Our recent discussions about Islam and the whole cartoon-Mohammed mess has prompted some rather profound and insightful observations. It also drew the attention of “Kashif Ahmad,” a self-proclaimed Muslim who repeatedly presented his side of the argument most cogently and reasonably. I have to respect him for that.
In fact, I respect it so much, I’m going to take one of his comments and look at it most carefully.
I for one would never be an apologist for the actions of any Saudi or Egyptian terrorist. Reason is simply I have almost as much in common with a person from Saudi/Egypt as an American would have with someone from Yugoslavia. Nothing.
Actually, America has quite a few ties with the former Yugoslavia. For one, a lot of Americans can trace their ancestry to Yugoslavia. For another, several thousand Americans have served in the former Yugoslavia over the last decade — most notably protecting Muslims there from being slaughtered. Many bled and died there. Perhaps you ought to choose another nation? Good luck — Americans come from all over the world, and we have ties to nearly every nation. Much like we often hear cries about the 1 billion Muslims who are all insulted by these cartoons.
OnDrummer on the note why you are not allowed to prostelize in countries like SA. Prostelizing is not an in-alienable human right. If we expect others to respect us we must respect them, and the surest way to kill any conversation with a person is to say you are going to enternal damnation if you don’t believe in Christ. It is their law and their country we must respect that.
Yes, Kashif. You must respect “their law and their country.” In the West, we enshrine the right to speak freely as one of the most sacred precepts of freedom. There is no law against blasphemy in Denmark, or the United States. It is our principle that the government should stay out of matters of faith. But that hasn’t stopped the riots and open acts of war against Denmark, has it? So much for having respect for others’ countries and others’ laws.
The same way no one will give a damn about a fatwa passed in Iran in any western country, we cannot reverse it around either.
Tell that to Salman Rushdie, still under a death sentence. Or Theo Van Gogh — but you’ll have to dig him up, and I don’t think his corpse will be persuaded by your arguments. They know full well the power of fatwas issued in Iran, and how much effect they can be outside their borders.
Kashif also brings up the Crusades. Yeah, it can be argued that the Crusades were Christianity run amok. Hell, for the sake of argument, I’ll even grant every single point he made about it.
But Kashif, the Crusades ended well over 700 years ago. People looking for more recent examples of Christian extremism find themselves citing the Nazis (who co-opted a few elements of Christianity, blended with strong Paganist elements, to push their race-based, tyrannical ideology) or the Ku Klux Klan (who were also far more interested in race than religion, except in how they could use Christianity to support their feeble ideology).
But back to the Crusades. As I noted above, they ended over 700 years ago. Christianity grew up.
Judaism also had its imperialist, expansionist, conquering era. It ended once they possessed the Holy Land.
It seems that major religions (at least the Big Three, that all come from the Middle East) have their “adolescence,” But Judaism and Christianity outgrew those, and matured into the faiths that they are today.
Some people say we need to give Islam its chance to grow and mature as well. They say that it, too, will outgrow this phase, and truly become a religion of peace.
Personally, I’m tired of waiting. The “patience” and “tolerance” people call for is being measured in dead bodies. Dead Danes, dead Netherlanders, dead Londoners, dead Americans, dead Parisians, dead Israelis.
And most of all, dead Muslims. I think it’s fair to say that radical Islam has killed more of its own than any other group.
So before we all long like I said outside the window, lets all of us look at the mirrors.
Perhaps, Kashif. But instead of gazing narcissistically at yourself, perhaps you ought to look around at your fellow Muslims. Those who are currently wreaking havoc around the globe over some CARTOONS, and those who sit silently and let those radicals claim to be the voice of Islam. The loudest voice often prevails, and there is a severe dearth of those who would challenge them.
Well, “Semanticleo”, I’ll be your huckleberry.
First of all, no one on this site suggested the extermination of muslims (except you, of course). But, that’s not particularly suprising given that you’ve revealed yourself as a dyed in the wool lefty. You are a lefty aren’t you, Semantic? Yes, of course you are. As a leftist, you can only think in absolutist terms and name calling.
If someone questions quotas, they’re a racist. Question the radical feminist movement, they’re a sexist. Question the viability and implications of homosexual marriage on our culture and, they’re a homophobe. Etc, etc, etc. Oh yeah….wonder about the compatibility between Islam and western culture and…they’re Nazis bent on extermination.
Oh, and George Bush. He’s a Nazi too , huh? (you seem to have forgotten the FISA meme so I thought I’d help you out)
The really curious thing about this line of accusation from a leftist is that; all the major exterminations in recent history have come from your fellow leftists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, and yes, old Uncle Adolf himself! Between them, they’re responsible for the extermination of about a half billion people in the 20th century alone. And, yes. That’s right. N.a.z.i. is a German acronym for National Socialist Workers Party. Hitler was a socialist. A largely secular socialist who dabbled in the occult. They all believed in the centralization of power with The State, seizing the means of production (by force)under the guise of empowering the proletariat and…central to this was the extermination of all religion. Particularly Christianity and Judeism. This is necessary because the Judeo/christian ethic preaches and encourages devotion between the individual and God rather than between the individual and The State. It indentifies and assigns its allegence to a power beyond the reach of The State (and this is dangerous- to the lefties) Actually, all these characteristics; centralization of power with the State, control of the means of production, disolution of private property rights, persecution of religion- are not very disimilar from America’s modern democrat party. Its the same platform just under a different name.
At first, it seems strange that the lefties get themselves all riled up when someone is perceived to attack Islam. Particularly given the seething hatred and disgust the left demonstrates for all things religious. But..all one has to understand is that the left knows as well as anyone else that Islam presents a problem for the west- particularly America and Judaism and Christianity.
Yep! Gonna get those hated Jews for ya, huh? And those nasty Christians and hell, it might even knock that evil empire that is America down a notch or two in the process. Oh! And the oil companies! Be still my fleeting heart! How sweet would that be? Let the radicals take over the Middle East and really show those oil companies and those capitalists with their big SUV’s a thing or two, huh?
That’s what explains the left’s curious defense of Islam. And…that’s what explains Semanticleo’s breathless defense and his attempt to accuse Christians (of all people) of wanting extermination of another religion.
Now, crawl on back to that mutual adoration society that is the Willis site and rejoin the circle jerk, you imbecilic little troll!
solo;
is there a problem?
Docjim,
You made the point more eloquently than I did to Kashif. My point was that regardless of what I actually believe as a Christian, he has a choice to make – no one forces him to accept Christ, not me, not you, no one. He may not like me telling him what I believe regarding his eternal life, but it’s my opinion.
And Kashif STILL did not answer the underlying question, why are the nation states of Islam so afraid of the free speech of Christians within their own borders? Of course, the corollary being that anyone in America has the ability to speak their mind regarding religion without being thrown in jail. Not so in the Muslim world….
Semanticleo,
Extermination huh? To me, that would seem rather hypocritical of us, wouldn’t you say? Considering it is mostly us that are celebrating the Freedom of Iraq and asking for the freedom of the oppressed and terrorised in the ME. Yep, a lot of those that have been made free in Iraq are Muslim. We are not asking for, nor wishing extermination Semanticleo. We are asking for solutions and demanding the “moderate Muslims” assistance in that solution. The old saying goes, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Which side are you on?
Solo,
If someone questions quotas, they’re a racist. Question the radical feminist movement, they’re a sexist. Question the viability and implications of homosexual marriage on our culture and, they’re a homophobe.
