموضوع إثارة النعرات الطائÙÂية والعرقية مسألة تØÂتاج إلى تاجيج ÙÂيوقت ارتÙÂعت ÙÂيه وتيرة التهديدات الأميركية على إيرانبتوجيه ضربة عسكرية قد تØÂدث قريباً بØÂسب المؤشرات. ليس هذا ÙÂØÂسب بل إنإشغال الرأيالعام العربيبقضايا متشعبة والخوض ÙÂيتÙÂاصيل ÙŠÙÂترض أنتكونمنطقة الخليج ÙÂيغنى عنها منأجل تØÂويل قضايا جوهرية تعيشها المنطقة إلى قضايا ثانوية أمام ما ÙŠØÂصل منتصعيد ØÂالي، وأقصد بذلك ÙÂلسطينوالعراق ودارÙÂور والصومال التيمنالمÙÂترض أنتكونمنأولوياتنا، وبدلاً منالبØÂØ« ÙÂيمصير هذه الدول بدأنا نبØÂØ« عنجزئيات تضع٠منطاقة شعوب المنطقة وتقلل منقيمة هويتنا وثقاÙÂتنا وديننا الذييتعرض لهجمات عدة ÙÂيغالبيتها غير مبررة.
لقد أصبØÂنا ننظر لبعضنا بعضاً بنظرة عنصرية، وبدلاً منالتركيز على الصراع العربي– الإسرائيلينستدرج الآنلتوجيه أصابع الاتهام إلى بعضنا بعضاً ÙÂصار البعض منأهل السنة ينظرونبنظرة غريبة لإخوانهم الشيعة، تقابلها نظرات تشكيك واتهام منبعض الشيعة إلى إخوانهم السنة، ليستمر الأمر على هذا المنوال، ÙÂيبدأ التكÙÂير والتقليل منشأنالآخرينØÂتى ينتهيأمر ديار العرب والمسلمينبالÙÂرقة والدم.
إنما وجه الداعية المعرو٠الشيخ يوس٠القرضاويأمس الأول منانتقادات ØÂادة إلى إيران، متهماً إياها بمØÂاولة نشر المذهب الشيعيÙÂيبلدانسنية ÙÂياÙÂتتاؠمؤتمر بالدوØÂØ© عنالØÂوار بينالمذاهب الإسلامية هو كلام لا يسر بل يثير الÙÂتنة والضغينة، هذا ÙÂيالوقت الذينسمع عنخطط على الجانب الآخر ÙÂيبلدانأخرى. Ù†ØÂنهنا لا نريد أنندخل ÙÂيتÙÂاصيل أيمذهب كانÙÂهيلأهل الاختصاص، لكنيبقى علينا أننعيأننا يجب علينا ألا نقع ÙÂريسة لأيشكل منأشكال الطأÙÂنة والتعصب والعنصرية لأنالإسلام جمع جميع الأعراق والأجناس والألوان، وليس منØÂÙ‚ Ø£ØÂد أنيقلل منقيمة المذاهب أو ØÂتى الأديانالأخرى لأنالآخرينيجدوندينهم هو الأÙÂضل كما هو الØÂال مع مذاهب الإسلام والأديانالأخرى. وعلى رغم ما ÙŠØÂمله هذا الكلام منألم لأنه صادر عنعالم دينجليل كاندائماً يعمل على أنيجمع المسلمين، ولكننا Ù†ÙÂاجأ بتصريØÂات لا تسير ÙÂيالسياق المعرو٠عنالقرضاوي. وأشير الى ما ذكرته سيدة عربية متزوجة منبØÂرينيوهو يلخص ما وصلنا اليه منتوتير Ù†ÙÂسيبينالطوائم إذ تقول السيدة إنها ذهبت قبل أسابيع قليلة إلى سÙÂارة بلادها ÙÂيالمنامة منأجل ترتيب إجراءات جنازة والدتها التيتوÙÂيت، ÙÂإذا السÙÂير يستوقÙÂها بالسؤال عما اذا كانت متزوجة منسنيأم شيعي، ÙÂأجابته بأنها متزوجة منسني. ÙÂقال لها السÙÂير «خير ما اخترت لأنØÂكومتنا لا تريد مواطنينشيعة»… هذا الكلام أثار استياء السيدة التيتÙÂاجأت برد السÙÂير مثلما Ù†ØÂنتÙÂاجأنا بتصريØÂات قد تصب ÙÂياتجاه الطأÙÂنة.
a bit too bold of a statement to say, but I’ll assume your point is the difference between the US and the Middle East, and not the peace for 200 years part.
As for our scholars, they are a problem, but we (as in society) are also part of the problem. Our scholars, be it Sunnis or Shiites, have managed to do a great job in pushing traces of infalability in portraying themselves, the average person on the street that is more likely to take part in causing such damage and bloodshed has (in my opinion) gone way past the point of accepting the possibility that their own scholars could be wrong when preaching.
Scholars are afterall human, however, any heated arguement between the average person with regards to religion ends up in quoting one of these scholars and assuming their devine knowledge on a subject matter that they probably haven’t studied.
Yes, there are scholars that create committees and subcommittees for topics they don’t fully understand, but that’s not enough. If it were, they wouldn’t be bickering and fuelling this whole mess.
With noone willing to admit to the possibility of them being wrong, or their ability to work together, the debates might be useless. But atleast having them does help show the rest of us what the real problem is.
Are the differences between the Shiites and Sunnis political or are they actually doctrinal?
I know the Shiites have a hierarchy of ayatollahs and all that and the split was over Mohammad’s successor, but how much differences are there in belief?
Aliandra – Apart from the roots of the split tracing back to Mohammed’s successors, I think one of the most significant differences is that, for Sunnis, the Koran is the final authority while the Shiites believe in a rightful imam (Ali) who furthered the message of the Koran. Another difference also has to do with the Mehdi, Sunnis believe that the Mehdi has yet to appear while the Shiites believe in the Mehdi’s return. There are other ideological differences that developed throughout time, but I don’t consider them significant.
