What's with the "Arab nation?"

[hgc]

Many of the press accounts of the last 2 days about the fall of Baghdad emphasize the shock in the rest of the Arab world about how little actual fighting the Iraqi army and other Iraqi forces did in defense of their country -- and additional disbelief at the warm welcome for the invaders. From Saudi Arabia to Lebanon to Palistine to Egypt and beyond, they seem to take it as matter of personal shame that this vaunted Arab power didn't even put up a fight, even if they are happy that Saddam is out of power.

What's up with that? Why do Arabs have such a great allegience to the wider "Arab nation," as opposed to their own countries? Why is the rapid fall of Iraq to the Americans a greater shame than the decades of despotic rule by Saddam in Iraq? Is their idea of pan-Arab greatness and their personal stake in it more important than the actual well being of their Arab brethren in Iraq (assuming they're better off without Saddam, which most seem to admit)?

Just wondering.

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
Many of the press accounts of the last 2 days about the fall of Baghdad emphasize the shock in the rest of the Arab world about how little actual fighting the Iraqi army and other Iraqi forces did in defense of their country -- and additional disbelief at the warm welcome for the invaders. From Saudi Arabia to Lebanon to Palistine to Egypt and beyond, they seem to take it as matter of personal shame that this vaunted Arab power didn't even put up a fight, even if they are happy that Saddam is out of power.

What's up with that? Why do Arabs have such a great allegience to the wider "Arab nation," as opposed to their own countries? Why is the rapid fall of Iraq to the Americans a greater shame than the decades of despotic rule by Saddam in Iraq? Is their idea of pan-Arab greatness and their personal stake in it more important than the actual well being of their Arab brethren in Iraq (assuming they're better off without Saddam, which most seem to admit)?

Just wondering.

They exhalt religion and race over the individual. They are quasi-fascists.

[Richard G]

The destruction of the Jews is their [Arab] common goal. And that hatred is so fierce, and their brainwashing so complete, that they would prefer to live in despotism, and kill themselves (marytrdom) than side with any nation that is a friend of Israel.

Islam is the vilest, most hateful plague to infect the minds of men. The actions of the Arab world reflect that vileness.

[headscratcher4]

A couple of points...historically, at least, left to their own devices, Arabs are not very "nationalistic" -- that is they hate, distrust, dispise other arabs. For example (and I know this from having worked with various Arab/American communities), Iraqi Arabs were generally considered the lowest of the low, brutes, theives, etc. Also, "Palestinians" were generally much looked down on. On the other hand, the Lebonese, for instance, have always been viewed as very cultured.

The pan-arab nationalism is a product both of Nassarism (pushing the United Arab Republic), Islamic fundamentalism, Baathist Socialism (Baathism was, is, for example, the leading ideological voice in Syria and formally so in Iraq). Much of it grows out of about 1000 years of colonialism. When the old Islamic Calaphate empires began to crumble, other nations stepped in to become overlords of most Arabs. First the Ottomans, followed by various European countries...countries that viewed Arabs as tribal (which they are) and relatiely uncultures...thus making it easy to justify exploitation of local resources and populations.

Many Arabs saw the emergence of Zionism, Facist movements and Socialist/Communist movements as a model for unity and for building a modern Arab state, capable of withstanding European powers and European colonial ambitions. Sadly, because of many social-political elements, tribal loyalties and leadership (such as the House of Saud) have emerged on top, as have governments bogged down in social and economic doctrines that focus more on population control rather than individual expression (BTW, which feeds into traditional Islamic views of how society should be managed under the laws in the Koran).

Today, many Arab movements see similar types of governments and oppression and have created a popular sense of false unity that would quickly devolve into hatred of other Arabs, once again, if popular governments were really in place.

[hgc]

Headscratcher4:

...

Today, many Arab movements see similar types of governments and oppression and have created a popular sense of false unity that would quickly devolve into hatred of other Arabs, once again, if popular governments were really in place.
That's a good point, and it makes me wonder about the secretly hoped for outcome of U.S. policy in the region. That is, a bunch of Arab nations focused critically on each other would be better than a single Arab nation focused critically on Israel and U.S. Kind of like the U.S. sort of preferred 2 Germanies, one of which depended on us for protection from the other one and its patron, to the 1 Germany now that pokes a stick in our eye.

Of course we promote democracy in the region for the usual reasons (it seems we get along better with democratic countries) but also so that we can excercize leverage in taking sides of some Arab countries against others (and other countries in the neighborhood, ie., Iran). You can see this already in the protective umbrella we extend to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE and Oman -- but only the protection thing, not the democracy thing.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by hgc
Why do Arabs have such a great allegience to the wider "Arab nation," as opposed to their own countries?

If I remember correctly, Islam teaches the concept that all Muslims are a single nation. At one time this was literally the case for at least a majority of the world's Muslims. Over time this has changed, especially since the partition of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I, but the belief in this "nation" still remains strong. Various Arab leaders have used this belief to their advantage, in particular Nasser. Saddam also tried to use this (unsuccessfully) in 1991 to rally other nations to his aid.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by hgc

That's a good point, and it makes me wonder about the secretly hoped for outcome of U.S. policy in the region. That is, a bunch of Arab nations focused critically on each other would be better than a single Arab nation focused critically on Israel and U.S. Kind of like the U.S. sort of preferred 2 Germanies, one of which depended on us for protection from the other one and its patron, to the 1 Germany now that pokes a stick in our eye.

Of course we promote democracy in the region for the usual reasons (it seems we get along better with democratic countries) but also so that we can excercize leverage in taking sides of some Arab countries against others (and other countries in the neighborhood, ie., Iran). You can see this already in the protective umbrella we extend to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE and Oman -- but only the protection thing, not the democracy thing.

I also think these are good observations. We must understand that "democracy" in the middle east will not necessarilly bring about humaine government, nor will it lead to recognition of Isreal, etc.

However, popular government will, I think, lead to nations defining their needs very differently than they currently do. Saddam, for years, tried to cast himself as a leader for the Arab street, because he could a) attack his enemies in power in other Arab countries (the Arab street having little way to criticize and debate with their own leaders) and b) because the appeal to Arab unity, in some ways, gave Iraq more credibillty than Iraqis would ever, traditionally, be given in the Arab world.

If Iraq has to focus on Iraq, and if Iraq emerges as a state that is in any way popularly lead, they are not going to recognize Israel for example, but they might spend time developing thier own infrastructure, institutions, etc. that means that their focus will be on Iraq and not in playing power games with other Arabs or other nations in the middle east AS A SUBSTITUTE for a coherent, sane domestic policy. The same is true in Egypt, Lybia, Syria, etc.

Promoting Arab nationalism has allowed Arab states to ignore domestic needs, institutions, policies etc. They can tell their people: you must sacrifice for the greater cause of the Arab nation...and keep them from looking around them and recognizing the sh*t life that their leaders have given many of these otherwise rich nations.

[hgc]

Advocate:

If I remember correctly, Islam teaches the concept that all Muslims are a single nation. At one time this was literally the case for at least a majority of the world's Muslims. Over time this has changed, especially since the partition of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I, but the belief in this "nation" still remains strong. Various Arab leaders have used this belief to their advantage, in particular Nasser. Saddam also tried to use this (unsuccessfully) in 1991 to rally other nations to his aid.
For the opposite perspective, I'm reminded of a scene from "Lawrence of Arabia," where Peter O'Toole is having a conversation with Anthony Quinn (playing tribal leader Auda abu Tayi). O'Toole talks about the "Arabs," and Quinn says something to the effect, "who are they? I know ..." and lists the names of a bunch of Arabian tribes. He says, sarcastically, he's never heard of a tribe called the "Arabs."

edited to add:

Of course that's Hollywood. I have no idea of anything like this conversation ever took place.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Advocate


If I remember correctly, Islam teaches the concept that all Muslims are a single nation. At one time this was literally the case for at least a majority of the world's Muslims. Over time this has changed, especially since the partition of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I, but the belief in this "nation" still remains strong. Various Arab leaders have used this belief to their advantage, in particular Nasser. Saddam also tried to use this (unsuccessfully) in 1991 to rally other nations to his aid.