If you happen to disagree with foreign policy based on neoconservatism, you’re a jew hater. If you think invading Iraq was a bad idea, you love Saddam. If you are pro-choice, you’re a baby killer. Want restrictions on pollution? You’re anti-business. Don’t want the ten commandments shoved down your throat? You hate religion.
Oh wait, nevermind, you covered all that in your screed. Plus you called all liberals Nazis too. Kudos, you tool.
This is what I’d like to see: Islamo-sheep believe that anyone who denigrates or defiles Islam must die. This flock of moronic cartoon rioters are truly defiling and debasing Islam like a pack of pigs running through a mosque. Therefore, they must die, and other eager tools of the mullahs should kill them. And so on. All we have to do is step back and watch.
Mantis, Solo’s post must have hit a raw nerve? I am sure his post was not directed at you, but at the person who sparked it. Both of you have made valid points. I honestly do not think Islam is compatible with our 21st century society. I admit my biases, I am a Jew who cannot travel to approximately 25% of the globe without fear of having my head chopped off by Muslims who feel the need to eradicate me off the face of the Earth.
Now there are quite a few bloggers who are getting death threats via email and phone calls because of their speaking out against Muslims. Lair and Aaron CC are just two of the many examples.
Jay Tea:
You know what dude? This whole fucking post is sad, period, end of story. I understand the fact that you might disagree with what that guy Kashif was saying, and arguing against that is fine.
But why write an entire post challenging him like this? Why not bring up some or ANY of his constructive points?
If you read through what the guy wrote, you might have seen that he was by no means supporting or defending radical Islam. He was advocating the idea that we all need to fucking listen to one another, and work together in this whole thing. That was one of his main points.
Ya, we can get all bogged down in arguing about history, but maybe at times we should at least try to see the big picture.
You’re always asking where the moderates are, and why nobody hears from them. This guy Kashif comes on here and posts to a conservative blog that has a, to say the least, pretty opinionated view of the entirety of Muslims.
He was on here to communicate and to discuss.
You reply, first of all, by attacking a minor point regarding Yugoslavia, which if you’re not an idiot you might realize that he probably pulled that one out of the air randomly. His point was basically that he has more in common with YOU than with someone from Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Go read that again. And you had to take Yugoslavia and run, while missing the overall point. Way to go.
His final point was not narcissistic, as you suggest, but was intended to mean that people (like Muslims) should look at what they are doing in life before they go around blaming everyone else. It’s something we all need to do.
The guy had plenty of criticism for Islam, and for many Middle Eastern countries. But of course, you ignored that.
In effect, the guy was driven away> Bravo. One more instance where someone who could have been a potential ally for you was lost because of your shortsightedness.
Honestly I really used to have quite a bit of respect for you and your writing, since I thought that you presented your views in a reasoned and intelligent manner. With this whole Muslim thing you have really lowered the bar a number of notches, and ultimately, its pretty sad.
Go ahead and flame away, or call me names…do what makes you feel good. Do what you have to do in order to satisfy your audience. In all honesty, I hope that you might consider some of this and MAYBE rethink some of your methods. I hope so.
J.,
Yep, I meant Hearst…felt I had it wrong but figured ya’ll would get the point.
BTW, Mac, I am about as conservative Republican as you can get and at times I have thought nuking the ME would be a good idea, but you drive a religion underground and they come back stronger and meaner. Educate the people, give them something to strive for and the ability to improve their lot in life and they become a whole let less likely to blow themselves up for 72 virgins and $1000 for their families. If your “good” enough you might get the 72 virgins while still alive and able to enjoy it. (That’s a joke, so relax.)
First of all, there will be generalizations in this post. I, for one, don’t have the time nor the inclination to apologize to anyone I might unintentionally offend or spend hours tweaking the wording to be PC.
I would guess that many of the rioting Muslims are disinfranchised. They are poor, uneducated and have no where to go in their life. I, as an American, could become President if I truly desired it (and could get enough idiots to vote for me). If you are not of Royal blood- you are screwed. You can probably improve your overall lot in life, but become rich and famous/royalty? Not gonna happen to the average Muslim.
These people have TVs. They somewhat understand how “rich” the rest of the world is and that the rest of the world, in general, has a better chance at personal advancement.
Was rioting in the streets (think public stoning and witch buring) so uncommon before mass education? Before I could look at the Bible and truly understand the words….and it helped when it was translated for the masses, ie into modern writing.
So what if the Koran is available. Can you interpret it? Can you interpret the Bible? Does someone (preacher, friend, enemy) interpret the Bible differently from you?
Maybe they can read, but there are different levels of illiteracy. And allowing someone else to tell you what is wrong/against your religion is one of them.
How hard would it be for you to go to a high school in a ghetto and start a riot? A few quotes about the “man”, a few rumors, and one or two paid agitators that push the group over the line and what do you have? A riot of illiterates? By my definition, YES. The rioters have no idea and cannot understand (because they don’t have the information) what has happened or why it happened.
And for those who think I am picking on blacks…..Last years Superbowl celebration? The “celebration” of the losing team? Burning cars, robberies, beating, assaulting the police, etc… Someone fired them up and then egged them on and oops…it got out of hand. And these are educated Americans (drunk and drugged) but educated none the less.
I honestly have no idea if Islam will ever mature, but it will not mature under its current leadership. Something that could encourage the maturation process would be the rise of “moderate muslims”, if there truly are any. What little moderation I have seen has been mostly lip service.
Or we can all just sit here and bask in the Glory And Righteousness That Is Ryan, and appreciate how he protects the downtrodden commenter whom Jay Tea has inappropiately picked upon, bully that he is.
Pass the Kleenex.
A capitalist society is one of the best changes that could be made in the ME. How many of those countries are nothing more than massive welfare states? Gas, food, medicine, etc free or extremely cheap. How many countries can you live on what $2000 or $3000 per year? Isn’t the average income around $9000 per YEAR? If everything, okay enough to get by on, is given to you why bust your ass?
Any similarities to our current welfare system? Have another kid get more money, get a job and lose all assistance. Work 40+ hrs a week or get close to the same money watching TV all day. HMMMM, tough choice for some.
Mantis/Semanticleo..
First, I was admittedly a bit too vituperative in my response. Frankly, I sometimes becomes weary of the false narrative coming from the left- particularly the implication of an association between “the right” and Nazism. More to the point, I did not call “liberals” Nazis. I’m a liberal. The founding fathers of this nation were liberals. Most of those who read and participate on this board are liberals. Of course, all of those I just described would be people who you would no doubt regard as “right-wing nut jobs” (yet another example of the false narrative).
My main purpose was to point out the irony of some lefty popping onto this board with the purpose of implying that “we” were advocating extermination of another people.
The truth is; if Semanticleo is concerned about extermination, then history clearly indicates that he’s trolling on the wrong side of the Blogisphere.
Have a nice day.
cstmbuild,
I don’t advocate blowing anyone up or driving any religion underground. In the same token, I don’t want my religion driven underground. My point is that the Bedouin culture and Islam are incompatible with civilized nations based on secular laws. As such, all such nations should stop all immigration of people who hold such incompatible ideas.
The U.S. used to turn away European immigrants at Ellis Island after they had crossed the Atlantic for nothing more than being unskilled with no family already on U.S. soil. There’s simply no reason why civilized nations based on secular laws need to tolerate those who are intolerant of those laws.
Muslims hold their lands sacred and suppress all other religions within them. Why then should they feel they have the right to religious freedom in other nations when they refuse the same in theirs?