The differences are also cultural. The method of prayer differs slightly. As do the start dates of Eid and Ramadan (usually).
For outsiders, it is relevant to know that marriage, divorce, inheritance, child support and child custody laws differ between Sunni and Shia and we have separate Courts for both …
And, of course, there is Ashoura … coming up!
Esra’a, you are partly correct.
For a full version about Shia Islam, here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia which I encourage you to read in full to understand the nuances between the two major sects of Islam. Essentially, to me at least, the differences are cosmetic (very simplified):
:ninja:
i almost choked when i read this from ahmed:
“Perhaps you should take a look at people who actually do live in peace. America has now known peace between hundreds of different sects for 200 years. Perhaps you should go and check out why.”
peace? the only reason why there is a veneer of peace to america is because one party has outrageously more wealth and power than the others, so any opposition to the system is crushed without any contest
the country was founded when the settlers massacred and eradicated the native americans. then they enslaved africans and raped them of their history, culture and freedom. they crushed any attempt by wage labourers to free themselves, and now the country runs on the legalized slavery of dark-skinned immigrants.
this is not to mention the non-stop war that the us has waged against the rest of the world. panama, nicaragua, grenada, iraq, japan, vietnam… the list is endless.
yes, the arabs and the arab world are messed up beyond recognition, but dont you dare tell us that the US is peaceful.
So where was Nasrallah? Too busy burning up Beriut?
sh-ia :heart: sunni
M,
Nassrallah is not considered a religious scholar or an Ayatollah.
Bull****. The United States was founded on the principles of Liberal Democracy as defined by a hundred years of reformation philosophy.
Black slavery was de-rigeur in the 1700’s (and 1800’s) across the world. It was not the Americans who raped the culture and freedom of the Africans. They merely bought the slaved from the Arabs who captured them in Jihad. Look today at Mauritania (one of the last nations in the world with open slavery) to see what became of the ones left behind.
The natives were slaughtered, but that was not the fault of the American system, but rather the fault of greedy people who desired land and would stop at nothing to take it from the ‘barbarians’.
I am so offended by your remark about Latinos that I don’t even have a coherent response. Suffice it to say that Illegal Immigrants are not equitable to slaves; they come to the US of their own volition and send money back home to family members that need it. If you want to rail against anything regarding this issue, talk to the Mexican government – an entity which has made its own country so unlivable as to force a quarter of its own population to escape north.
Non-stop war, eh? I’m sorry, but every nation has the right to look for its own interests. I suggest you look at some other nations -right now- that are busily involved with the subversion of other nations. Saudi is a pretty good start. France too. Perhaps China or the Sudan.
Youssef al-Qaradawi can kiss my a**. He’s no different than those politicians several centuries ago that spilt the blood of hundreds of thousands because they followed a school of thought that wasn’t sponsored by the state.
>>All in all, 216 bozos from 44 countries can’t agree to set their differences aside
Generalization in such a case is a sign of ignorance. Unless you’ve conducted a survey and studied all 216 attendees, labelling them with your liberal, trying-to-be-funny labels only goes to show that your posts are only written to tickle the fancy of your readers, not to report the objective truth.
If you’re supposed to represent Bahrain then God help us. Idiot.
nurox,
I do realize Nasrallah is not a religious figure in the sense of someone like an ayatollah; but none the less, that is his background. I was being sarcastic, because it ticks me off to see what he is doing in Lebanon.
Thank you for your explanation and the manner you presented it.
I think that such meetings are a good event. They show the participants and the people everywhere how difficult and unresolved the situation is among even the scholars of the religion. It is a great argument for separation of church and state, and for the vital need for Islamic scholars to come to a more common understanding of their religion.
What happens after such meeting of Islamic scholars? Are there agreed upon tasks to start working out differences in understanding?
Curious. I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, George Washington, et al, would have said about:
1) The war in Iraq
2) Supporting a fundamentalist religious force elsewhere.
3) Allowing a farse like Israel to be created and supporting it, contrary to the wishes of its natives.
———————————-
Ethan, there is no doubt that the founding fathers of the US were great for their time. The the reformation philosophy a great work. I have read many of the Federalist papers myself. You get an A+ for that. For waiting 150 years to implement them in full? You get a C.
For the hypocritic policies the US enacts overseas that would be flat out unconstitutional if tried at home: F grade.
-Ibn
Thanks Ethan. It constantly amazing to me that people don’t take the time to read American history or try to understand that in a democracy government and the people sometimes are far apart.
nurox, is the black turban on his head a fashion accessory then?
Of course he is a scholar, he isn’t a “marji’” (yet) but a charismatic religious scholar with a huge following in both the religious and political streams.
Hi Ethan,
1. Using the word “merely” suggests that you condone what your ancestors have done. Knowing you, I don’t think this is what you mean. I am sure you do not condone slavery under any condition.
I wonder, did the States ever offer an apology for their active use of slavery?
2. Jihad: Not in the normal sense, and again a misplaced selection of a term I think. It was pure (and heinous) profiteering on the Arabs’ part, rather than religious motives.
Anonymous:
Okay…
!!
So what’s good for the goose is obviously not so good for the gander.
Very nice and intelligent.
I agree with you though, I should not have generalised as such and stand corrected.
:wub:
As much as you think Native Americans are barbarians, they had their own unique culture, traditions and colorful way of life which was and is much better than what America has today. They believed in recycling, renewing natural resources and using nature with respect, not the way the Americans and the rest of us are doing now.
So before you shoot of calling someone a Barbarian, look at your peoples history and judge not others so harshly lest you be judged yourself the same way.