It may "teach" it, but in practice, Arabs have looked after Arabs... I note that when "Arabs" (a'la Iraq) was killing Kurds, it didn't matter that they were Moslems, the "Islamacists" only seem to mind that moslems are being killed if it is "Arab" Moslems.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


It may "teach" it, but in practice, Arabs have looked after Arabs... I note that when "Arabs" (a'la Iraq) was killing Kurds, it didn't matter that they were Moslems, the "Islamacists" only seem to mind that moslems are being killed if it is "Arab" Moslems.

That's not necessarily true. Afghanistan is not an Arab country, yet it was home to one of the most fanatical Islamist groups. Of course while the rank and file were Afghans, many of the leaders were Arabs. So yes, Arab tribalism does have a part in it, but Islam has certainly helped unite Arabs as well.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Advocate


That's not necessarily true. Afghanistan in not an Arab country, yet it was home to one of the most fanatical Islamist groups. Of course while the rank and file were Afghans, many of the leaders were Arabs. So yes, Arab tribalism does have a part in it, but Islam has certainly helped unite Arabs as well.

I don't disagree. I think that Islam has helped to unite Arabs...I guess I was only trying to suggest that Islam isn't that much different than many other religions or Arab nationalism that much different than other nationalism. In other words, it can unite, but it is fluid and depends on context...moslems have, in the past, battled other Moslems, and likely will do so again...

[Advocate]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


I don't disagree. I think that Islam has helped to unite Arabs...I guess I was only trying to suggest that Islam isn't that much different than many other religions or Arab nationalism that much different than other nationalism. In other words, it can unite, but it is fluid and depends on context...moslems have, in the past, battled other Moslems, and likely will do so again...

You're quick. I went back to correct a spelling error ("is" instead of "in") and you had already replied. I agree with you that Arab nationalism isn't that different from other nationalism. It all depends what group someone happens to identify with. And even though the Koran is very clear that Muslims should never fight a war against other Muslims and some very interesting practices have been used in Islamic countries because of this (mostly as a result of using non-Muslim mercenaries), it still happens. Usually the claim is that the enemy are not "true Muslims" or some such thing. In any case, Islam has never really stopped one Muslim nation from fighting another.

[Baker]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


I don't disagree. I think that Islam has helped to unite Arabs...I guess I was only trying to suggest that Islam isn't that much different than many other religions or Arab nationalism that much different than other nationalism. In other words, it can unite, but it is fluid and depends on context...moslems have, in the past, battled other Moslems, and likely will do so again...

Don’t forget Islam also espouses killing of all non-believers, and the rape and slavery of women and children.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
The destruction of the Jews is their [Arab] common goal. And that hatred is so fierce, and their brainwashing so complete, that they would prefer to live in despotism, and kill themselves (marytrdom) than side with any nation that is a friend of Israel.

Islam is the vilest, most hateful plague to infect the minds of men. The actions of the Arab world reflect that vileness.

You speak as if it is an historical aim that has been around for centuries. In fact, it is only since the foundation of Israel and the appropriation of Arab land that they have wanted to remove Israel.

Prior to that, I would have said Europeans were united in the quest to persecute Jews. The US played it's part too.

[HarryKeogh]

i'm beginning to feel that a portion of the arab world doesnt hate america. they hate everyone.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
A couple of points...historically, at least, left to their own devices, Arabs are not very "nationalistic" -- that is they hate, distrust, dispise other arabs. For example (and I know this from having worked with various Arab/American communities), Iraqi Arabs were generally considered the lowest of the low, brutes, theives, etc. Also, "Palestinians" were generally much looked down on. On the other hand, the Lebonese, for instance, have always been viewed as very cultured.

...



thanks for the info, HS.

Arabic and surrounding nations have tried the experiment of democracy, I believe, but these failed for various reasons.

Given that these areas were under the rule of empires until relatively recently, the expectation that they will transition to democratic rule quickly may be expecting too much. Europe has taken hundreds of years and many wars to achieve the current state of relative freedom and peace.

[Bjorn]

About the 'Arabs':

Tony
They exhalt religion and race over the individual. They are quasi-fascists.Richard G

The destruction of the Jews is their [Arab] common goal. And that hatred is so fierce, and their brainwashing so complete, that they would prefer to live in despotism, and kill themselves (marytrdom) than side with any nation that is a friend of Israel. Why did we just 'liberate' Iraq, if the (Arab) people living there are as you are describing them here?

On a different note, aren't jews also arabs? :confused:

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Bjorn
About the 'Arabs':


On a different note, aren't jews also arabs? :confused:

In terms of language: the Semitic language familiy includes:

Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic

A Semite: (definition from Mirriam-Webster)

1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

[hgc]

Bjorn:

On a different note, aren't jews also arabs?
There were many Jews living in Arab countries (and for more than 1000 years) up until 1948, after which most of them decamped for Israel or other places. They made up more than half the population of Israel until the Russian immigration of the last 15 years. They are not usually referred to as Arabs.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
In fact, it is only since the foundation of Israel and the appropriation of Arab land that they have wanted to remove Israel.
Kinda goes without saying.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I think that Islam has helped to unite Arabs...I guess I was only trying to suggest that Islam isn't that much different than many other religions or Arab nationalism that much different than other nationalism. In other words, it can unite, but it is fluid and depends on context...moslems have, in the past, battled other Moslems, and likely will do so again...
Islam is different from other religions. Islamic holy writ is quite explicit about the form of government and law that Allah prefers. The other major religions are more vague about these things.

When two Muslims argue, the one who can point to scripture and say, "See, I'm right, you're wrong," wins the argument. This means that when the Muslim community is under stress, predictably, the fundamentalists get the upper hand. The guy who can prove he's more Muslim than the other guy has not only the moral higher ground, but the legal higher ground as well.

What's needed is a coherent re-interpretation of Islam that promotes certain Islamic values as central (e.g., no compulsion in religion, no human authority between God and man) and other Islamic teachings as peripheral and subject to modification. We don't yet have major Islamic Universities putting out liberal mullahs. The world needs this very badly, in my opinion.

Another interesting thing about Islam is the primacy it provides to Arab culture:

1. The Qu'ran must be read in Arabic. It doesn't exist in other languages (translations are considered "commentaries upon the Qu'ran").
2. Five times per day, Muslims all around the globe pray facing a town in Saudi Arabia.
3. The mundane actions of an Arab are considered exemplary for all people everywhere, for all time. Thus, Arab clothing, Arab customs, Arab traditions, are considered more noble and correct than others.
4. Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. Travel to Saudi Arabia strengthens the cultural bond between Arabian culture and Muslims everywhere.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Islam is different from other religions. Islamic holy writ is quite explicit about the form of government and law that Allah prefers. The other major religions are more vague about these things.

When two Muslims argue, the one who can point to scripture and say, "See, I'm right, you're wrong," wins the argument. This means that when the Muslim community is under stress, predictably, the fundamentalists get the upper hand. The guy who can prove he's more Muslim than the other guy has not only the moral higher ground, but the legal higher ground as well.

What's needed is a coherent re-interpretation of Islam that promotes certain Islamic values as central (e.g., no compulsion in religion, no human authority between God and man) and other Islamic teachings as peripheral and subject to modification. We don't yet have major Islamic Universities putting out liberal mullahs. The world needs this very badly, in my opinion.

Another interesting thing about Islam is the primacy it provides to Arab culture:

1. The Qu'ran must be read in Arabic. It doesn't exist in other languages (translations are considered "commentaries upon the Qu'ran").
2. Five times per day, Muslims all around the globe pray facing a town in Saudi Arabia.
3. The mundane actions of an Arab are considered exemplary for all people everywhere, for all time. Thus, Arab clothing, Arab customs, Arab traditions, are considered more noble and correct than others.
4. Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. Travel to Saudi Arabia strengthens the cultural bond between Arabian culture and Muslims everywhere.

All interesting and many valid points. I guess what I am really suggesting is something that Bernard Lewis suggested in "What Went Wrong" and that is that there has never been an Islamic reformation, the way there was a Christian reformation...which, arbuably seperated sceular from religious states. Many of the points you make, for example, could be made regarding the Papal States in the MiddleAges. Of course, there isn't today a government run by the Pope (outside of the vatican), but strict interpretation of the Bible by religously inspired governments is not unheard of in the west...rather, the way that government interacts with faithbased institutions (to use a Bushism) has been radically transformed in the west over the last 400 years.