Newspapers in Egypt and Jordan often run cartoons denigrating to Jews and Christians, but when Newspapers in other nations run cartoons denigrating to Islam, they riot in the streets, boycott products from those nations, and issue threats of all kinds. What a bunch of cry-baby hypocrites. Where’s their faith that God is well able to deal justly and mercifully with people who disrespect Him. Their lack of faith says a lot about their relationship with God and is far more denigrating to Islam than a bunch of cartoons.
solo;
You and Jay were honest and clear about your position. I find in these discussions that
sometimes I over-administer the colonic in the
hope of smoking out real feelings that are
suggested but not expressed. It is a confront-
ational style and provokes emotions that
are revealing. I am not apologizing for it in
general, but in the specifics of this discussion,
I am.
Mac:
My point is that the Bedouin culture and Islam are incompatible with civilized nations based on secular laws.
Where does Turkey fit into that scheme? That’s a democratic nation which is 99 percent Muslim. How about the 14 percent of Israel that is Muslim? What about the 3 million Muslims in the US?
I agree that the rioting over cartoons is bullshit, and a complete over reaction. But I also think that people on this side of the fence are over reacting as well.
If all Muslims are evil, or incompatible with “civilization,” then why are we trying to befriend as many Iraqis as possible? Why does Bush call Islam a “noble faith”? Is he just full of shit?
And you conveniently forget that during the dark ages of Europe, the ones who were kicking ass were the Muslim civilizations in the Middle East. Those civilizations controlled the trade routes from north Africa to China, and were the part of the reason why Europeans wanted to find another route to the Indies. Now, I’m not going to come on here and pretend that the 14th century Muslims were a bunch of peace loving hippies, because they werent. But then, neither were the 15th century Europeans who started heading into Africa and the Americas. All of them were intent on conquering.
Islam isnt the cause of the problems in the Middle East. Dictators and autocracies, in my opinion, are by far the greater contributors to the problems that we see in the middle east. Oppression breeds radicalism. If more people there had a say in what their goverments do, I think we would see a dramatic difference.
Or we can all just sit here and bask in the Glory And Righteousness That Is Ryan
It is useless to try to reason someone out of something that he has not been reasoned into.
For what it’s worth, I’m not some lib poster putting up stuff to turn and accuse of intolerance as someone opined above. I stand by it: seems to me there’s only one country in the world which has a sizeable Muslim population that isn’t in near-constant turmoil, crazy as shit, or severely oppressive and that’s the United States. And that says far more good about the U.S. than it does Islam. And that’s the hope for Iraq.
I mean, honestly, what is there in the world that makes one stop and think, “thank goodness for the Muslims”?
It’s not outrageous to be entirely fed up with the lot of them.
ryan,
Turkey has been having sever cartoon riots the past few days, so I must be missing your point or you’re missing mine. Nations like the U.S. can tolerate a small minority of Muslims, but it would be a terrible mistake to allow mass immigration of Muslims like Denmark has done only to realize too late what a stupid mistake that was.
I’m not concerned with assigning blame for atrocities done centuries ago, my concern is with current immigration policy. Lets avoid a showdown with Islam on U.S. soil.
From prior comments you have made, I assume you don’t give any weight to the spiritual forces at work within Islam. So it’s not surprising you feel the schism can be bridged with the usual tools of compromise and education. I wish you were right on this one, but it’s that naivete that has gotten Denmark into a fix they have no good means for getting out of.
Ryan,
Is Turkey a Bedioun nation?
Also, poor Kashif. When confronted with surahs (as he demanded) he ran off.
mac:
Turkey has been having sever cartoon riots the past few days, so I must be missing your point or you’re missing mine.
I know, and I think it’s as asinine as all the other rioting. But you wrote that Islam is incompatible with “civilization” based upon secular laws. Last time I checked, Turkey was doing a pretty decent job. You gotta admit they’re quite a bit better than Iran. So my point is that Turkey might be indicative of future posibilities. By no means do I pretend that Turkey is some kind of peaceful Eden, by it seems that democracy does make quite a difference.
From prior comments you have made, I assume you don’t give any weight to the spiritual forces at work within Islam.
I do give weight to the psychopaths who seem to exert way too much influence and power…the radical clerics. I do give weight to the oppressive governments that rule by Islamic law, and are basically insane. I give that weight, and think that yes, they represent huge problems.
I do not assume, however, that the Muslim masses are comprised of people who are of the same mindset as the above mentioned. I hope not. Like the Soviet Union, which was filled with a bunch of brutally oppressed people, I refuse to assume that the populations of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all evil. I think that they are living is shitholes, under atrocious leaders, and that if things improved for them, we would, possibly, see some then in a different way.
Remember, 14th century Europe wasnt exactly the most peaceful of all places, and those were Christians over there murdering one another in many cases. It was pretty bad…which I find amazing, considering the things that Jesus said that all those people were supposed to adhere to. I’m not bashing Christianity by any means, I’m just suggesting that religious ideology may not always account for everything, including violence and radicalism. The Feudal system in Europe, among other things, fueled quite a bit of violence. Christianity was invoked by all sides, but I would NEVER say that it was the CAUSE. I would say that the cause was the wealthy lords screwing the peasant classes, and the fact that the peasants had few, if any, rights or protection. Bad times.
In a sense, the Middle East is ruled by feudalistic lords, or dictators, that are screwing large amounts of people, fueling radicalism, violence, and conflict. Honestly, I know that Islam has some pretty wacky 7th century language and beliefs, but I really think that putting all the blame there is severely misguided.
Thats my point Mac.
So it’s not surprising you feel the schism can be bridged with the usual tools of compromise and education.
Thats what GW seems to be implying as well. Apparently you disagree. I would say that the right to self determination and rule would go a long way for many of those people, and the to not be ruled by the likes of Musharref and the Saudi Royal Family.
Dont misread me as some polyanna fool who thinks that the radical leaders in places like Iran just need a hug. I think that those insane clerics are massive problems, as well as those brutal dictators. One of my major points is that I refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, and assume that the majority of Muslims are these evil beings. I doubt it. I have a feeling that if the horrid leaders were gone, things would be very different.
Remember, there was a big difference in how we viewed the German people when they were ruled by a Fascist psychopath. Things are looking quite a bit different these days, hmmm? A little freedom goes a long way me thinks.
Call me an optimist…
ryan,
You have some very good points and I really hope your analysis is correct. Where we disagree is that I believe there’s a power behind Islam that secularly society doesn’t understand and can’t cope with.
To have any hope of peace we need to keep Islam at arms length. Here’s a website with lots of information about the problems Denmark is having. The newer information is at the bottom of the page:
Something Rotten in Denmark
More information on PowerLine on what’s being called Islamofascism.
SCSIwuzzy:
Is Turkey a Bedioun nation?
Is there such a thing as “Bedouin nation”? I know that there are a few states in which Bedouin people live, but I am not sure that there is such a thing as a Bedouin nation, per se.
As far as I know, Turkey is a remnant of the former Ottoman Empire, which was defeated in WWI. By around 1950 it became a democracy, although a somewhat tenuous one. Admittedly, Turkey aint no USA as far as secular rule goes, but they have had democratic rule going since 1950, with some problematic times here and there. But, it’s sure a great deal better than Iran, for example.
Thats the point about Turkey. They sure arent perfect, but we also dont hear the same things coming from them that we do from Iran, Syria, Jordan and those types.
Democratic rule: bad for autocrats.
Also, poor Kashif. When confronted with surahs (as he demanded) he ran off.
Ya, I know…he got challenged by muslihoon on specific points, and really didnt come back. Those were good points that he was faced with, and its too bad that he didnt either dicuss his side or admit his errors.