I have been sitting and scratching my head figuratively trying to thing who really is benefiting by all this bloodshed? Does an one really know? Does Bush know? Does Blair know? Do any one of you know? I certainly am confused? Probably rightly so as the perpetratos of this bloodshed want us to be. :unsure: :cwy: 🙁 :pinch:
Mahmood,
Nasrallah has studied in both Qom and Najaf, however, as we both agree, he hasn’t reached the level of an Ayatollah or a Marji’ as you’ve mentioned.
His main focus to this date has been his political directive, and that’s where he has the majority of his following, in the political stream. To this date he has pushed religious issues that aren’t related to the political arena to scholars and Maraji’.
An additional note for anyone who was wondering about the color of the turban, a black turban is worn if the person’s family tree goes back to the Prophet. “Sayed”, otherwise it’s white.
“now the country runs on the legalized slavery of dark-skinned immigrants.”
This country has always run on the backs of POOR immigrants.
Even the Irish and Italians were treated the same way when they started coming here. In Hawaii, Portuguese were brought in as farm laborers. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking there’s a big national conspiracy to “keep the brown down”.
If you are speaking of farm work, I’d hardly call it “legalized slavery”. Yes, they get shit wages and it’s hard work, but can you prove they are forced into it? Because you know, slaves are forced into work for no pay. As far as I can tell all of the people I know whose parents, or grandparents worked the farms did it through their own volition (My grandfather included, he was one of the original Filipinos who came to California to work the farms and open the way for Mexicans to work them).
I’d rather not get into a debate with what sounds like American nationalists, but I will say that Barry’s point is correct. Immigrants in the U.S are not slaves. You can call it unfair labour for the “shit wages,” but the same would apply to any other country which thrives on its immigrants. America does have a lot to offer its many immigrants who go there by choice. Let’s take a look at the wealthiest doctors, professors, and CEOs there, a huge number of them are Indian, Chinese, Korean, etc. It’s just as ironic when Americans become xenophobic without realizing the fact that the country is heavily reliant on immigrants, just like many countries are.
I mean, what will Bahrain be without its South Asian migrant workers?
Nothing. Yet many of us are racist against them without understanding the simple fact that they built the country with their own hands.
Mideast Migrants come closer to “slavery” than American immigrants, too. Many domestic workers go unpaid or are abused. I’m sure there are similar cases in the US, but never to this extent.
Ibn’s comment seems to be spot-on, by the way. Sorry to get more off topic, but things needed to be said.
Maverick;
As much as you think Native Americans are barbarians, .. They believed in recycling, renewing natural resources and using nature with respect
Overuse of resources was one contributor to the end of the Mayas. The native people of the Americas also warred against each other, hunted some pre-historic animals to extinction (like the mammoth), and made thousands of human sacrifices (google on Aztecs). They were no better or worse than anyone else.
Ethan;
The natives were slaughtered, but that was not the fault of the American system, but rather the fault of greedy people who desired land and would stop at nothing to take it from the ‘barbarians’
Most of the native Americans were wiped out by diseases brought by the Europeans, not by organized slaughter. Often, the diseases spread from one tribe to the next before they ever came into contact with a single European. More information about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
Ibn;
For the hypocritic policies the US enacts overseas that would be flat out unconstitutional if tried at home: F grade.
The US is no more hypocritical than anyone else. Hypocrisy is so mundane in politics, it’s normal. You get an F for not seeing that 🙂
Mahmood;
I wonder, did the States ever offer an apology for their active use of slavery?
Apologize to who? American slaves were owned by individuals, not the government, and a very small minority of individuals (less than 5% of the southern population before the Civil War). It never existed in the north. So that kind of confuses as to who’s supposed apologize to who. Anyway, a war that killed hundreds of thousands to end slavery pretty much makes the question moot for most Americans.
Esraa;
It’s just as ironic when Americans become xenophobic
We’re not xenophobic, muchacho. We just don’t like millions of people coming into the country illegally. The problem is we’re sending them mixed signals. Don’t sneak into the country, but if you do, we’ll hire you.
Aliandra,
I think the correct term is muchacha … Esraa is a woman, if i am not mistaken. And I dont think she is Hispanic either. :tongue:
Heh, sorry, not familiar with middle-eastern names 🙂
Sorry muchacha Esra’a!
“We,” who’s “we”? As far as I know America is a diverse nation, where many people have different, often conflicting opinions about various issues especially when it comes to domestic things. There are many xenophobic Americans, like it or not. Just because you aren’t one personally doesn’t mean many don’t exist around you.
And yeah, much to your dismay I’m not really Hispanic. 😛
As for sneaking into America, don’t worry, I won’t be be doing that anytime soon. I’d much rather be elsewhere where my identity is more respected and the culture is more exotic. Nothing against America or anything, it just hardly appeals to my interests.
And what’s a muchacha? I thought you were talking about crackers or something.
Mahmood. Yes there have been numerous apologies. The civil war dominated our national identity for almost 100 years. In a way you can compare it to the hate occuring in Iraq now between Sunni vs Shi’a. During the Battle of Gettysburg there were 51,000 casualties alone and bread hate for years.
Thanks Bill.
Aliandra why so defensive? Calm down, find a sunny spot and lie in it and contemplate the clouds… this pressure is going to get to you, you need to unwind!
Aliandra M is right, take a chill pill. BTW I was speaking of Native Americans as in The so called Red Indians not the Mayas.
As Far I know there were no Mammoths in South America, though I could be wrong….BTW see Ice Age 2 the Melt Down it is down right hilarious. 🙂
What is with the:
Who died and made American government God? Your country was built not by Ameicans but by immigrants who came over bore kids who called themselves born Americans and then made rules to keep others out. Read your own history Senorita.
Illegal Hah? It is fine to relax on the achievements of the immigrants when it suits you, but noooo let is not have them in our back yard eh!