Islam, to some extent, unifies Arabs, but as I noted above, this unity is also exaserbated by a lingering sense of colonialism and inferiority regarding the west. Arabs are diverse -- spreading from the Arabian Peninsula to Morroco, etc. THere are many cultural and tribal divisions that, left to their own devises, would devide "Arabs" -- as I noted above.

What I find interesting, is that at the fall of the Ottoman influence and Empire, Ataturk looked and said Turkey must function in some form like a secular western state to survive...at the fall of Colonialism, many "Arab" governments failed to learn this lession, mixing Baathist Socialism with Religious Conservativism to maintain power for elites or emerging elites. Baathist Socialism has failed them, now they are falling back on Islamic conservativism...yet, that too will ultimately fail them.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by hgc
They are not usually referred to as Arabs. Correct, However, my point was more that the Jews are Arabs (of the same same race) genetically - which makes it a bit difficult for me to understand how one can post 'all Arabs are ......' , clearly meaning that the Jews are [i]not [insert negative adjective].

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that Jewish men shared a common set of genetic signatures with non-Jews from the Middle East, including Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese.

These signatures were significantly different from non-Jewish men outside of the Middle East. This means Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other, genetically speaking, than they do with any of the wider communities in which they might live. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/742430.stm

And even this very pro-Israel writer is claiming the same:

because Jews and Arabs are both of the same race http://www.dailyillini.com/oct01/oct24/opinions/stories/letter01.shtml

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Arabs are diverse -- spreading from the Arabian Peninsula to Morroco, etc. THere are many cultural and tribal divisions that, left to their own devises, would devide "Arabs" -- as I noted above.
Yep. Remember the recent Arab summit where various Arab leaders openly insulted each other? Finally, the only thing they could agree upon was the notion that all ought to oppose a non-Arab state invading an Arab state. No matter how awful Saddam Hussein might be, he's an Arab, and Arabs stick together.

The fight against a common enemy provides a false sense of unity. Persons who feel weak are often happy for even an illusion of unity. God help them if they ever vanquish their common foe.

[hgc]

Bjorn:

Correct, However, my point was more that the Jews are Arabs (of the same same race) genetically - which makes it a bit difficult for me to understand how one can post 'all Arabs are ......' [insert negative adjective], clearly meaning that the Jews are not [insert negative adjective].
No argument here. And I certainly am not going to try to account for people making the "all Arabs are ..." and "all Jews are ..." arguments. But the racial connection, though technically correct, is IMHO irrelevant and distracting in the refutation of such stereotyping. I wouldn't counter a racially stereotyping argument with the information that some other culturally defined group is racially connected to that group too. I counter that racial stereotyping in and of itself doesn't reflect reality well.

[Earthborn]

1. The Qu'ran must be read in Arabic. It doesn't exist in other languages (translations are considered "commentaries upon the Qu'ran").Considering the lengthy theological debates on the myriac of different bible translations, maybe it's not such a bad idea to keep a standardized version.2. Five times per day, Muslims all around the globe pray facing a town in Saudi Arabia. Everytime I hear someone say that 'Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca', it is a non-Muslim who is saying it. When Muslims say in which direction they pray, they will without exception say: 'towards the East'.
Who should we believe? Well considering the fact that Muslims can buy 'prayer compasses' that show the direction to pray in, and I doubt that there is such a thing as a Magnetic Mecca :) I highly suspect that Muslims are right and the 'prayer towards Mecca' is just a myth. Can anyone prove me wrong?3. The mundane actions of an Arab are considered exemplary for all people everywhere, for all time. Thus, Arab clothing, Arab customs, Arab traditions, are considered more noble and correct than others. Replace 'Arab' with 'American', 'European', 'Chinese' or whatever and notice that people are the same everywhere! :)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Replace 'Arab' with 'American', 'European', 'Chinese' or whatever and notice that people are the same everywhere! :)

Gee, I didn't realize that "American," "European," or "Chinese" were religions.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Gee, I didn't realize that "American," "European," or "Chinese" were religions.

theyre not religions. theyre cuisines.

[Earthborn]

Gee, I didn't realize 'Arab' was a religion. :)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Gee, I didn't realize 'Arab' was a religion. :)
Yeah, but I'm not making a point about Arabs giving priority to Arab culture. I'm making a point about Islam celebrating Arab culture. Non-Arab Muslim "reverts" who've never spoken a word of Arabic before, are encouraged to learn Arabic and to embrace Arab culture.

[The Fool]

Cool, an Arab bash..... This is a change from the usual muslim bash.....Looks like the Asian Muslims get to sit this one out:rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool
Cool, an Arab bash..... This is a change from the usual muslim bash.....Looks like the Asian Muslims get to sit this one out:rolleyes:

Do you usually respond with knee-jerk political correctness?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by The Fool
Cool, an Arab bash..... This is a change from the usual muslim bash.....Looks like the Asian Muslims get to sit this one out:rolleyes:
No. I'm not bashing Arabs. I'm bashing Islam.

[Baker]

Originally posted by DrBenway

No. I'm not bashing Arabs. I'm bashing Islam.

The Fool considers any questioning of any of his views as bashing so just take as a complement.

[Earthborn]

Yeah, but I'm not making a point about Arabs giving priority to Arab culture. I'm making a point about Islam celebrating Arab culture. Non-Arab Muslim "reverts" who've never spoken a word of Arabic before, are encouraged to learn Arabic and to embrace Arab culture.Okay, I understand.

So it's a bit like hindus celebrating Indian culture, and Budhists celebrating Tibetan culture... Christians and Jews flocking the Holy Land, Catholics going to Vatican City... Do you know any Jews learning Hebrew who've never spoken a word Hebrew before? Catholics learning Latin?

I really don't see what's so special about it. People just like to be in touch with 'where it all started'. Just human nature I guess.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I really don't see what's so special about it. People just like to be in touch with 'where it all started'. Just human nature I guess.
I think Ba'athism is easier to understand, if you know why Arab things have a divine importance to Arab people.

I don't have any objections to persons having cultural preferences. That is human nature. I do object to political systems which oppress persons, simply because of their cultural identity.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I highly suspect that Muslims are right and the 'prayer towards Mecca' is just a myth. Can anyone prove me wrong?
Google, and ye shall know the truth.

From The Hague, the direction is nearly perfectly SE.

http://www.islamicfinder.org/prayerDetail.php?country=netherlands&city=The_Hague&id=4879&email=&home=2003-4-11&lang=&athan=

[DrBenway]

I was just noticing that it sucks to be an Icelandic Muslim. Being so far north, to get up before dawn for the first prayer tomorrow, you have to get up at 3:17 am. Then, you have to do your evening prayer after sunset at 11:27. That's a long day! And we're not even close to June yet.

http://www.islamicfinder.org/prayerDetail.php?country=iceland&city=Reykjavik&id=4847&email=&start=0&home=2003-4-11&athan=

I get the feeling Allah didn't think through this latitude/season issue thoroughly, before establishing the system of prayer times.

Oh well.

[Bjorn]

I get the feeling Allah didn't think through this latitude/season issue thoroughly, before establishing the system of prayer times. No, he didn't.

I just checked the Northern Norway, and even in the middle of the season for the midnight sun, the website gives times for sunset and sunrise (and they're far off midnight).

On the other hand, I notice the site has 5 different 'calculation methods' to choose from, maybe the muslim 'unity' isn't so united? :p

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
On the other hand, I notice the site has 5 different 'calculation methods' to choose from, maybe the muslim 'unity' isn't so united? :p
Thank Allah for small favors. I recommend using the system that gives you the most shut-eye.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Baker


The Fool considers any questioning of any of his views as bashing so just take as a complement.

Gee, I guess I should just accept crap then? I was under the impression that this was a place where people think before they make or accept sweeping statements about what "all Arabs" do or think....

What I define as "bashing" are statements that an entire race or religion are all the same on some pet issue.... Its known as racism. To resist it is sometimes described as "political correctness" which appears to be someone who refuses to chuckle along and agree with silly racist generalisations made by some of the dross that these type of threads tend to attract.

Usefull statements like the following.

They exhalt religion and race over the individual. They are quasi-fascists

Islam is the vilest, most hateful plague to infect the minds of men.