The main thing about him, to me, is that he was arguing for the idea that people need to listen to one another to get through this. He also wasnt defending radical Islam, and seemed to have a pretty good grasp upon the problems that the Middle East faced. He was also saying that he wouldnt hesitate to fight for the US, which I think many people missed or ignored. The guy certainly wasnt AGAINST Americans, since he IS an American.
But people lit into him because they disagreed with certain points of his. Which is fine, but I also think that more people should have tried to understand his other points, which were, I think, pretty right on the mark.
See, this whole debate/discussion thing isnt always about winning, and it isnt always about humiliating anyone who you disagree with. It isnt for me. I think that he had a pretty respectable take on this whole thing, and it would have been nice to have the guy stick around here. But since he ruffled some feathers, well, people jumped all over him.
I dont feel bad for Kashif; I feel bad for people who cant hear another side of an argument without freaking out.
Ryan-
Just a note, are you referring to the other blog “f-them”. If you are I’m the other person arguing Kashif’s point. Just so you all know, Kashif did not “run off”, he simply chose to discontinue his paricipation in a conversation which NEVER listened to him. I don’t care what sura anyone tried to throw at him, he was speaking from the point of a moderate moslem which there are plenty of. Let me pose an analogy, If you came here to America and your first encounter was with a KluKlux clan member who claimed to be burning a black church according to the laws of Christianity, would you say to the rational and moderate Presbyterian “your beliefs are a bunch of crap and I’m not going to give you the time of day”. No, I don’t think you would. Ryan is trying to tell you that he left because he was getting no where with any of you. Any one could take the Bible and claim Christians are a buch of self righteous zealots if they choose the right passages. No, Kashif was pointing out the good that he has learned from his religion and there are plenty of them out there. He did not “run off” because you won the arguement. Let’s hope not at least because his message was one of peace and if you won the arguement, what then was the outcome? (Ryan, I cannot believe that a whole blog is being dedicated to destroying such a kind person)
robin:
I think that you have misread me. read my long post up above; i was one of the people that was arguing with Kashif. and i was telling all those people to try to hear his point of view, which i think was balanced and respectful.
but tons of people just freaked out on him, which i think is pretty sad.
so. just wanted to say that. i can see how you might have misunderstood that last one i wrote though.
Ryan, maybe my language was misleading. No I absolutely know your were telling all these people that Kashif had some good points. Where I mixed up was sending a message to others when I adressed the message to you. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I witnessed your discussion with him and it was respectful on both sides. Thanks for being willing to listen to a voice of moderation. And on another note it really IS sad that no one is listening and that’s what I was trying to say in my last message. This site really scares me except for your voice of reason so I won’t be coming back. Good Luck!
Folks I haven’t ran off in the least bit. There is nothing for me to run off about. I just decided that the discussion was taking a turn for the worse, where I began to feel that in order to reinforce their faith people felt they needed to put down mine. There was no point to such a conversation and I thought it best to depart before I said something I regretted.
Also with respect to the Quranic surah’s I thought I addressed that in detail as to why I would not go down that route. I think in the multitude of the long responses in the previous BLOG people missed that one.
Look folks, weakness of faith becomes obvious when one needs to put other’s down. Your harsh and cruel words regarding Islam and Muslims don’t reflect on me or muslims for that matter but yourself and God will judge you for it, not me nor the bloggers here.
I learnt a life lesson many many years ago from a “Christian” friend of mine. Though Christianity or religion had nothing to do with that episode in my life (work related) it reinforced a sense in me that I needed to look within for answers not outside. That the challange to our problems start within us. When I prescribe blame I must look in a mirror and when I assess credit I must look out of a window to others. What good will this do in life, I don’t know, just have this nagging belief that this is the way to lead my life, and that in the end things might just turn out right.
Look I am muslim there is no shame in my heart for that. I do squirm when I see the craziness in this world and especially in the Islamic world, and I think I know the reasons (I might be dead wrong). But that is a geo-political and social discussion to have, not a religious one in my estimation.
As the second largest religious minority I also happen to be an American. I love my country and the ideals it represents (though I hate prefacing my arguments with the above statement everytime I state my religion). I have multiple generations of family members here living and working productively trying to pay that next mortgage just like any one of you. My patriotism however is entirely pegged on those ideals (foundational premise), nothing else. No personalities, no individuals, no political party (though I was a Republican before I became an independent). The constitution and what it represents is my social contract that I have with each one of you. I will live by that contract, and I hope you all do too.
Look if we are in this game to put the other down just so we can prove something about ourselves then I become a skeptic for our collective future. I have travelled the world, and though at home (here) I argue and question some of the issues and directions we find ourselves in, I find myself often feeling a weird sense of protectiveness about the US when I travel. Finding myself often in public forums and dinners in these foreign countries defending each and every one of you. Perhaps not each of you, but our citizenry in general, when people opine about the obtuseness of Americans. And this is not Muslims, this includes Latin Americans, Orientals, and believe it or not Brits (some of the fiercest critics) as well. Then I often look over my shoulder to make sure I wasn’t too loud endangering my safety.
I am going to say something very simple and I hope you understand.
Islam of today has morphed into Political/Reactive Islam, purely on the basis that the human mass of as some say 1.4-1.5 Billion people, in this world have absolutely no other vehicle to express their sentiments. I have seen this palpable progression bordering on an explosive pent up frustration, happen in front of my eyes in the course of, I would say the last 25 years. Why and where does the blame lie?
Well there is enough blame for us all to share, though given my biases I would prescribe most of the contemporary blame on the two super powers and their tier one allies during the cold war.
You see I absolutely adore the Western culture in its fierce desire to learn, to acquire knowledge, to excel in every aspect of human development. I marvel at the works of Wagner, Mozrat, Paganinni as much as I adore walking through the MET or Louvre, and seeing the Western societies mass of culturalism (I am myself a product of western culture). However having seen the world and touching the poverty with my own eyes and ears I have had to think a lot about why a part of the world that had so much yesterday has absolutely nothing today. I could walk away with the simpleton view of Islam being the cause, but it would not explain the Christian sub-saharah, the Christian Latin America, the Christian Eastern Europe, the Orient before the post-colonial boom, along with the Muslim cresent.
So let me attempt to give you my sense of the world view (simplified – to avoid writing a thesis) that I prescribe to:
All people in this world are the same. We seek to provide for our families. We all seek the same resources, under the economic fact, that resources are limited (ECON 101).
A few hundred years ago a few aspiring powers Spain, Germany, France and Britian decided to venture outside of their neighbourhood and carve out the world as their own. Fundamentally there was no moral constituency behind this effort. It was all about money as most geo-political ventures are. However to make this a reality the populace of these countries (note: contemporary linkage exists), along with diverging interests had to line up in unison. Hence for the poor slobs in Europe it was sold as a righteous effort to spread universal human rights. For the Church and religious group it was an effort to spread the word of our “lord”, for capitalists it was an enterprise both in terms of the financial component to build these powers (military ships/bases) but also be able to open up export bases in these massive population centers.
Bottomline different interests aligned to enable the colonial campaigns. No lands were spared in this effort, and this effort continued for many years, decades and centuries.
If any of you ever studied colonial policies you would understand what happened in these local geographies. Rule #1: Divide and Rule. So divisions that were minute were made more stark. Sects, ethinicities, religions, etc., all implements or tools to divide were applied artfully. Results were that millions fell to the enslavement of colonial times at the hands of a few.