Everyone has a right to desire, hope, good life, rood over their head, proper government. In exchange for a decent life in your country, they ask for simple chance to sell their cheap labor, and roof and food for their family.
Any society has its ills and crime and problems caused not because of so called illegal immigration but because many governments bury their head in the sand.
Why did bush go after Saddam? Why not castro? Why not Robert Mugabe, why not the Mogadishu rebels why not the Hutu and the Tutsi tribes who butcher each other? Think about it?
:biggrin:
BTW I MEant roof over their head nod rood. Sorry about tht typo. :tongue: 🙂
As for hypocrisy, why is the U.S going after the dictators it spent at least a decade funding? The U.S fueled many wars including the highly destructive Iran-Iraq war, the wars in Afghanistan, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict just to name a few. I’m not saying America is responsible for them because it’s not, but it certainly fed them and made them more destructive than what they could’ve been, and thus it indirectly played a big role in innocent casualties. It is also guilty for censorship during war. Why do you think there are embedded journalists for countries like Iraq? Why do you think they appoint press officers within the military who hardly reveal as much as they should?
To limit sources, and control public opinion. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just hiding the truth for the sake of gaining further support.
I’m sure someone defensive is going to say “you always blame us for your own ills,” so I will emphaize for the 2nd time that I am not blaming the U.S gov. at all for any ills whatsoever. I am just critizing their unnecessary interference.
There is a difference if you’re being hypocritical if you’re a young and powerless country. When a country like Bahrain is hypocrtical, what significance does it hold over the world? Not much. But you’re not a young and powerless country. You’re currently the world’s superpower, and that means your hypocracy is the kind that can actually shape world politics. When other countries are hypocritical, that’s fine, because who gives a crap about them anyways? They don’t hold much significance. But when a country with some of the biggest and best military facilities which also hold media dominance, it could lead to disasterous things. And, it did.
I’m not an America-basher, I think the U.S is a great country which gave good opportunities for many different people of various backgrounds. The U.S certainly has its many good moments. But there are just as many bad ones, and it would be frightening if you’re going to deny it. If you love your country, remember that it’s okay to critisize its mistakes. If you deny them, that only adds to the mistakes that have been wrongly committed in America’s name. Secondly when we critisize, we are not saying much about the American nation. We are talking about your government, which represents you, but it is often understood that the nation is hardly responsible for any ills done in America’s name. That’s why you shouldn’t be so defensive, and you shouldn’t speak on behalf of many Americans because many are disgusted with their own government, just like many of us are disgusted with our governments when mistakes are being made. It’s natural. I don’t go ape-nuts when someone says Bahrain sucks since it limits freedom of speech because I know it’s true, and as much as I love my country I never deny that it happens. You should do the same.
Not to jump to America’s defense here, but can you guys just imagine what would have happened if the French were running the world???
We would be totally, irreparably, fundamentally, most defnitely, completely, irreversible screwed.
(As opposed to right now, where we are just really screwed).
Hello Esra’a,
The US never funded, fueled, or started the Iran-Iraq war, although it did provide Saddam with some intelligence on Iranian deployments. Saddam’s funding came from his own oil money or loans from the French and Arab states. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict hardly needs fuel from us to keep going. Our “fueling†of other wars is greatly exaggerated. A country that is only 200 years old is really considered a young country. Also, there has always been censorship in war – that’s normal. When other hypocritical countries send terrorists out into the world or export cocaine, the rest of the world does give a crap. You don’t have to be a superpower to be a pain in the ass.
Maverick, Esra’a
We have no problem with legal immigrants. In fact, it is grossly unfair to those who are waiting to get their papers done when other people jump in front of the line. Like every other country, we don’t want people coming in without our permission. Would you want strangers walking into your house without your knowledge or consent?
Muchacha is the Spanish word for young woman 😀
Jasra;
But we would have good food. And excellent perfume.
Now I will go back to finding a sunny spot and contemplating the clouds … 🙂
Aliandra, the U.S funded and thus fueled the Iran-Iraq war.
Click here for the basics.
No, but you have the be a superpower to be a huge kick in the ass. And we all know what happens when the U.S is mad.
And you think you guys have the worst when it comes to terrorism? Come on. You have no idea what domestic terrorism in many countries is like, namely Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, and even within the Arab world, so I beg you to read further into this if you think America is the one and only victim of such hideous and unjustifiable crimes. These small countries that export terrorists can’t afford to do half the damage that America can do within one night in Baghdad, which you should know the consequences of by now. America’s military services worldwide haven’t exactly been “fair” either, as you seem to be so fond of this word. In fact, America isn’t even fair to its own military participants. There are many veterans who, instead of congratulated for their work, are left homeless. So you go to war for your country, and that’s what you’re left with? I can direct you to the relevant articles if you choose to deny this. Iraqi veterans are going through a similar situation as the Vietnam vets did. That’s no way to honor people who risked their lives for their country.
Uhm, America is a territory. Not a house.
“Not to jump to America’s defense here”
For a minute there I was thinking you had completely lost your mind! :devil:
“Aliandra, the U.S funded and thus fueled the Iran-Iraq war.”
So what; so did alot of other countries that were looking out for their own interests.
“Would you want strangers walking into your house without your knowledge or consent?
Uhm, America is a territory. Not a house.”
No problem; Bahrain will be receiving 50 million of those illegal immigrants in the first of many installments courtsey of the American taxpayer. What? You got laws against that stuff. Too bad; everyone needs a chance at a new beginning.
G’day Esra’a
To address your points …
Read your own link ..
“Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the likeâ€Â
Here’s more from Wikipedia on who sold what to Saddam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The fact is that the US contributed less than one percent to Iraq’s military machine and virtually all of that was dual-use materials – for example, civilian helicopters converted to military use and cultures diverted to biological weapons research. You might also note that the Iraqi army was outfitted with AK 47s, T-72 tanks, SCUD missiles, MIG jets, and soviet anti-aircraft systems.