Don’t forget Islam also espouses killing of all non-believers, and the rape and slavery of women and children


Now Mr Baker I apologise but if you think that I am going to golf clap and say "well said" In the face of statements like the above.

I don't describe all views contrary to my own as "bashing" the above examples may give you a better Idea of what I do classify as bashing, as well as a fair idea of what I regard as racism.

Thanks for your time......

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Thank Allah for small favors. I recommend using the system that gives you the most shut-eye. I didn't bother to go back to the site, but Kirkenes, Norway has no sunrise (nor sunset) for some months every winter. It is also quite close to the North Pole, from where it would be impossible to look or pray towards East.

Sleep-deprived muslims, unite there! :p

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by The Fool


Gee, I guess I should just accept crap then? I was under the impression that this was a place where people think before they make or accept sweeping statements about what "all Arabs" do or think....

What I define as "bashing" are statements that an entire race or religion are all the same on some pet issue.... Its known as racism. To resist it is sometimes described as "political correctness" which appears to be someone who refuses to chuckle along and agree with silly racist generalisations made by some of the dross that these type of threads tend to attract.

Usefull statements like the following.

They exhalt religion and race over the individual. They are quasi-fascists

Islam is the vilest, most hateful plague to infect the minds of men.

Don’t forget Islam also espouses killing of all non-believers, and the rape and slavery of women and children


Now Mr Baker I apologise but if you think that I am going to golf clap and say "well said" In the face of statements like the above.

I don't describe all views contrary to my own as "bashing" the above examples may give you a better Idea of what I do classify as bashing, as well as a fair idea of what I regard as racism.

Thanks for your time...... I agree. I'm tired of the racist sh*t that goes on regarding anyone who is arabic.

Most muslims who follow the quran do not espouse violence or murder.

Most muslims are happy to live their lives, be your neighbours and they don't like loud music, either.

[Baker]

Originally posted by The Fool


Gee, I guess I should just accept crap then? I was under the impression that this was a place where people think before they make or accept sweeping statements about what "all Arabs" do or think....

What I define as "bashing" are statements that an entire race or religion are all the same on some pet issue.... Its known as racism. To resist it is sometimes described as "political correctness" which appears to be someone who refuses to chuckle along and agree with silly racist generalisations made by some of the dross that these type of threads tend to attract.

Usefull statements like the following.

They exhalt religion and race over the individual. They are quasi-fascists

Islam is the vilest, most hateful plague to infect the minds of men.

Don’t forget Islam also espouses killing of all non-believers, and the rape and slavery of women and children


Now Mr Baker I apologise but if you think that I am going to golf clap and say "well said" In the face of statements like the above.

I don't describe all views contrary to my own as "bashing" the above examples may give you a better Idea of what I do classify as bashing, as well as a fair idea of what I regard as racism.

Thanks for your time......

Ok all take back the statement that you consider all views against your own as bashing.
However, you seem to consider any criticism of Islam as bashing I would call it the truth.
Should be not question or criticize John Edwards or Sylvia Browne on fear of bashing them.

Would you live in a country that was governed on The Bible and Christian beliefs?
That’s how most Muslim countries live except its governed on the Koran.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Baker
Ok all take back the statement that you consider all views against your own as bashing.
However, you seem to consider any criticism of Islam as bashing I would call it the truth.
Should be not question or criticize John Edwards or Sylvia Browne on fear of bashing them.

Would you live in a country that was governed on The Bible and Christian beliefs?
That’s how most Muslim countries live except its governed on the Koran. No, it's not how they live. They live like we do, except sometimes they have idiot leaders who try to kill them.

Jesus f*ucking christ, learn some history. I'm so tired of this knee-jerk reaction to muslim anything. It's f*cking annoying.

[Baker]

Originally posted by buki
No, it's not how they live. They live like we do, except sometimes they have idiot leaders who try to kill them.

Jesus f*ucking christ, learn some history. I'm so tired of this knee-jerk reaction to muslim anything. It's f*cking annoying.

I Do know the history and why did you just ignore my question.

Here is a few more facts that have been brought up before.



The Sudanese muslims are engaged in wholesale butchery of millions of their own non-muslim countrymen, and sell those who are caught alive to slavery.

In Egypt, the Copts--who are christians--are prosecuted, and occassionally murdered, by the muslim majority (and, of course, the president of the country has, by law, to be a muslim)

In Afghanistan, before the taliban were defeated, they passed a law forcing all non-muslims to wear yellow ribbons on their bodies, for easier mistreatment (sounds familiar?) and, of course, anybody who doesn't obey strict religious islamic law was punishable according to that law.

When israel was established in 1948, the entire arab world, in revenge, turned on the jews who lived there and attmepted to butcher them, forcing most of them to flee. Of course, when they DID get their hands on the jews (as in 1929 in Hebron) they DID butcher them outright.

In Turkey, the Ottoman muslims burchered and killed all of the minority armenians.

In Pakistan, routinely chirstian churches are attacked and missionaries murdered by zealots fearing christian subversion of muslims.

In india, in many places where the muslims are the majority, an hindu enters--let alone practice his religion--at the risk of his life.

"Moderate" Saudi Arabia practices official religious apartheid; most public areas have places designated for muslims and those for non-muslims.

In Lebanon, since the civil war, the muslims forced, by terrorism and blackmail, the once-prosperous christian community to emigrate or keep its head down.

When the pope visited Syria, its leader, in the official reception, called on him to declare a joint muslim-christian holy war against the jews, the "killers of christ", while the ex-minister of defense publically published illustrated books for children, part of the school curriculum, which claim jews need the blood of muslims for their matzos (traditional passover unlevened bread). Syria had also been the favorite place of refuge for many notorious ex-nazi war criminals. You can infer from that how Syrian jews are treated.

And, finally, there isn't a SINGLE muslim state which isn't at least partially theocratic, and there isn't a SINGLE muslim state where non-muslims legally enjoy full rights

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by buki
No, it's not how they live. They live like we do, except sometimes they have idiot leaders who try to kill them.
Go look up Saudi Arabia's constitution.

[Earthborn]

Google, and ye shall know the truth.

From The Hague, the direction is nearly perfectly SE.

http://www.islamicfinder.org/prayer...11&lang=&athan=I stand corrected!

Apperently all the Muslims I heard or read were wrong about which direction they were facing in prayer. Strange...

Of course it's not like Allah cares even one bit about in which direction someone prays. From the Hadith:Volume 1, Book 8, Number 392:
Narrated Bara' bin 'Azib:

Allah's Apostle prayed facing Baitul-Maqdis for sixteen or seventeen months but he loved to face the Ka'ba (at Mecca) so Allah revealed: "Verily, We have seen the turning of your face to the heaven!" (2:144) So the Prophet faced the Ka'ba and the fools amongst the people namely "the Jews" said, "What has turned them from their Qibla (Bait-ul-Maqdis) which they formerly observed"" (Allah revealed): "Say: 'To Allah belongs the East and the West. He guides whom he will to a straight path'."Volume 2, Book 20, Number 198:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amir from his father who said:

I saw the Prophet (p.b.u.h) offering the prayer on his mount (Rahila) whatever direction it took.

Volume 2, Book 20, Number 201:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Dinar:

On traveling, 'Abdullah bin 'Umar used to offer the prayer on his Mount by signs whatever direction it took. 'Abdullah said that the Prophet used to do so.From here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Apperently all the Muslims I heard or read were wrong about which direction they were facing in prayer. Strange...

Maybe they just didn't feel like going into all the details with you.

Of course it's not like Allah cares even one bit about in which direction someone prays.
There's a difference between salat, which is one of the five pillars of Islam, and ordinary prayer that believers perform whenever. Salat happens five times per day.

Here is a reference: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/intropillars.html

Offering of prayers is obligatory upon every Muslim male and female who is sane, mature and in the case of women free from menstruation and confinement due to child birth. Requirements of prayer: performing of ablution (Wudu), purity of the whole body, clothes and ground used for prayer, dressing properly and having the intention and facing the Qiblah (the direction of the Ka'bah at Mecca).

[headscratcher4]

Not sure how much you know about history, or if you think about it very deeply.