Now these very colonial countries and their small populations (in comparison) to the colonies had a parasitic relationship. Local industries were wiped out, and instead goods were imported into colonial lands. Local colonial raw materials were purchased in non-open markets sent back to the colonial “master” country only to be re-processed and brought back to the colonized masses for consumption. Local taxes on production of locally consumed goods. Taxes being returned to the coffers of the Imperial powers. This also BTW fueled the industrial revolution.
Imperial powers locked in markets for their products through their colonial conquests. All the while local divisions were made more pronounced, and entities, like tribal elders, and mullahs, and divisive characters were enhanced in their stature as the primary ruling class seized to exist (kings (who fought) – were assasinated, murdered, as were their children (case: Bahadur-Shah-Zafar (last Mughal) emperor, lost both his sons, their heads were presented to him by the British thereby ending his lineage and that of the Indian Mughal Empire.) Cruel at the least won’t you say for a somewhat contemporary quasi-democratic country? You all need to know what has happened and is happening in the world today under our name.
Capitalism often has a sanitizing effect on most cultures, however during the imperial times this was avoided with great precision. It was easier to manage millions of people through a religious cleric, or a fuedal lord, than through representatives of the locals. Hence wherein European societies’ feudals either morphed into Industrialist or were passed into history (though incubated natural progressive evolution), colonial policies made certain to maintain the status quo in order to keep societies compliant and not convulse at being essentially enslaved.
Societies in these colonized nations stopped evolving (inherent evolution – which is different from externally forced shifting), stopped addressing concerns of locals, and essentially seized to function properly for decades if not centuries. Great civilizations like the Incas, the Moghuls, the Ottomons, the Chinese simply seized to exist (though they were more or less waning as well). All the while divisions both in terms of wealth and societal advances in thought (soical and political) between the colonies and the colonized became stark. Therein began this wide chasm that today seems unbelievable, this cultural seperation. Think about it guys as in the West the societies were slowly thinking in terms of universal rights and ideals that exemplified those concepts, the masses in the colonized world were still enslaved (by the same west), and bereft of these concepts. Why would you teach your slave that he has any in-alienable rights to self-rule?
So WWI came along and the Ottomons were totally done in, specific to the Islamic world the khalafat seized to exist. In its stead an alien concept of nationhood came into being. This is a very important point. For those of us who take for granted this concept of nationhood need to understand that in the pre-colonial era it simply did not exist in the Islamic world. Therefore post WWI and WWII swaths of land were arbitrailly divided into countries. Nationalism was force fed and it was hoped that the imperial powers could essentially maintain the same level of control through compliant small nations, running often under colonial code of law, managed and operated by colonial institutions now fully manned and overseen by locals.
So essentially the same class that complied (where the conversion from overt colonization to what I call implicit colonization) with the colonist now used the same implements left over by the Imperial powers to rule over their masses. Countries that should have reverted to the rule of law and democracies became police states and military dictatorships in this weird symbiotic relationship with the western powers.
Now I am not of the ilk to think this happened because some sinister Christians wanted it that way. I think the reasons were pegged in RealPolitik, and often other interests are brought into alignment. The day the second world war ended the Cold War began, and everyone scrambled the school yard picking out their team members. Thus there was no impetus to revert and convert these societies into true democracies. In its stead we in the West and for that matter Russia during the cold war, bought favors by permitting brutal dictatorships and kingdoms to rule, so as long as they paid up to their masters the two super powers and their Tier one allies.
Thus began a sad chapter of nearly half a century, where we in the West, supplanted corrupt and brutal rulers over their populations so as to control those countries in their entirety. Resources like oil came into play as western economies became more intertwined with this resource. Hence our policies became pigeonholed. As an overt subscriber to human rights, we went around the world subverting it, just so that you and I here on home side could live our lives the way we do.
Hence that journey returns back to us. To ourselves, where we begin to look at ourselves and question and wonder what we do and what is done in our name, is it right by justice, is it right by morality, and is it right as co-inhabitants of this world.
I have only covered a small portion and over-simplified many concepts here. There are other causal imperitives ((1)Islamic doctrine and its opposition to any secural system given purely on the fact that it provides through its form not just faith but a societal code of conduct and law (note for Islamic societies not for societies where Muslims happen to live (they are obliged as Muslims to follow all laws of the land they live in), (2)The ending of contextual and contemporary based interpretation of the Quran (essentially seizing further legal and moral qualifications) by Islamic scholars around 1500AD (might be wrong with the date) – Locking the code) that result in the situations we have today. The significane of the point is two folds, one don’t fall in the trap that the colonial Joe fell in centuries ago (as one of those tangential interests that are being brought under alignment in order to further another great global experiment), and two macro-politics cannot be perceived as uni-dimensional. There are many many components and linkages and interests to a story. Don’t prescibe to simple answers to incredibly complex problems. We the citizens of the West are the educated ones and it is our obligation and responsibility to not accept simple “black vs white”, “good vs evil”, explanations.
“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.”-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)
and finally why I love to be an American:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
Two additional points of incredible import that I haven’t mentioned, but have incredible impact on contemporary politics.
One, the natural oppositive reaction of Muslims in muslim countries to everything western (good or bad), as an unprocessed reactive effect due to their preceived and real oppression, that they rightfully or wrongly assess as being driven by Western greed (not religion). This unfortunately freezes them out of the positive elements of Western culture that they need in order to evolve from their dysfunctional state.
Finally the artfully machination of local Muslim dictators, kings, and military autocrats that balances their complete repressive control over their populations with the controlled and stage-managed release of latent social and political energy through religious expression as opposed to political and societal expression that can potentially encompass them as well, thereby holding their local policies accountable to their plundering ways.
Herein lies the conundrum. We push too hard to open up Islamic societies and the first natural reaction will be opposed to Western interests. Perhaps even rightfully based upon our past policies, people simply put are pissed. However I am convinced that over time these early democracies will come together to align with western democracies.
We in the US have a very small duration of window where we can take this risk, before the powers of China and India begin to assert their domain of control, and we fall back into the zero-sum game mentality. And if we don’t we will have a world violently opposed to us, under the dominative contorl of the ill-perceived benign powers of China and India.
This is all about the next century. Will we keep our stars bright and burning for the next century.
There is a school of thought that is arguing an overt control over people and resources harking us back to the colonial past. As I wrote in a previous entry, that is a doomed policy. Today’s world is entirely different than that where Imperial Britian operated.
Kashif 🙂
Please respond because the other site is gone. My alltime favorite movie is the Wizard of Oz. I relate to the Lion most of all. After all, we all have an antomical brain, our God created us in his image with a heart to use for good, but courage is elusive and must come from deep inside one’s soul (by the way, NICE job posting over here!)
Ma’salama my dear friend.
Kashif:)
first site gone, this one hanging on, another on wizbang R-E-S-P-E-C-T with a different agenda. Check it out ’cause I think you could make a good arguement. There are literally dozens of blogs out there discussing this matter, even blogs other than wizbang discussing us. My proverbial needle in a haystack, I hope you pop up!
Kashif,
I read your post carefully and essentially agree with how the middle east became the mess it is today. Where I depart with you is why it’s the mess it is today.
Humankind is on a path of increasing knowledge and the technology that comes with it. Unfortunately, human wisdom generally lags well behind technology. The industrial revolution made colonization and the world wars possible, and I believe inevitable. Muslim groups like the moors practices conquest and subjugation of indigenous peoples in lands they conquered. Had the industrial revolution occurred in the middle east, then the middle east would have been the source of colonization and the focal point of the world wars. The cold war was the result of the invention of the atomic bomb. It was inevitable that at some point on the path of increasing knowledge the atomic bomb would have been discovered and built, and given the lagging wisdom, the cold war or worse would have followed.