Obviously, Iraq was armed by Ronald Reagan. 😉
Uhm, America is a territory
America is a nation state, not a territory. Check the dictionary
Iraqi veterans are going through a similar situation as the Vietnam vets did.
While it’s true that some war veterans come back with PTSD, there are numerous services to help them at no cost to them. The vast majority of PTSD patients aren’t sleeping on the pavement. As for those who are, they cannot be forced to seek counseling. We don’t leave them on the streets deliberately and we do our best to help them.
These small countries that export terrorists can’t afford to do half the damage that America can do within one night in Baghdad, which you should know the consequences of by now
Who exactly is doing the most damage in Iraq, Esra’a ? The 4th Infantry or the terrorists doing daily bombings that have killed more people than the American invasion?
’til later
🙂
(hope I got the smily faces right this time)
You’re making this about illegal immigration when I said nothing to justify it. I’m talking about immigration from all over the world, my main focus being the Arab world, Iran, China, and India, who in turn become successful students, doctors, CEOs, in the U.S, helping the country significantly. No need to focus on the illegal ones only. It’s no secret that America relies heavily on its immigrants of various different backgrounds, many of whom are not illegal.
Justifying it is bad. Do I say, “Bahrain shouldn’t fight for freedom of expression because so what, all Arab countries don’t have it?”
No. I fight for it anyways and you should have no problem admitting your mistakes instead of considering them insignificant. By your logic, I can say “human trafficking is okay, because everyone else does it. So what?”
Dangerous mentality. When something is wrong – admit it, and then oppose it. Don’t defend and justify it.
Aliandra –
I think you fail to get the point.
First you say that the U.S did not fund or fuel the Iran-Iraq war, and when this argument got refuted, you say that “financial support is fine, because it’s not weapons!”
What do you think Iraq did with any support from the U.S? They gassed, tortured, killed, and destroyed Iran and many of its innocent civilians, and vice versa.
Is that really ethical to you?
“Territory: any tract of land; region or district”
America is thus a territory. It’s a region. No need to get anal about the diction when the point is being made clearly.
M,
no chance of that darling.
Aliandra,
Thats somewhat debatable
Thats true. We would also have great wine. And Zidane.
We wouldnt have Microsoft or Starbucks or Mickey Dees. We wouldnt have Hollywood or Paris Hilton. We wouldnt have Brangelina or TomKat. We wouldn’t have political correctness or The Gap. And … *gasp* … we wouldn’t have Oprah.
The mind boggles.
“I’m curious to know if there’s much intermarriage between Sunnis and Shia?”
There is in Iraq.
The commentors here seem to be just as argumentative as those Muslim “scholars” at the meeting.
Esra’a,
“You’re making this about illegal immigration when I said nothing to justify it. ”
It’s apparent to me that Aliandra can speak very well for herself, but I believe that was the topic of discussion otherwise she would have called you a wee lass or perhaps a JAP and not a Muchacha. She clearly said “stangers that came into your house WITHOUT your knowledge or consent”; that is not the case with immigration as the process requires our consent. That’s what the discussion in America is about. Illegals, not immigration. Good grief. Legal immigration and the amount of different ethnic groups in this country is one of the things Americans are most proud of.
In terms of what this country’s foreign policy is at any given time on any given issue, I will make the determination if I approve or not at the ballot box which is my duty and right.
When you direct your argument against mine based on illegal immigration, then I too can speak well for myself and I believe I have when I said that it was not my argument at all since I did not base it on illegal immigration.
And that muchacha thing was irrelevant in my opinion, as, for the 2nd time, I wasn’t the one talking about illegal immigration. Thanks in advance for understanding.
Ack, I go away for a day and this comment board explodes!
Anyway – you’re right, Mahmood. I did not mean to condone what previous generations had done (Not my ancestors, actually; my family trees on one side go back to the early 1600’s in the US and none were slaveholders). I was pointing out that it was not the Americans who went to Africa to capture slaves, but to buy them from Arab slavers.
I don’t believe that the US has ever apologized for slavery, but then again, I don’t believe that it would be worthwhile to do so. The sins of the fathers are not visited upon the sons; and it is not my place to apologize for acts that I had no part in. The best way to see an ‘apology’ for slavery in the US is to look at the sheer amount of ‘black’ culture that has influenced America as a whole: Jazz, Rock and Roll, Hipster culture, R&B, Rap music, poetry, art. i daresay that America wouldn’t be as great as it is today if it wasn’t for the Africans brought as slaves.
Regarding Jihad…The early Islamic conquest of Mesopotamia and Persia was called Jihad; rivers of blood soaked the streets of Baghdad, and thousands of years of treasures were looted. This lead one of the early followers to remark regarding the riches of Persia: ‘Even if we did not have Jihad, I would have wanted to take these riches anyway’. (I do have a reference, but i can’t find it at the moment.)
I would venture to say that Jihad as a concept can be merely a religiously motivated cover story for piracy, invasion and murder. As we keep seeing every day; Koranic verses can be used to justify just about anything – even if they aren’t meant to – and as such, Jihad could be a ‘struggle’ as well as ‘kill the Shi’ites and unbelievers and non-Wahabbis and Christians and Jews and slaiughter them until their blood runs rivers and Allah smiles upon you.’ It just depends on which Imam you talk to.
And suffice it to say, Mahmood, it’s not the former that have the bombs and guns and legions of maniacs on their side. :blink:
Let’s put it this way then:
fair?
Let’s compromise terminology, Mahmood.
Jihad itself is not political, it is a religious idea. The motivation behind declaring Jihad, of course, may be political. However, it’s easy to get the pious to sign on to anything if you tell them ‘God said so’.