First, a general point...there would be no western culture, no science, no classic Grecco/Roman tradition if it had not been saved by Moslems and Islamics. When the Vatican was persecuting Galileo for saying the world was round...the math, science and philospophy that enabled Galileo to think for himself was being saved by moslems. Certainly, as Bernard Lewis has suggested, Islam has stagnated...and for a variety of reasons such as tribalism, conquest, colonialism, rigidity, etc. ... but, when Christians were expelling Jews and orthodox Christians from Europe Moslem countries were taking them in and they flourished there. In short, history is a lot more complicated than the black and white view of Islam -- or christianity, for that matter -- that your posts imply.

Now, to a couple of direct points you made...

Originally posted by Baker


Ok all take back the statement that you consider all views against your own as bashing.
However, you seem to consider any criticism of Islam as bashing I would call it the truth.
Should be not question or criticize John Edwards or Sylvia Browne on fear of bashing them.

Would you live in a country that was governed on The Bible and Christian beliefs?

Arguably, this is in fact the direction that most conservatives -- of the George Bush/John Ashcroft ilk would like us to go...they deny that seperation and secularism has been either beneficial or part of the protections of our Constituation. Many, such as Pat Robertson et. al., espouse the idea of a Christian Nation, and the Christian west...I seem to remember Ann Cutler calling for the forced conversion of all those evil moslems...

so, I would simply argue that the things you complain about in Islam, are not very far from the surface here in the US and other "western" countries...Le Pen, for example, calls for the re-Christianizing of Europe. Jedi, here on this board, talks about how England and France have become moslemized ... the implication being that they need to be re-christianized (whatever that is...).


[/B][/QUOTE]That’s how most Muslim countries live except its governed on the Koran. [/B][/QUOTE]

Most people in the US, when taking an oath in court, etc. Sware on the Bible. Not the point you are making of course, but there are judges in Alabama, for example, and many conservative christians who argue that the laws of the Bible superceed the laws of man.

Further, Moslem nations, and Arab nations are a varied lot...for example, officially, Egypt -- while very conscious of the Koran -- in not governed by Koranic law. Here in the US, we are not governed by the "Bible" but would you deny that the Bible plays an important role in the foundation of our laws, our sense of Justice, etc?

[/B][/QUOTE]The Sudanese muslims are engaged in wholesale butchery of millions of their own non-muslim countrymen, and sell those who are caught alive to slavery[/B][/QUOTE].

Yes, and undeniably, Islam vs. Christian has something to do with it...as does race, tribalism and geography. Sudan, in its present form, like many an African state is an artificial construct created under colonial powers that mixed religions, peoples, tribes and cultural traditions for the sake its own political needs, not based on rational or logic. As a result, Sudan is fighting a civil war that has the patina of religion...the powers in Khartum not willing to see the "nation" (whatever that really means) divided, yet the majority of the people in the south bare little resemblence culturally, linguistically, etc. to the government...that is why they are killing each other...Islam/Christianity is only one of many cause.

[/B][/QUOTE]In Egypt, the Copts--who are christians--are prosecuted, and occassionally murdered, by the muslim majority (and, of course, the president of the country has, by law, to be a muslim)[/B][/QUOTE]

So, this is unique to Egypt? Catholics and protestants in Ireland? Russian Orthodox persecuting Catholics and making it a crime to proslytise on behalf of Catholicism? Certainly, the Copts are having a hard time...but talk to someone in the American muslim community just now and see how secure they feel...I note, for example, and in addition, that Egypt isn't alone in such strange, bigoted practices...the Monarch of England, for example, must by a member of the Church of England, and also has the power to veto a marriage by the heir to the throne if the heir seeks to marry outside the Church of England...These are foolish laws, but the foolishness is not exclusive to Islam...

[/B][/QUOTE]In Afghanistan, before the taliban were defeated, they passed a law forcing all non-muslims to wear yellow ribbons on their bodies, for easier mistreatment (sounds familiar?) and, of course, anybody who doesn't obey strict religious islamic law was punishable according to that law.[/B][/QUOTE]

Indeed, abhorent. However, I again would only suggest that such practices are not exclusively Islamic...having had a great history in Western Europe (germany) in the 20th Century. It isn't right...but it isn't unique to Islam, either.


[/B][/QUOTE]When israel was established in 1948, the entire arab world, in revenge, turned on the jews who lived there and attmepted to butcher them, forcing most of them to flee. Of course, when they DID get their hands on the jews (as in 1929 in Hebron) they DID butcher them outright.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, and Jews butchered Arabs too...this is a sad history. But because of Islam? Only in part. You neglect the colonial history of the area -- Ottomans, playing favorites among peoples to keep control, Europeans manipulating people to win control...repression of native peoples across the board, etc. There is a context, ugly though it might be, and these masacars were not so much acts of religous revenge as part and parcel of a problem that lingers to this day...populations such as Palistinians feel (whether legitimately or not is another debate) they have no rights or say in the land in which they live...However, this broad generalization of yours, again, forgets that Islamic and Moslem countries -- The Ottomans, the Morrocans, etc. -- took in Jews when they were being persecuted in Europe. When the Spanish expelled the Jews, they were either murdered by Christians, or were warmly welcomed in the Ottoman Empire...So, before pinning these horrible deeds completely on Islam (and, certainly, there were Islamic pressures/pretexts in such horrors), you must admit that such persecution is not unique to Islam...or else lie about it to save your theory.[/B][/QUOTE]

[/B][/QUOTE]In Turkey, the Ottoman muslims burchered and killed all of the minority armenians. [/B][/QUOTE]

First, you must seperate Turks from Ottomans. Turkey was established only after the Ottoman Sultinate was overthrown -- 1922. THe genocide you note took place during what was essentialy a civil war in a dying Empire. IT was horrible, and the Turks have never owned up to it...yet, for over 500 years, Armenians were intragral parts of the Ottoman Empire, achieving high office and living, relatively, peacefully within the Empire. The genecide was as much a result of the crumbeling of the Empire, combined with starvation in the land, the emergence of a "western" type nationalism among Armenians (that had not been a prominate part of their culture prior to the end of the 19th Century), the Emergence of Turkish Nationalism among the "Yong Turks" -- i.e. the leading faction in the dying Empire, World War I, etc. But, the move to murder Armenians was not particularilly religous...the Ottoman leadership (the Young Turks) tended to be more secular and sought to modernize (i.e. Westernize) their nation...remeber, Attaturk emerged out of the Yong Turks, and he was particularilly secular and anti-Islamic tradition.

My point is that this horrible genocide comes as much from its context and hardly at all from Islam against the Armenian Christians.

[/B][/QUOTE]In Pakistan, routinely chirstian churches are attacked and missionaries murdered by zealots fearing christian subversion of muslims.[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, black churches in the Southern US were being burned 5 years ago...I know, that's disengenouse...Pakistan is an econmic and political mess, Islam is seen as a unifying political factor, to over turn the corrupt powers that be...Islam there has taken the place of nationalism, and Christianity is often viewed as part of the evil influence of the west that keeps the nation down...no excuse, but it is a relatively recent phenomenon, and has developed as the economic and political situation has deteriorated and has not been, historically, a huge problem in Pakistan. It is changing, to be sure, but it isn't unique to Islam that people who feel helpless strike out at enthinc, religious groups, etc. in irrational anger.

[/B][/QUOTE]In india, in many places where the muslims are the majority, an hindu enters--let alone practice his religion--at the risk of his life. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, and the Hindu nationalists who run India are completely innocent not only of victimizing Moslems, but of perpetraiting any anti-Islamic policies, etc. Get a grip man, the current Inidan government is particularilly hostile to Islam, and got elected for that reason. It has made a point of excluding moslems from participation in government and marginalizing moslem communities. In addition, and again, it comes out of the fact that India is an artificial construct created by the British, and originally held together by idealists with Socialist visions...it is amazing that there hasn't been more slaughter. Further, it isn't unique...note the Chinese and the Tibetians...

[/B][/QUOTE]"Moderate" Saudi Arabia practices official religious apartheid; most public areas have places designated for muslims and those for non-muslims.[/B][/QUOTE]

Hard to argue with. Have you ever been to Utah? What about Israel? THere, laws to enforce strict adherence to the Torrah are making inroads all of the time. Again, not so unique, and not at all unique to Islam...I suspect, in the Vatican City, that only a Catholic can be Pope....