It’s this path of increasing knowledge and technology Humankind is on that is the driving factor. It’s not all bad, but it’s an irresistible force. The problem for the Muslim world is that they have combined their religion with their form of government, or at least the laws under which Muslim societies live. Parts of Islamic law are at odds with Humankind’s path of progress, such as religious intolerance, subjugation of women, and inequality of individuals in the site of the law. When and if the center of power shifts to Indian and China, Muslim societies will find even less tolerance of their backward ways. Please don’t be offended by my use of the term backward ways, as you correctly stated the following:
Oil money is the life-blood of middle-east economies, but the largest known petroleum reserve in the world is in the oil sands and shales of North America, with production now coming up to speed in Canada. Breakthroughs in genetic engineering will soon make production of biodiesel and ethanol possible from abundant biomass sources such as grass and wood, rather than from food crops like soybeans and corn. There’s growing support for nuclear power with China building the first meltdown-proof pebble bed reactor. Fusion could come on-line by mid-century. The higher the price of oil and the less stable the middle-east the quicker other energy sources will be developed. Once middle-east oil is obsolete, and that’s inevitable, Muslim societies that fail to modernize will be relegated to obscurity and beneath the concern of the rest of the world, just like many nations in Africa today. Live in peace with each other or slaughter each other, no one will care enough to intervene.
What’s happening in Iraq right now holds the fate of large parts of the Muslim world. If Muslim’s can form a government with modern laws of religious freedom and equality of all individuals under the law, with the structure of a modern economy then the future is bright. If Muslim’s accept the notion that democracy and equality are at odds with Islam, then it will be a hard road ahead for them.
Mac Lorry,
I just posted a long article from today’s Dallas Morning news on a parallel BLOG site on wizbang called R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Please take the time to read it.
Let me just make a note to you that there are literally thousands of Saudis who have taken advantage of U.S. and European educations and are taking both their PHD’s and moderate views with them back to the Middle East. In fact, the entire Middle East has an echelon of highly educated individuals (both male AND female) who in no way ascribe to Radical Islam’s middle ages view of their world. How do I know these people exist, because I actually know them through having been married to one of them. My ex-sister in law’s 18 year old-daughter (Saudi) is currently attending Harvard. Every single member of my ex-inlaws family has received their degrees, from their BAs to in many cases their PHD’s But guess what, quietly, underneath all the pointing of fingers at the Moslems, they themselves have their OWN educated class who is attempting to pull their
OWN people out of the mess their OWN world is in. There is plenty of information out there and there is much going on. Kashif was trying to explain how we got to where we are and you said, “Hey if it was the Moslem world who claimed the Industrial Revolution, it would have been them doing the colonizing” Well guess what, it WASN”T them and it does not make for a rational arguement to use what ifs when speaking in historical dialog because it cannot be verifued what you purport as the ensuing outcome.
Just a little banter, no offenses meant.
Mac Lorry,
Using your rationale of “what if’s”, what would it be like if the shoe was on the other foot as you proposed. Would we not be then the victims of colonization and have our own disdain? Just for the sake of the arguement, there are ALWAYS two sides to every disagreement and usually a winner and a looser. But in all actuality, for the sake of world peace, as individuals, we can reach out to others and start anew with empathy in our hearts and a hope of peace and mutural respect in the future.
Again, no offense made, just an attempt to say, “What now?”
Robin,
You may be amazed to learn that I agree. I wasn’t trying to deflect or assign blame as doing so never solved any cultural conflict. My point, and I hope you didn’t miss it, is that the driving force behind much of history is the accusation of knowledge and the technology that flows from it. The colonial days are over, but the driving force behind that history is still in operation.
According to Kashif, Islam is locked into a set of principles from around 1500AD that define, not just the religion, but the laws that govern Muslim societies. As the rest of the world continues to acquire knowledge and technology the schism between fundamental Islam and the modern world will increase. The wonderfully educate Muslims you talk about will actually add to that schism, not reduce it. Will the modern “world” culture win against fundamental Islam in Muslim societies even if driven from within? Probably not without the shedding of blood.
Mac Lorry,
Thanks for your response. I really don’t think that is at all what Kashif was saying. Being an American-born Moslem of several generations of American citizenship, he is speaking as a moderate Moslem. Believe me, there are MANY of them.
The problem as I see it (since I have a well-grounded background in this arena). Started as Kashif alluded to about 25 years ago. That was the time I lived in Saudi Arabia (1975-1980). In 1978 the Iranian Revolution took place and the secular Shah was thrown out and replaced with the fundamentalist Ayotola. Remember that old rule:
For every action there is a reaction. The Shah had ruled his country for many years as a Western puppet and was held in the lowest reguard by his people. Those who might have wanted to replace him with a more suitable leader were unable to do so because of US support. Now remember, every action has a reaction. Instead of moderation, the pendulum swung directly to the opposite extreme and Iran welcomed home a leader (the Ayotolla) who had been in exile in France for years.
I bring this up because it was the Iranian revolution which I believe was the catalyst for Moslem extremism in the Middle East. But you must factor in the Palestinian debate as well, because the refugee problem had been fomenting for years. How best to confront an ememy? resort to your own deepest of values (witness our own Twin Towers response). During the years I lived in Saudi Arabia, the Mutawa (religious police) were basically a laughing stock to the educated class. My own mother-in-law who is a devout Moslem did not wear an habaya except while going out in public. After the Iranian revolution, the powers of the religious were strenghthened in Saudi Arabia by their neighbor Iran’s victory, and they too grew in power. But this was juxtaposed against a ruling family (the Al-Sauds) who were able to use their oil wealth outside their country to make fools of themselves as bacchanistic oil-sheiks. I can’t begin to tell you how many people thought I was married to that kind of person because this was the face of Saudis that most westerners knew.
If you read the article I posted on the R-E-S-P-E-C-T site you might see that Saudi Arabia is undergoing a change, albeit a deliberate and slow one. It is that very “blood” that you refer to that the new king is trying to avoid. I might go so far as to propose that Islam has been experiencing its own dark ages and will have to collectively work out their OWN renaissance. I am personally very familiar with the educated class of this country because that was my experience. Remember though that it is a Bedouin culture and that they look to their King for guidance. I find this development should be most welcomed by both the West and the moderate class of this Kingdom.
Mac Lorry,
One more thing, the colonial days are NOT over. The west is attempting to control Middle East politics in the quest for oil. Remember, the colonists exported resources from the colonies back home. Now I agree that the Mid-East is not a “colony” of the West, but we are using colonial tactics in order to control an area that just so happens to have the very most important resource we need. Just a note, my grandmother (god bless her soul) was hooked on the prophesies of Nostradamus that portended the last war of the world would be fought over “black gold”. I’m not personally a subscriber but eerily enough, it is frightingly coming to pass
Mac Lorry,
(just reread your response to Kashif and want to add something else)
You were not privey to a site that has since disappeared called “F–them if they can’t take a joke”. In this sight was a whole lot of mud-slinging against Moslems but fortunatley it ended on a more pleasant note.
Above you state something to the effect that Islam is incompatible with cultural advancement and that the problem is that they have mixed up religion and politics (hope you agree with my paraphrase) I could NOT agree with you more that politics and religion should be kept separate, but this is not the case in Islam because the Koran has its legal counterpart in the Sharia which gives a law for just about anything you might encounter. It is however best noted that even with this combination, Islam was able to conquuer Spain and bring it OUT of the Christian dark ages into an age of splendour best exemplified in the great universities of that time which were founded by Moslems. Kashif gave a most eloquent defense of Islam’s esteem for education. It is that very esteem which drives those of the educated class in the Moslem countries around the world to further techology and international business ventures. You see, it really IS complicated. But just like within all major faiths, there are different factions who view their faiths in different ways. Take for instance the Catholics who by papal decree support evolutions’ compatibility with church doctrine and those other Christians who think the world was created only 6000 years ago and Adam and Eve lived alongside dinosaurs.