So take the politics, wrap it up in religion and…
You end up with a religious cover story for a political movement.
However, with religion and politics intertwined, it’s very hard to separate the threads! Is the Muslim Brotherhood a political movement or a religious movement? It’s not one or the other – it’s both! Islam has a political dimension, which is wrapped up in the ‘Allah’s complete rules for every possible aspect of your life’ mantra that we see in the da’wa (almost completely Sunni in the US) literature.
So in a sense, you’re right, Mahmood. There is a political dimension. However, at a fundamental level, politics wrapped in the green Jolly Roger of Islam has religious overtones.
yep, I’ll buy that.
Ethan,
How would you describe the link between Christianity and the the French Royalty in Europe? I am ignorant in this subhect, but didn’t they have to be ‘descended from God’ or something like that for legitimacy?
Woah! That’d be pretty impressive, being ‘descended from God’ and all – in every mainstream Christian tradition Jesus had no children, regardless of what Dan Brown’s fiction said.
The European Royalty is/was ordained by God; i.e. the Bishop or Pope is the officiant of the crowning of the monarch, which gave a ‘divine legitimacy’ to their reign.
That, in itself was very political. By letting the Church crown the King, the nations themselves claimed a bit of God for ‘their side’ as well as kept them in good graces with the extremely powerful Church. Whether the ruler would then go on to act Christian or not was of course up to their own whim; but they had the blessing of the Church.
This is related in a sense to the Caliph. Another example is Iran’s governmental system in the sense that the candidates for election are vetted by the religious system, guaranteeing that those who get into office are ‘blessed’ by the highest ranking authorities (who, in Shi’ism, basically speak for Allah).
Ethan,
You have just proved Mahmood’s earlier point of view. If
, and if
then, where do you see the equiblirium in the future of Islam as a political force in the ME? Your description of the above could be a description of Saudi Arabia, or Iran. replace European Royalty with Al Saud/ the Mullahs and replace the word Church with the Wahabbis/ Supreme Rev Council (or whatever they have decided to call themselves).
What do you see in the Gulf? Do you see a French model evolving eventually? Or a British one? Or a German one? Or an Irish one?
The ‘divine right of kings’ in Europe was primarily undone by the Enlightenement. Theologians looked again at the Bible and saw that there was no call toward a terrestrial mixing of religion and politics. Coupled with the corruption in the Catholic Church that lead to Protestantism, the idea that Kings ruled because God chose them to was by and large removed form the public consciousness.
Today, Kings are still crowned, and may have vestigial religous overtones, but there is no Absolute Monarch with a right to rule by fiat due to God’s allowance.
On the other hand, Islam is not immediately divestable from political thought. The Caliph is at once the supreme arbiter of Allah’s law as well as a terrestrial ruler of men – a pope-emperor if you will. Perhaps the Islamic enlightenment is (as it was in Europe) a re-evaluation of the original texts. Unfortunately, the tests do not call for a seperation of Church and state – in fact they suggest the opposite. Unlike Jesus who sought no terrestrial kingdom, Mohammed conquered and ruled Mecca and Medina as political ruler and Prophet.
Seen from that perspective, since Mohammed and Allah have ordained for men a complete way of life, it is heresy to not follow the exact literal revelation. These Islamist parties are motivated by power, certainly, but they are also motivated (at least among the rank and file, certainly) by a religious fervor. Use a democratic system to enact God’s law and then there will be no need for Democracy. Democracy is incompatible with God’s law because democracy allows people to question or change the complete way of life that Islam purports to be.
And you cannot question Allah. Or you die. And Islamists will help you there right quick.
Being a pessimist about the Middle East (especially with regard to the West’s inability to recognize its own liberal principles and support real liberal reformists) I see the following:
1) Most Muslim nations have no long-standing traditions of free thought or individualism. This leads to an extreme conformity of opinion reinforced by an education system that prefers rote learning.
2) Liberal political parties (where allowed) are surpressed by the state because they are dangerous to the rulers. Islamist parties are surpressed as well, but their ideology is not – it would be bad for Muslims to be seen to be ‘against Islam’.
3) These literalist groups, from the Ikhwan to Al-Qaeda, have gained ownership over Islam. Like it or not, Westerners and others who have no intimate contact with the Middle East’s culture see only one thing: Muslims saying ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ while simultaneously bombing and killing anyone who questions it. Hypocracy is to be expected in any politics, but I’ve seen a sea-change in opinion over the past year that this hypocracy is beyond the pale.
4) Secular Muslim rulers are corrupt chattering nabobs. The populace knows this and will vote for the ‘incorruptible’ Islamist groups when possible. Islam is perfect, right? Why would you ever vote against it?
5) Demographic expansion and sedition within Western countries as part of a Saudi-funded educational and mosque-building effort.
6) End state – the recreation of the Caliphate from London to Borneo.
7) Global Thermonuclear War
That’s one, very possible option.
I doubt that there is any equilibrium between secularism and Islam as long as Islamist groups control the dialogue via threats, violence and intimidation as to what true Islam is.
The other option requires a major upheaval within Muslim governments, leading toward a more Turkish model of secularism. This will require a HUGE effort to change the culture of hatred against the kufaar that has grown exponentially and festered over the past 40 years or so of Saudi-funded da’wa.
As I said, I’m a pessimist. I believe that large scale war will happen long before step 6. I also believe that Western thought will win, although we may be forever changed by it.
I trust that the only place that has a clue right now is Dubai. I also believe that the gulf nations (as well as Iraq and Iran) have the best chance to start a revolution of thought against the Salafist threat. Iran will have to overthrow the Mullahs, and Bahrain will have to fight through it’s insane parliament. Iraq will need the US to clean out the rats nest of the insurgency, but I have faith in its people.
Sorry that this post was so long; I just had a bit to say :biggrin:
Ethan.