[/B][/QUOTE]In Lebanon, since the civil war, the muslims forced, by terrorism and blackmail, the once-prosperous christian community to emigrate or keep its head down. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sad, and true. Of course your point misses the fact that the Minority Christian community for years did all it could to keep the majority moslem community out of politics, full parcipation in the country, etc. There were years of "Christian" Presidents in a country where most of the people were moslem. When majority populations that have been or feel Repressed emerge into political power, they tend to take it out on who they see as their repressors...note Zimbabwe .... again, sad, but not unique to Islam...why do you think Protestants in Northern Ireland abhore the thought of a United Ireland, where they are in the minority?

[/B][/QUOTE]Syria had also been the favorite place of refuge for many notorious ex-nazi war criminals. You can infer from that how Syrian jews are treated. [/B][/QUOTE]

As was mostly Chatholic Argentina...and Jews haven't been particularlly well treated there either. It is a point out of context...

Your diatribe is interesting, but it is so black and white...and nothing about the discussion is black and white. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Islamic excess...indeed, I do believe there is a dangerous, quasi-facist Islamic movement emerging in the world...my point is that the crimes and actions of this movement are not unique to Islam...they've occured in the West under both Christian Governments, Secular Governments and Marxism....

[Baker]

headscratcher4 you also failed to answer my question
How many countries are governed on The Bible and Christian beliefs?
Sware on the Bible is hardly the same thing.
I challenge you to start a new thread and we can go over the facts and evidence as I have with others.
And we can settle this once and for all!

[bva]

Originally posted by Baker
headscratcher4 you also failed to answer my question
How many countries are governed on The Bible and Christian beliefs?
Sware on the Bible is hardly the same thing.
I challenge you to start a new thread and we can go over the facts and evidence as I have with others.
And we can settle this once and for all!

This is agreat point.. I see headscratcher lacing up is rollerblades so he can skate on out of town..

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Baker
headscratcher4 you also failed to answer my question
How many countries are governed on The Bible and Christian beliefs?
Sware on the Bible is hardly the same thing.
I challenge you to start a new thread and we can go over the facts and evidence as I have with others.
And we can settle this once and for all!

I actually didn't avoid your question entirely,... I can think of at least one...The Vatican City...and Israel isn't too far behind, at least if the Isralie right wing has its way.

However, more realistically, your point has some validity. Yet, the emergence of Western Countries from strict "theocratic" rule is only in the last 100 to 150 years...it has little to do with Christianity, rather the rise of a "secular" liberal philosophy of governance.

And, again, while the point you made has some validity, so do the many points I have made. Specifically, that "theologically" based government is not unique to Islam -- historically, at least, it played a role in most countries throughout history. Nor, are the persecutions, bigotries, etc. unique to Islam...they too are found throughout history across the globe. And, as pointed out, often emerge out of a wide variety of conditions -- cultural, tribal, economic and political, etc. -- that have nothing to do with "religion" per se, but which use religion as a unifying force...and again, not unique to Islam.

And, as stated, I too am troubled by many trends in the Islamic world...but little that I see is unique to Islam or Moslems, per se. They have existed in one form or another throughout history, in the West and in Asia...for example, is fundumentalist Islam with its facistic tendencies any worse than Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge? Is the crypto-socialist religion of North Korea any less deadly to a non-believer than the Taliban?

Only 50 years after the death of Hitler and Stalin, I don't think we in the west have much to feel superior about...indeed, how is what Milocivich trying to do for Serbia less repugnant than what you fear in Arab Nationalis....Milocivich argues that we in the west should honor him for saving the Servian people from the Moslems...is that what you think as well.

Finally, you miss commenting on my many, many points...for example you completely mis-charachterized the demise of the Ottoman Empire and what happened to the Armenians --i.e. it wasn't about Islam.

The war at the emergence of Israel was not so much about "Islam" per se as a variety of other factors that I mentioned...keeping in mind, that Arab nationalism was promoted by Baathist, who were socialists and notoriously secular. Nassar didn't want to destroy Israel because he was an "Islamisist" he wanted to destroy it because of a scialist based view of Arab nationalism that viewed Israel as an imposition of Western Imperalists on Arab peoples, as well as a theft of pan-Arab land...to the extent that Islam was used, it was done so in a calculated fashion (a'la Stalin and Russian Orthodoxy during WWII) to bring along the ignorant masses and give it legitimacy. It is the failure of Baathist socialism that has left a popular void and enabled fundumentalist Islam to rise....and that socialism, and the authoritarian rule of that ideology...was often promoted in the last thirty years by the west -- i.e. our dealings with Saddam prior to 1991 -- as a means of controlling the people.

Islam wouldn't be the driving alternative to Western Secularism if the West had stood for human rights and democracy prior to last month....

Again, I take no comfort from the dangerous rise of Islamo-facism. Just as I take no comfort from John Ashcroft and his fundumentalist friends here in the US...they are all part of the same coin, imho.

Anyway, maybe together we can think about history in broader terms and consider more facts before painting with a broad brush or dismissing arguments with sweeping and inaccurate statements. That is all I am saying....


P.s. you don't seriously think this can be settled once and for all do you? It hasn't been yet, and its been argued about for hundreds if not thousands of years ....
;)

[Baker]

Finally, you miss commenting on my many, many points...for example you completely mis-charachterized the demise of the Ottoman Empire and what happened to the Armenians --i.e. it wasn't about Islam.

In Armenian,the entire population of Euchaita was wiped out.
Seventh century Armenia chronicles recount how the Arabs decimated the populations of Assyria and forced number of inhabitants to accept Islam and then wrought havoc in the district of Daronsouthwest.


Have you ever been to Utah? What about Israel? THere, laws to enforce strict adherence to the Torrah are making inroads all of the time. Again, not so unique, and not at all unique to Islam...I suspect, in the Vatican City, that only a Catholic can be Pope

Your examples are vary vague can you add a little more content.
Vatican City, that only a Catholic can be Pope.
Gee I see you point Jews and Muslims should be able to lead the Catholic’s?

Anyway, maybe together we can think about history in broader terms and consider more facts before painting with a broad brush or dismissing arguments with sweeping and inaccurate statements. That is all I am saying....



That is my point there is many facts I could point out
These Islamo-facism sa you call them has only done what the holy Koran has told him to do! Fair use of quote from the Koran.

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, we will give him a handsome reward.”

"3.85": And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

5.51": O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

"4.56": (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

"4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"4.74": Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.

"8.12": When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

"9.5": So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
http://etext.virginia.edu/koran.html

The holy Koran resources on Internet are in accord with the University of Virginia. For instance, your English Translation, Translated by M. H. Shakir, on their home Side, is the same as your Koran reference.
http://www.quran.org.uk/

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Specifically, that "theologically" based government is not unique to Islam -- historically, at least, it played a role in most countries throughout history.
True. But there's no basis in the New Testament for a specific form of Christian government, with a specific set of laws regarding how to tax people, social services, marriage, divorce, the conduct of war, divisions of authority, crime and punishment, etc., as exists in Islam.

Stating this fact is not "Islam bashing." It's just a statement of fact.

If a group of believers in any religion do something, they might be doing it because that's what their religion teaches, or they might be doing it for some other reason. I think that distinction is important. If the teaching recommends the behavior, and if we don't like the behavior, then we must address the teaching. If no teaching exists for the behavior, then we don't need to address the teaching.

The Taliban are not a new phenomenon. If we looked at Afghanistan 50 years ago, we'd see a lifestyle very much like what the Taliban attempted to impose by force. Thus, to blame the behavior of the Taliban - the sexual apartied, the harsh punishments for petty crimes, etc. - primarily upon the chaotic social problems of Afghanistan in the present, would be to miss something important: Taliban law was generally Sunnah. Many mullahs in Saudi Arabia and Egypt were fine with what they were doing.

Unlike Christianity and Judaism, there is no real tradition of liberalism within Islam. The Qu'ran is widely held to be the literal word of God. To say otherwise is to proclaim one's self an apostate.

You don't want to be an Islamic apostate. Most who go on record publish their ideas under a pseudonym, to avoid the Salmon Rushdie experience.