The point I am trying to make in the end, is that is this particular fundamentalist form of Islam that is at odds with modernity, not those of a more moderate persuasion.
Robin,
Only Kashif can know for sure, but his words reinforced what I already knew, or thought I knew. The same is likely true for you as our individual experiences color how we interpret the statements of others.
If Islamic fundamentalism is something people take-up and put-down in response to changing political conditions, then you are probably correct. However, if there’s a significant minority who hold strongly to the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism, then your analysis is likely wrong. It only takes a few people willing to die for what they believe to cower a much larger group of moderates. This is why suicide bombings are as effective as they are. You are familiar with moderate Muslims, but how familiar are you with the radicals? You wouldn’t be the first person of good will to be blindsided by extremism.
I did read your post on the R-E-S-P-E-C-T topic, and while it’s encouraging, the new king is an old man and there’s no way of knowing what changes will take hold strong enough to survive him and which will be buried with him. The point is that it takes a strong majority to make changes opposed by the religious segment of the population.
I think you’re missing my point. The driving force behind the colonial days, over or not, is very much at work in the world today. Any culture that ties itself to laws from the middle-ages is going to have a hard time in the modern world. In that regard, it matters not if the U.S., India, or China is the superpower of the 21st century.
Mac Lorry,
I was certainly not trying to “speak for Kashif”I was only giving you my take on his post as you were giving yours.
I am going to respond to you in the same manner I responded to Muslihoon over at the other blog. I WAS married to a REAL Moslem and a REAL Saudi. Am I to understand that you don’t think I’m the first person of good will to get blindsided? Believe me, I am not a polyana. I lived through the Lebanese Civil war for six months in Beirut an have had first hand experience with these nuts. I am fully cognizent of their existance and am well informed of their threat. While living in Saudi there were rumblings of this faction, but even then was put down by the much tamer Wahabi’s. You have to understand that their very most important target is the Al-Saud royal family so they do NOT have free reign in their country.
In the end, I can only offer my own experiences which I have given you. I might go further though in telling you that it was not just with the educated class, but with the ministers of the Kingdom (NOT Al-Sauds) through my husbands uncle who is currently an ambassador. I knew these people very well and can tell you that most were Western educated with their PHd’s as well as their wives, several of whom were doctors. See Mac, these are the things that most people don’t know about because it is not reported in the Western press and the Kingdom is a very closed society. It is these people I put my faith in, and along WITH leaders such as the new king might bring about change. Moslem radicals are much more a threat to these people than to us, and that is where my maternal instinct kicks in. Your “what ifs” are not applicable here either. What is applicable is to become totally aware of the complexities of the problem and pray to God that the moderates, who ARE the majority, prevail
Just a note to the above: No the Moslems who were shooting at eachother in front of my very own eyes in Beirut were not the same extremists we are talking about here. They were however Moslems, shooting at Christians shooting at Moslems all in the name of God and for their OWN political reasons ( which is a whole different subject matter). I was simply trying to tell you that I HAVE personally encountered this Holy War between the two faiths in a different arena, road-side bombs, suicide attacks and all.
robin,
I don’t think we disagree on the fundamentals. I’m not sure either what “what ifs” I expressed other than to demonstrate the inevitability of the forces at work in recent human history. Forces that are indisputably at work in the world today as they have been since the end of the dark ages. I hope the moderates who you say are the majority, do prevail.
Nevertheless, the rest of the world needs to be prepared for a different outcome, not only in Saudi Arabia, but anywhere in the middle-east and beyond. Part of that preparedness is to develop new energy sources such as I have written about. As it is now, any serious disruption of oil would necessitate intervention in the region and that only plays into the hands of the extremists. In response, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the middle-east need to develop their economies so that they are not dependent on oil revenue. The full effect the energy shift may not be felt for 40 or 50 years, but the world is starting down that road.
Mac Lorry.
I couldn’t agree with you more as to the necessity to develop alternative fuel sources, both for our own benefit and the Middle Easts’.
Oil ANYWHERE in the world is not an infinite commodity.
The very suggestion that you are making as to the need to diversify their econonomies is taking place, albeit at different rates in the different countries of the ME. Some countries such as Dubai are choosing to become a tourism mecca (no pun intended) and home to international banking. Bahrain, which has had little oil to worry about anyway, has always been an international banking center. As for Saudi Arabia, the country is expanding RAPIDLY in the field of industry and the information age. Are you aware that for many years, Saudi Arabia has been the single largest owner of US treasury bonds? Also, the citizens of Saudi Arabia do not own the oil, Aramco controls the oil at the behest of the royal family which distributes the wealth thereof to support various endeavors such as desalinization plants, irrigation projects, hospitals, yada yada, all the things a government should do for its people.
But as you so correctly point out, the oil revenue will come to an end. Yes, the MidEast has been riding high on it’s oil for many years and depending which analyst you listen to, the future has yet to be seen. I DO know that the country, and others in the Gulf Region have a well-educated ruling elite (both ministers and business) who are fully aware of the problem and are diversifying to otber investments outside the ME. Shoot, Mercedes Benz is half owned by Kuwaitis.
I only think that the instigator in riling up the extremists is the West’s policies and our insistance on supporting inmoral regimes in the area.
VERY VERY VERY complicated. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation with you. And although I am not literally “one of them”, this is just my take on it coming from the last 31 years of my own experience and trying to share that with others.
Kashif:)
IF you are reading, and IF you are interested and need a breath of fresh air, check out wizbang bomb squad “do you support religious intolerance as long as it’s against moslems” Its a gal Gina Cobb’s blog which refers to a guy Danny Carlton. His is the most logical voice out there and I thought you might like it.
Mac Lorry: same goes for you. Different take, but one I totally agree with.
one thing no one has addressed is that the reason political islam has become so combustible is because it is doing what europe did in the beginning of the last century.
buy into nihilism.
i put up a post on the subject on my blog.
Suicide Intellect
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/02/14/suicide-intellect-who-legitimized-suicide-in-islam-by-ali-eteraz/
eteraz,
I followed your links and read your article. In it I found this statement
I’m not sure who your audience is, but your statement seems to indicate you have no understanding of Christianity. Without that understanding you can’t really understand the West, at least not the U.S.
The term “nihilism” describes the atheist philosophy, but is often used to say that some other religion of movement is without God. I assume you mean that Islam is buying into the idea that it’s the one true religion. Of course, fundamentalist Jews and Christians believe their religion is the one true religion. In fact, if a person doesn’t feel their religion is the truth, what would be the point in practicing it?
The only means of avoiding a clash is to acknowledge that people have a fundamental right to believe and practice their religion as they see fit and for governments to neither favor or oppose religion. Obviously, there are limits such as not allowing human sacrifice and other criminal actions. The West arrived at that place a long time ago and we are waiting for the middle-east to catch up.
MacLorry:)
(Can you believe I’m sending happy face modicoms to a conservative? Just kidding but don’t know if there is a modicom for that because I am totally new at this).