I think you give Islam much more ‘power’ than it deserves. I also think you underestimate the amount of disagreement that exists in the concept of power and Islam. The Shia cannot agree between themselves on this issue: Wilayat Al Faqih, vs Sistani. And the Sunnis are in disarray themselves (it is only recently that they have started using Islam for political legitimacy .. early 20’s for Saudi Arabia, Saddam out the shahadah on his flag recently, and King Hussein of Jordan gave himself that controversial title before he died. All this in the last 100 years).
The texts themselves (Quran and Hadith) are contradictory and, contrary to your belief, they ARE subject to interpretation. And most people who choose Islamic leaders dont do so because of their devout beliefs, but because they view their current alternative leadership as corrupt. Its not Islamic zealotry that is driving them, its the ‘fed up with the current system’ factor.
As for Dubai having a clue? Dubai is 90% expat. And, is THE leading place for money laundering. Qatar is smartes, it has the al Udaid base. Offset by Al Jazira. Both relevant only because of its gas reserves.
The GCC being best positioned to counter the Salafi threat? HAH! No dear. The GCC has now become the battle ground by proxy which is really a squareoff between Iran and the US. And, since Saudi Arabia will lead the way, the rest will fall in line. (Including Israel).
I am also pessimistic. But not because of Islam. Its an issue of leadership. Wise leadership. And with Israel and the US showing their infinite wisdom, matched only by that exhibited in the ME, it aint lookin good ….
Aliandra,
Oh I see. Its just business as usual to be hypocritic. So why does not a day go by without some American asking why the Muslim world is quiet when Islamists blow them up, as opposed to when foreigners do it?
Maybe the Muslims are also being hypocritical too right? Just like you admit your country as being. Afterall, its just the way the cookie crumbles eh?
Heh. Sorry, I dont buy it. If it was “simply what nations and people do”, then Americans of the conservative persuasion wouldnt constantly claim that Muslims are being hypocritical in who they do and dont condemn.
Sorry, just doesnt fly.
———————————–
Ethan,
So there are 1 billion So called Muslim heretics? Because this is the logical conclusion taking your statement and the emperical evidence and marrying them.
You can question what Allah meant.
This is true. At least in recent history. Free though is what allowed Arab civilization to flourish back in its heydays.
Whoa Whoa. “Demographic expansion”? What do you mean by this?
Most Arabs you come across are secularists in a variety of ways. Some are religious, but that is about it. As Jasra said, you give too much weight to Islamists.
Quite frankly, that is YOUR problem. If your media portrays Arabs and Muslims as bloodthirsty villians – and you believe it – (hence this statement), then the onus is on you to prove it, not the other way around. Its like telling a girl “I heard you’re a slut, so Im sorry, but unfortunately we believe it, since thats all we hear.” If you want to throw your hands up and say “Yup, shes a whore. I heard it.” then you have betrayed your own principles of guilty until proven innocent. If you really want to know who she is, you will get to know her.
Currently, the misunderstandings of Westerners such as yourself on the nature of ordinary and everyday Arabs and Muslims is arrogant at best, and fear-mongering at worst, bordering on crazy conspiracy theories. And that, is your problem.
You are correct on this, for the most part. The populace sees two criteria: A secular dictator. Or an Islamic purist. When one fails, he gives more power to the other. Our struggle is about showing how you can be secular, and not a dictator.
Turkey is a secular dictatorship. No thanks. How is banning a hijab or religious garments freedom in any sense of the word? Furthermore, you do not understand the dynamics behind the support Islamic movements live off, due to geo-political problems such as Israel, that are in many ways the creation of the West.
I certainly hope so. Maybe the West will learn it cannot be hyprocritical in its dealings with peoples’ from far away lands. Maybe that will usher in a new golden age.
———————————–
The bottom line Ethan, is that the Arab world, just simply put, doesnt believe the West. They dont trust you. And for good reason. From recent history – from the time Britain massacered 11,000 Sudaneese in its colonial invasion of the Sudan, to the conquering of Egypt, to the French getting Israeli-fever and thinking they could annex Algeria and kill its Arabs to make room for imported French, from Libya’s struggle against Italian imperialism, from the Sykes-Picot agreement that split the Arab world like loot, from the attempted Portugeese invasion of Mecca, from all of that, and finally, to the ultimate betrayal by giving us Israel, THIS is the source of your problems with the Arab/Muslim world at large Ethan. The problem is YOUR history, and the actions theirein.
What you see from the Arab world vis-a-vis the West, is a reaction to all that. Sorry, but thats just the way it is.
You cannot see this, because to you, god created the world on Sep11th. Thats why its so unbelievable – how could anyone possibly hate you?? What did you Americans ever do to anyone?? And your philosophy of freedom is so nice! Why would they possibly hate you? I know! They… they must hate freedom!
hahahhaha!
Look further Mr Ethan. Look much much farther.
-Ibn
I understand about the split between the Sistani-ists and Iran; I also realize that there are many different currents within Sunni Islam itself. In fact, one can say that the Sunnis are predisposed to having many different sects because of the lack of an official hierarchy. Even within different schools of thought there are varied opinions on many issues.
I’m not one to challenge the notion that the Koran and Hadith are contradictory. Having read them myself (lovingly provided online by the MSA of USC) is one reason why I have a low opinion of the Islam. On the other hand, part of my point is that the secular rulers are corrupt and worthless – Islamic groups are a ‘second way’. On the other hand, these groups are not free from corruption themselves – but being religious gives them protection.
If, say, Group A is corrupt but cloaks itself in a religious garb, and has clerics willing to toe its line, it has an effective shield. If you question the group, the clerics can pronounce you as ‘against’ the religion. Given that being ‘against Islam’ is, according to some groups, a death sentence; any critic of a religiously-wrapped political group could be killed extrajudicially by any fanatic allied with the religious party.