It seems off the point to me, to argue about whether Christianity or Judiasm, or various western societies, are in some way just as "bad" as Islam. I realize the fundamentalist Christians share the Islamists dislike for secular humanism. I realize the Jerry Falwells in the U.S. are a bit of a threat to my civil liberties. However, the fundie Christians largely seek to push their agenda through legal channels. Thus I don't feel truly threatened by them. I'm much more concerned about those martyrs for Allah who talk about blowing themselves up in crowded places here in the U.S. That's why I feel it makes more sense right now to look specifically at what Islam is saying to people, rather than at what other religions are saying to people.

I do not disagree that various Muslim populations have their reasons for feeling angry. I do not disagree that these reasons often have to do with economic or political problems that are not specific to Islam.

The reason the actual teachings of Islam are important: the teachings control and shape the manner in which the disgruntled Muslim gives voice to his unhappiness. For a sincerly religious person, the will of God is not a trivial concern.

If we understand Islam deeply, we may see a path through it, from within it, that will lead toward secularism. We may find a way to talk with Muslims in a manner that provides hope that the West and the Islamic world can co-exist. As it is, many Muslims see mankind as divided between "the house of Islam" and "the house of war."

The world has become much smaller, thanks to satellite communications and jet travel. Distance no longer serves as a buffer between East and West. We best understand each other, now. That means looking closely at what Islam teaches.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

True. But there's no basis in the New Testament for a specific form of Christian government, with a specific set of laws regarding how to tax people, social services, marriage, divorce, the conduct of war, divisions of authority, crime and punishment, etc., as exists in Islam.

Stating this fact is not "Islam bashing." It's just a statement of fact.

[/b]

There is exactly that in the old testament. Christians just choose to ignore those bits, while still referring to other bits. Many Muslims do just the same, pick and choose the bits that suit a civilised life. The Bosnian Serbs, for example.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There is exactly that in the old testament. Christians just choose to ignore those bits, while still referring to other bits. Many Muslims do just the same, pick and choose the bits that suit a civilised life. The Bosnian Serbs, for example.

You conveniently forgot to mention that American Christians went to Yugoslavia after Europe ignored the problem in fear and the same American Christians saved the Bosnian Muslims.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You conveniently forgot to mention that American Christians went to Yugoslavia after Europe ignored the problem in fear and the same American Christians saved the Bosnian Muslims.

JK

I conventiently stuck to the point I was arguing and you did not. If you want to argue another point, please feel free.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I conventiently stuck to the point I was arguing and you did not. If you want to argue another point, please feel free.

It was the same point.

JK

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is exactly that in the old testament. Christians just choose to ignore those bits, while still referring to other bits. Many Muslims do just the same, pick and choose the bits that suit a civilised life. The Bosnian Serbs, for example.
No, it isn't a matter of ignoring Leviticus. There is a clear theological argument widely accepted among Christians explaining why Christ's message, death, and resurrection, have liberated the Christian from the old covenant, as revealed to Moses. Paul was the first to work this stuff out. If he hadn't, Christianity would not have been very appealing to the Greeks.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Baker
headscratcher4 you also failed to answer my question
How many countries are governed on The Bible and Christian beliefs?
Sware on the Bible is hardly the same thing.
I challenge you to start a new thread and we can go over the facts and evidence as I have with others.
And we can settle this once and for all!

I would have to say the UK still is to a large degree. We have an official church and state religion and members of that religion hold government offices and can vote on and create legislation.

I'd also add Eire (Republic of Ireland).

[max]

Buki
Jesus f=cking Christ is a bit disrespectful innit?
Wot about Al f=cking Lah then?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Darat
I would have to say the UK still is to a large degree. We have an official church and state religion and members of that religion hold government offices and can vote on and create legislation.

The Church of England has special privlege in the UK government, but it does not dominate or dicate to the government, as would be the case in a true theocracy.

As the number of non-Christians in Britain increases, I would expect the need to separate church and state might increase as well. The principle of equal rights before the law would seem to demand that.

Islam as a political system does not grant equal rights before the law. For example, non-Muslims are required to pay a higher tax than Muslims. Non-Muslims must refrain from open displays of their religious affiliation. The testimony of a woman in court is weighted at only half that of a man.

Is there a form of Islam which rejects the above? No, not yet. There are a few voices within the Muslim world in favor of political equality and secularism, but no organized movement.

Christianity as a political system really doesn't exist. Jesus stated he was more concerned with a spiritual than an earthy kingdom. He offered no cookbook for government.

Consequently, Christians are very divided over political issues. The fundamentalists advocate for some of the Old Testament ideas. Liberal Christians advocate for equality and social welfare, and oppose the anti-secularist agenda of the fundies.

In contrast to Jesus, Muhammad was very concerned with govermnent and provided his followers with a number of specific recommendations regarding inheritance laws, divorce, vice laws, taxes, banking, diet, clothing, warfare, etc. Thus, it's much more problematic for Muslims to espouse secularism.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by max
Jesus f=cking Christ is a bit disrespectful innit?
Wot about Al f=cking Lah then?
I prefer "Christ on a crutch!"

[Baker]

Originally posted by max
Buki
Jesus f=cking Christ is a bit disrespectful innit?
Wot about Al f=cking Lah then?

All of this talk of Muslim bashing do you get the feeling none of these people have ever been to the R&P forum it’s a Christian bashing smorgasbord.

[headscratcher4]

In Armenian,the entire population of Euchaita was wiped out....

Sorry, haven't had time to get back to this, and can't spend a lot of time now, but will try to later.

However, the bit about Utah and the Vatican was a bit tongue and cheek...sorry, as I said, there is some validity to your point...I was trying to be amusing.

However, seeking for a 7th century AD massacre of the Armenians to prove your point is stretching it a bit...the Armenians of that time...and pretty much through out there history were always being massacred...either by the Roman, the Persians, the Byzantines, the Arabs, even the Crusaders...unfortunately, they inhabited a part of the world where empires collided...it doesn't excuse it, but there isn't anything particularly telling about Islam in an Arab massacre in the 7th Cent.

I mean, Crusaders killed every man, women and child -- Jew and Arab -- when they Conquered Jerusalem...and did so quoting the Bible...you're not suggesting that was a reflection of your understanding of Christianity?

The Spanish expelled the Jews or forced them to convert...and if they didn't convert, they murdered them by order of the Church and justified under Biblical authority...you're not suggesting that reflects Christianity...even though the Pope and the Inquisitors quoted the bible as justification.

We can trade quotes from holy scripture later...but it simply seemed to me that your example is a bit of a stretch when it comes to proving your point...

I'll be back...to quote Arnold.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

No, it isn't a matter of ignoring Leviticus. There is a clear theological argument widely accepted among Christians explaining why Christ's message, death, and resurrection, have liberated the Christian from the old covenant, as revealed to Moses. Paul was the first to work this stuff out. If he hadn't, Christianity would not have been very appealing to the Greeks.

Yes, and now we head rapidly towards a discussion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The fact is, when I went to church, many years ago, there was always a reading from the 'Old Testament' and the 'New Testament'. It took me a while to realise they were picking the best bits, when I actually went and read a bit of it for myself. And the saying 'An eye for an eye' still retains a popular hold.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It was the same point.

JK

Was not.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yes, and now we head rapidly towards a discussion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
These sorts of issues are understandably trivial to you. However, these are the kinds of things that religionists feel passionately about.

All I'm trying to do, is advocate for an understanding of what it must be like for a Muslim in the world today, caught between the mainstream teaching of his religion and his wish to enjoy the fruits of modern life and peace with his neighbors. I don't think it helps to say that all religions are the same. I don't think it helps to say that religious people just need to ignore the parts of their religion they don't like.