Couldn’t agree more (and that’s coming from a Moslem sympathizer, liberal Catholic, had both experiences point of view. Over on F–them if they can’t take a joke, Kashif put up a wonderful defense of Islam and I attempted to inform the readers of the links between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Unfortunately it fell on mostly deaf ears, Kashif signed off, and I continued to argue (much to my own disgust) with a fundamentalist Christian who refused to state his precise religious affiliation. It was a useless battle, because I like you, believe that “people have a fundamental right to practice their religion as they see fit”. Darn, there we go agreeing again and there’s no holiday to wish you a “Happy” so just a “Good Point” will have to do.
As to the description of myself in the post prior to this a “Moslem sympathizer”, I emphatically correct myself to read: “Moderate Moslem sypathizer” so that any one reader does not mistake me in any way shape or form as someone who supports the violence of the jihadists. If you are familiar with me from prior posts, you are aware of my outlook and I would truly appreciate it if you do not try to twist my words.
Thanks for accepting my clarification.
Robin,
Just so you know, I’m a fundamentalist Christian and while Christians are called upon to witness to the Gospel message, we believe it’s up to individuals to accept or reject that message. The concept of allowing each person to practice their religion as they see fit is not (or shouldn’t be) difficult for Christians. Where there’s a clash within Western cultures, particularly in the U.S. is in how much influence Christian teachings have over secular law. As a Christian I’m entitled to vote my beliefs just as any other person is. That means certain movements, such as homosexual marriage, run up against a block of voters who’s beliefs are founded in their religion. That’s why the U.S. has constitutional amendments to protect certain freedoms, such as religion and speech, from such voting blocks.
I’ve learned on this topic that the Islamic religion and Islamic law are not the same thing and that one can be Muslim without wanting to live under or impose Islamic law on others. Is that true?. It’s the threat of non-Muslims being forced to live under Islamic law that people in the West find objectionable, rather than the religion of Islam. We hear little about the religion of Islam, but a lot about how women, Jews and Christians are treated under Islamic law. We also hear that Islam is or at least was spread through conquest rather than through persuasion. This all feeds the strong feelings westerners have toward Islam. I don’t know how much I stated about Islam is true, so maybe you could enlighten me.
Mac Lorry:)
Am I dreaming? Have I actually found a fundamentalist Christian conservative who actually makes sense to ME? All kidding aside Mac, and absolutely no offense, because MANY of my friends are fundamentalists and as long as we avoid the “heaven” subject we get along quite well. I just avoid the fire breathing types just as I prefer to get out of Dodge when ever a jihadist is in the neighborhood.
You have posed some very good questions, most of which I can only address anecdotedly.
Up until the Taliban came on the scene and Iran had their Islamic revolution, most modern Islamic nations have themselves been secular. The obvious exception to that generalization is Saudi Arabia. (This is where MY expertise comes in) Saudi Arabia is not only the home to Mecca and Medina but also the birthplaceof “fundamentalist” wahabiism that we have heard about so much in the West. Saudi Arabia IS a theocracy, but you have to realize, that until Ibn Saud united the country in the 1930’s the wahabi sect was mainly centered in Riyadh, the Kingdom’s modern day capital. It was Ibn Saud, along with the wahabi sect and the financing of certain individuals (my ex-inlaws being one of them) who united a ragtag bunch of bedouins into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was due to the wahabis alliegiance that they were given so much power. Oil was discovered shortly after but the riches did not come to great fruition until the late 60′-70’s. It was sometime (don’t know exact date” that ARAMCO was nationalized and the Kingdom began enjoying the windfall as opposed to the foreign oil companies
(Fast forward to 1975-1980 when I was there) At this time, and for many years prior, the Kingdom did not offer good schooling. It was then that the business elite began sending their children abroad to boarding schools and universities to be educated. As I said before, all my ex’s siblings were educated abroad (my sister-in-law even had her master’s in public health from BERKLEY) But ultimately, these people had to go home and participate either in private business or government. THESE are the people in power in Saudi but they MUST live by Islamic Sharia law while in the country, just like you would if you went there. THESE are educated people who wish to carry on their daily lives, make a living, and all within the rule of law. They for the most part though are secular moslems. That is NOT to say they don’t live by the values of their faith, it is only to say that they do not ascribe to “fundamentalist” beliefs
Just like here in the US, some believe in science and some believe in creationism (ABSOLUTELY no offense if this is your belief).
Now to your question about being an Islamic nation without implementing Sharia. My answer to you is that the proof is in the pudding. Most nations are secular, those that are not, well, they’re like Saudi Arabia.
Now to your question about how Moslems treat Christians and Jews. No matter what bunk you might read taken out of context, Moslems MUST treat Christians and Jews as “People of the Book”. Over on F-em if they can’t take a joke there was a guy who told me I wasn’t married to a “real moslem”. I asked him if he was suggesting that my Moslem marriage, resided over by a Saudi Imam and all my friends co-religious marriages were fakes and that Saudi Arabia was allowing this to happen even though they are the home to Islam and live by ABSOLUTE Sharia law. Needless to say, he did not comment back. As for Moslems treatment of Jews, this is a loaded political question. I do know that in 1948 prior to the creation of the state of Israel, MANY Jews lived within moslem nations. My husband’s grandfather was a pearl merchant in Bahrain and his two business partners were Jewish. The question of the hatred now is REALLY a political one based on the fact that in order to create an exclusively Jewish state, all those others had to leave. Unfortunately, the same occured in the Moslem areas of the Mideast and the Jews were chased out. (But that really is a whole nother issue)
Mac, what I bring to this discussion is my own experience. It was a cultural exchange that made me grow as a person. I am here to tell you that if you were to go into a moderate Moslem’s home as a Christian (non-fire-breathing) fundamentalist, you WOULD be welcome and receive hospitality. I am also trying to tell EVERYBODY, that these people exist and that they are in the majority. All must remember that it is the moderate Moslem who is the number ONE target to the jihadist because they feel they are not living by exactly their 15th century ideals of the religion.
I have gone on a tangent here, I hope I answered some of your questions. ‘Really appreciate the discussion.
P>S> As for the marriages, they were really pretty much the same as ours. The educated do NOT marry more than one wife because their educated wives would kick the b-jeez-us out of them!
Mac Lorry:)
I want to thank you for instigating me to look up more facts. I came upon something very interesting, it’s a book called “The Wahabi Myth”
I looked it up and found (of course), pros and cons. What struck me as interesting though relates to my own experience with Wahabiism. While I was in Saudi, the Mutawa (religious police) were pretty much the laughing stock of the educated elite. There were rumblings though of something sinister called “Islamic Brotherhood”. I know about it because my younger brother-in-law dabbled in it and was quickly put in his place. This book tries to say that it is not the Wahabi faith that Bin Ladin adheres to but rather a much more radical form of Islam called Qtub (Arabic for by the book). You see, except for being hit on the legs if you walked down the street with your ankles showing, I did not EVER experience any religious intolerance toward myself. In fact, the opposite was true. This other brand of Islam though is pretty darn scary and REALLY promotes jihad. The book suggests that it is not Wahabiism at the base of radical Islam, but rather this lesser known fringe group. It sort of makes sense to me because why would the Wahabis be attacking their own people within the Kingdom? Why would road blocks and police barracades be set up and manned by the military all over the Kingdom if it were Wahabi’s who were doing all the damage. No, the way I see it, it is probably this other sect who are the trouble makers because they see the Wahabis as the supporters of the Al-Sauds. Yes, no doubt the Wahabi’s are VERY fundamentalist, but as an analogy, I think this other group might be the abortion clinic bombers.
Just an interesting thought because God only knows we don’t get it straight from the powers that be.
See Ya! Happy–!!