It only takes a lone gunman to kill a poet or journalist or dissident.
And that’s why it has a clue. Unlike Saudi, which spends millions of riyals every year on the royal family and exporting extremism, Dubai has parlayed its fortune into infrastructure. After the gas runs dry, Saudi will go back to being a desert filled with bedouin tribes. Dubai will be Disneyland.
I didn’t say the GCC, so much. The leaders are morons, as Mahmood so rightly points out. But the gulf states are far more ‘liberal’ in thought than others – and that liberalism is important to countering the Salafist ideology.
And on this, we are in complete agreement.
Exactly. And if you take a moment and listen to the slime that pours from the mouthparts of certain preachers, anyone who does not fight in the cause of Allah, hate the Kufaar and wish to establish Allah’s glorious will on Earth is no better than the Kufaar.
Which, of course, puts a lot of folks under suspect allegiance to the ‘true’ Islam.
So If I say that I believe that Allah was, in fact, trying to push Mohammed toward Chirstianity by feeding him a religion that is beyond the pale in terms of violence and female repression than broadcast that in a Muslim country, that I wouldn’t get shot? How keen.
Heydays being what? 1200 AD? What has the Islamic world given to humanity since they stopped conquering others and absorbing their ideas?
According to most, if not all, population experts, given the current rate of reproduction of Muslims in Europe and the downward trend in reproduction among native Europeans, major cities in Europe will be majority-Muslim (60-70% in some cases) by 2050.
Nothing like Hagia-Sophia-ing Notre Dame de Paris, oui?
I’m sorry if I come off as alarmist – but even a secularist will wear a hijab if her life depends on it. It doesn’t make her religious, but it does increase the power of the Islamist parties in terms of effect.
I point to Egyptian actresses who have recently gone all hijabi as a case in point.
This is the stupidest rationalization that I have ever heard.
Lets go with your example: It’s not ‘I heard you were a slut so you are’.
The analogy is more akin to:
“You’re a slut, because not only do you sleep with everyone, you’ve slept with more than a few of my friends and proudly proclaimed your sluttiness on the streets of more than a few cities. With your friends, you discuss how best to increase your sluttitude and who is next on your ‘hit-list’ to get it on with.
… And then you have the audacity to come to Church dressed in white and proclaim that you’re a virgin.”
It’s not MY problem, Ibn. Getting to know some nice Muslims (such as Mahmood and others here) is not going to make me think that Islam is ‘good’. If a business sells a product that catches fire and destroys some peoples houses, it is not the USERS fault that they don’t buy any more of that company’s product. And it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that the company is innocent and that you’re just not giving the company a chance.
I challenge you, Ibn, to look at some of the crazy ideologues in the West and see how one’s opinion cannot be shaped by them. On the other hand, these conspiracy theories against the West are not my own. They come from Muslims themselves. I refer you to the Channel 4 dispatch: Undercover Mosque.
I fail to see how the hijab ‘frees’ anyone, so banning something that removes freedom seems a net positive to the cause of freedom. On the other hand, Israel is a dead horse. Maybe if Arab countries would do something to support the Palestinians rather than force them into refugee camps, the Palestinians culture of violence could be abated – which could lead to an equitable settlement with Israel.
On the other hand, I doubt that the west trusts the Islamic world, from the wars of conquest in the 700’s which conquered the heart of Christianity, to the capture of European land – Spain and all the way to the gates of Vienna, to the pirates of the Barbary coast, which took slaves as far north as Cornwall in Britain, and forced the creation of the US Navy, to modern day times in which the Slave trade in Muslim lands lasted until the 1970s (except Mauritania and Niger, if I recall right) and hundreds of thousands of Sudanese massacred by Muslims in Darfour.. (those poor Sudanese!), Muslim uprisings in Nigeria, leading to the creation of Biafra in the 1970’s, the constant fighting in the Philippines, which has raged for hundreds of years between Christians and Muslims..
The Islamic side is no ‘victim’ here.
I beg to differ, God began program Universe() approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and hasn’t said a thing since.
On the other hand, Ibn, you’ll find that I’m hardly your typical ‘Steve the American’ stereotype. Ironic though that you’ll complain about my ‘stereotyping’ with a stereotype of your own.
Ethan,
You don’t get it, do you.
If the oil and gas runs dry, why would anyone want to go to Dubai? Dubai exists as a service center to the two biggest economies in the GCC. One is Saudi Arabia. The banks and the trading companies and the PR outfits and the media center and the *insert whatever strikes you fancy* fundamentally rest on these two economies and their purchasing power.
If the oil and gas ran dry in either of these two countries, the infrastructure that you are so impressed by would be very big, unkept, high maintenance ‘white elephants’.
Ethan, my dear, I am dissapointed. For someone who has
, I would suggest doing a little bit more reading on basic economics, basic investment, and maybe a class or two on foreign policy .. you would then be shifting your argument slightly and instead of commenting on Islam, you would be commenting on Leadership.
Hello, I agree with you on being no Sunni nor Shi’i. I think the Quran should be depended upon for all what we want to know, and when a day comes that the Quran fails us (which i think will never come), we can go to the hadith. I mean it really really stupid for Muslims to argue and fight each other on things caused by hadiths while the clear Quran stand there being ignored.
good work 😈
عمل جميل
This is a great discussion and shows how worlds apart the western and eastern perspectives can be…
I think at this rate Islam in its present state is set to implode and a new era will be started where people will live side by side with their brothers and sisters of any nation colour or creed and accept them and their rights as being as important as there own..
call me an idealist but i´ve got a feeling in my bones that the tide may be changing .
Good will always conquer evil in the end and love is stronger than hate…. people can be fooled for so long before they throw off their shackles and reach for freedom and equality… this is a fundamental human instinct..
Fighting this will only put you on the losing side in the end…. ❗