[Earthborn]

There are a few voices within the Muslim world in favor of political equality and secularism, but no organized movement.What about the Muslim Feminist movement?
http://www.counterpunch.org/fawzia1.html
http://www.maryams.net/articles_veil01.html
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2001/05/17/fp18s1-csm.shtml
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Islamwomen.html
http://www.newint.org/issue345/legacy.htm

The Muslim Civil Rights movement?
http://www.mcrcnet.org/
http://www.soundvision.com/info/civilrights/muslimgroups.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/181178.stm
http://www.hakam.org/news100402_3.htm
http://www.eohr.org/press/2002/7-23.htm

No organized movement? Pretty hard to maintain that idea.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What about the Muslim Feminist movement?
http://www.counterpunch.org/fawzia1.html
http://www.maryams.net/articles_veil01.html
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2001/05/17/fp18s1-csm.shtml
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Islamwomen.html
http://www.newint.org/issue345/legacy.htm

The Muslim Civil Rights movement?
http://www.mcrcnet.org/
http://www.soundvision.com/info/civilrights/muslimgroups.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/181178.stm
http://www.hakam.org/news100402_3.htm
http://www.eohr.org/press/2002/7-23.htm

No organized movement? Pretty hard to maintain that idea.
My meaning was not clear. Certainly, there are collections of people working to reform Islam. However, at this time, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm not an expert on these things), there is no organized, established school of thought within Islam espousing the ideals we associate with secular humanism. There is no Islamic university graduating mullahs who preach gender equality, separation of mosque and state, and so forth.

Today, if you're a Muslim woman in search of a mosque which won't insist upon the veil, you can't just look in the yellow pages to find the mosque that suits you. You won't see, "First Mosque of Boston, Reformed," or something like that, to indicate a liberal mosque verses a more orthodox mosque.

That's the kind of organizational recognition of liberalism I'd like to see within Islam.

Now, for your links.
http://www.counterpunch.org/fawzia1.html
This article echoes what I said above, that there are voices of Muslims and ex-Muslims calling for a reformation of Islam. The first such voice mentioned in the article is that of Nawal El Saadawi. Dr. Saadawi was denounced by the Egyptian government as an Islamic apostate, on the basis of some of her published views. She now lives in exile in the U.S. Her situation reinforces my position, that reformists are often persecuted by the mainstream Muslim community.

http://www.maryams.net/articles_veil01.html
This is a very good article. This is an example of the sort of work within Islam, by Muslims, that might save us from WWIII.

Your other links on feminism are similar.

http://www.mcrcnet.org/
This article is about an organization opposing discrimination against Muslims living in the U.S. Not relevant to our discussion of issues of equality within Islam.

http://www.soundvision.com/info/civilrights/muslimgroups.asp
Ditto.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/181178.stm
Malaysian civil rights. "Malaysian" does not equal "Muslim."

http://www.hakam.org/news100402_3.htm
More Malyasian civil rights stuff.

http://www.eohr.org/press/2002/7-23.htm
Egyptian civil rights.

I’m not sure why you put up all these links

[Earthborn]

that reformists are often persecuted by the mainstream Muslim community.I don't understand why you equate a state ordered religion with the mainstream.Not relevant to our discussion of issues of equality within Islam.Why not? Doesn't it show that in the Muslim community there is an organized movement striving for civil rights?Malaysian civil rights. "Malaysian" does not equal "Muslim."True, but Malaysia has a large Muslim population. If there is a civil/human rights movement in Malaysia, then there is such a movement in 'the Muslim World'. I included the links from Malaysia and Egypt because most of the websites I found with of such movements were from the US. I wanted to include a few from what people normally would consider to be 'Muslim countries'. Unfortunately there weren't too many, probably because most 'Muslim countries' aren't as wired as the West. But government oppression is probably be a big factor too.

You should realise that many Muslim countries have a specific state religion, but this official religion is probably quite different than what people actually believe. These states use religion to legitimize its actions, by calling anti-Islamic what is basically anti-government. I assume that the average Muslim would favour what we would call 'secularization' and if they live in a country that permits it, some of them form organizations to achieve it.

You seem to assume that these state religions are equal to the mainstream and I doubt that very much.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't understand why you equate a state ordered religion with the mainstream.
Are you saying that in Egypt, for example, there are state sponsored mosques and ordinary mosques? And that the state mosques are very fundamentalist while the ordinary mosques are more relaxed?

Why not? Doesn't it show that in the Muslim community there is an organized movement striving for civil rights?
No. In a liberal society, any religious group which dresses funny and oppresses women, for example, will be viewed as weird. People won't want to hire such weirdos. They might throw stones at them. Thus it's understandable that these religious groups might hire attorneys to help advocate for their rights as a minority within that liberal society. But this advocacy has nothing to do with any effort within that minority community to reform itself.

True, but Malaysia has a large Muslim population. If there is a civil/human rights movement in Malaysia, then there is such a movement in 'the Muslim World'.

As I understand, most of those advocating for human rights in Malaysia are secularists and non-Muslims opposed to implementation of the Sharia.

A majority Muslim country might be doing a thing because Islam recommends doing that thing, or they might be doing a thing for other reasons. To answer the question, "What does Islam teach?" we need to be clear regarding this distinction.

For example, if Malaysians en mass decide to stop wearing shoes, we could not assume this was due to Islam.

You should realise that many Muslim countries have a specific state religion, but this official religion is probably quite different than what people actually believe. These states use religion to legitimize its actions, by calling anti-Islamic what is basically anti-government.

It's largely the other way around. The mullahs denounce government leaders as apostates with regularity. Periodically, the government puts a bunch of the mullahs in jail. To win votes, the politicians will sometimes pander to the fundies, but their worldly lifestyles generally prove their lack of sincerity.

I assume that the average Muslim would favour what we would call 'secularization' and if they live in a country that permits it, some of them form organizations to achieve it.

When given free elections recently in Pakistan, in two provinces, the "average Muslims" voted for Taliban-like rule. The recent move toward Sharia in Malaysia is also a populist movement.

You seem to assume that these state religions are equal to the mainstream and I doubt that very much.
In Islam, traditionally, the religion is the state. Islamic leaders serve as judges in Islamic courts, which preside over matters of family law, vice crimes, and religious crimes. After a certain number of appeals, a case can be moved to a state court.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What about the Muslim Feminist movement?
http://www.counterpunch.org/fawzia1.html
http://www.maryams.net/articles_veil01.html
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2001/05/17/fp18s1-csm.shtml
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Islamwomen.html
http://www.newint.org/issue345/legacy.htm

The Muslim Civil Rights movement?
http://www.mcrcnet.org/
http://www.soundvision.com/info/civilrights/muslimgroups.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/181178.stm
http://www.hakam.org/news100402_3.htm
http://www.eohr.org/press/2002/7-23.htm

No organized movement? Pretty hard to maintain that idea.


Thanks for the links Earthborn here is a couple of more to add to your list.
The War on Women
http://hrw.org/editorials/2002/women0822.htm

Slavery and Slave Redemption in the Sudan
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudanupdate.htm

[Baker]

Originally posted by DrBenway

In Islam, traditionally, the religion is the state. Islamic leaders serve as judges in Islamic courts, which preside over matters of family law, vice crimes, and religious crimes. After a certain number of appeals, a case can be moved to a state court.

Good point I got this list of some of the main Islamic countries from the Arab League web site.
It seems to back up your statement.



Yemen
http://www.austarab.com.au/Yemen/Yemen_constitution.html
The system of law is based on Islamic law. The commercial law is influenced by English common law principles. The death penalty is in force.


Algeria
The judicial system is based on French and Islamic traditions and socialist principles. The Supreme Court also has a constitutional role as the Council of State
http://www.austarab.com.au/Algeria/Algeria_constitution.html

Bahrain
The judicial system is codified on the basis of English jurisprudence and Islamic law. The death penalty is nominally in force.
http://www.austarab.com.au/Bahrain/Bahrain_constitution.html

United Arab Emirates
The UAE law system is based on Islamic legal principles, with introduction of some secular codes, but in practice they are interpreted differently by the local courts in different emirates. Abu Dhabi has a Ruler’s Court presided by a professional judge and the court in Dubai is run by a qadi (Islamic legal expert); the rulers in other emirates deal with legal issues themselves. The death penalty is in force.
http://www.austarab.com.au/UAE/UAE_constitution.html

Sudan
The system of law was substantially based on the English common law, with the judiciary as separate and independent authority. Since the 1980s the Islamic (Sharia) law was reintroduced.
http://www.austarab.com.au/Sudan/Sudan_constitution.html

Saudi Arabia
The legal system is based on Islamic law. The judiciary consists of religious courts with a chief judge as head, responsible for the Department of Shar’iah (legal) Affairs. Shar’ia courts are primarily concerned with family inheritance and property matters. The death penalty is in force for murder, robbery with violence, adultery and drug offences.
http://www.austarab.com.au/Saudi_Arabia/Saudi_Arabia_constitution.html