Do the Sheikh's ethics concern you?

[isr]

And naturally, you'll have at hand the results from all those democratic elections in Middle Eastern countries to back this one up, right?

 

Ok, joking aside. Votes are one way to guage public opinion. There are others.

 

Arab political culture is a very vibrant one. In print (primarily in those papers published from London), on satellite TV networks, and in person (the atypical Arab street cafe, where the level of political discourse is rather advanced).

 

One reason why Arab leaders hate to show any kind of perceived weakness is because they know how that will play amongst their people. Thats all I was trying to say. Any Arab leader, democratically elected, military dictator or monarch, will at least attempt to fill the role of "strongman".

 

Sigh. I'm not trying to come across as an apologist for dictators. I personally prefer something in between oligarchy and democracy - and there are historical antecedents in the Muslim world for this (from the very begining). In fact, traditional tribal rules were developed with this system in mind (eg: amongst Pashtun/Pathan tribes, which are an example of real democracy in action). In the transition between tribal identities, and the modern sovereign nation state, these things got left behind.

 

What I am saying is that there is a time and place for every system. Western liberal secular democracy was a solution applicable to Western European needs. Reflecting an age-old battle between an all-powerful Church v the State, and a Europe trying to come to terms with the aftermath of essentially 100 years of internecine warfare between Catholics and Protestants across the continent, in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

The Muslim world (especially the Arab heart) was essentially in deep-freeze for centuries after the Mongol Holocaust. Advancement in practically every area went BACKWARDS. The hoped-for emergence after the Ottoman Empire proved to be a still-born one, as Britain and France instead carved out colonies. The remnants of this broken-up Arab polity, and the petty families who have risen to power as a consequence, are still being dealt with today.

 

These are not the same circumstances. As they say, "if all you have is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a nail". Resist that tendency.

[isr]

Christianity and Judaism were like that a long time ago too, but they were superceded by something better; secular liberal democracy.

 

Your choice. If it works for you, then go for it.

 

Not our choice. Learn to respect that. Or drop the tag "liberal".

 

Yeah, it's a lot more dangerous because of it.

 

I think you'll find that if Western countries refrain from

1) keeping military bases in Muslim countries

2) proping up unpopular regimes in the Arab & Muslim world, thereby artificially stopping the process of political evolution I was alluding to earlier

3) placing a state peopled by Western European settlers in the middle of Arab land, and giving it the tools to impose one of the most repressive regimes anywhere on Earth (hmm, wasn't this tried 8 centuries ago? I wonder what the end result was ...)

4) imposing sanctions which kill hundreds of thousands

5) invading Muslim countries, and killing another hundred thousand or two (but at this stage, who's counting anymore)

 

you may find the danger level is decreased somewhat.

 

There are nutters on both sides of the divide. But if you want to pass judgement, keep a sense of perspective. The taking of an innocent life is a crime. And that crime is just as great, whether you suicide bomb him, or starve him through sanctions, bomb him and his children from the air, poison them (and their future descendents) with depleted uranium, or drive over them with a tank.

[Strontium]

Your choice. If it works for you, then go for it.

 

Not our choice. Learn to respect that. Or drop the tag "liberal".

You don't have a choice. You have hardly any democracies.

 

 

I think you'll find that if Western countries refrain from

1) keeping military bases in Muslim countries

Who allows those bases to remain there?

 

2) proping up unpopular regimes in the Arab & Muslim world, thereby artificially stopping the process of political evolution I was alluding to earlier

I'd tend to agree with this one.

 

3) placing a state peopled by Western European settlers in the middle of Arab land, and giving it the tools to impose one of the most repressive regimes anywhere on Earth (hmm, wasn't this tried 8 centuries ago? I wonder what the end result was ...)

Not Israel again. Please. That's your excuse for everything. The only reason we had to create Israel was because your fucking friends in Germany decided it would be a good idea to kill all the Jews. And I wonder what happened to all the Jews in Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Jordan?

 

Regardless, it's done, it's there, and it's staying. Live with it.

 

4) imposing sanctions which kill hundreds of thousands

Tend to agree. But there aren't any sanctions now on Iraq. Stop using that as an excuse too.

 

5) invading Muslim countries, and killing another hundred thousand or two (but at this stage, who's counting anymore)

Who indeed. But I opposed that war. Most of us did.

 

you may find the danger level is decreased somewhat.

Yeah but, you see, the thing is, if something happens to a Muslim in (say) Palestine, then a Muslim in Pakistan thinks he has a right to do something about that. Why is it that you Muslims want to "avenge" everything that happens to another Muslim, even if it happens halfway across the globe?

[Vulmea]

Don't think my qualms on this are religious at all, my concerns are the breach in basic human rights - my personal preferred form of governance would be socialist but the world isn't ready for that, the most effective government is that of a benevolent dictator in whatever form - it really is the best way to get things done - as can be seen by the remarkable achievements in UAE in so short a space of time - UAE is half way there - if it can sort out the basic rights for 'its' poorer workers then it will be sorted - 'its' being the operative word given 80% of the population are not natives to UAE. Whatever the culture or the religion there is no place for indentured service, slavery by any other name. If it wants recognition and status then it not only needs to acknowledge these concerns but address them. An individuals freedom has to be a basic and inarguable human right.

[Strontium]

An individuals freedom has to be a basic and inarguable human right.

And yet you say your preferred government is socialism O_o

[John101]

this thread makes me wish my mum had would have had a miscarriage

[isr]

Not Israel again. Please. That's your excuse for everything. The only reason we had to create Israel was because your fucking friends in Germany decided it would be a good idea to kill all the Jews. And I wonder what happened to all the Jews in Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Jordan?

 

WTF? OUR friends in Germany? WTF!

 

Germany is in Western Europe. The Holocaust was the final culmination of centuries of EUROPEAN discrimination against Jews. This discrimination came in many forms, from forced expulsions (England & Spain), to pograms (everywhere). The final Holocaust was initiated by Germans, and had willing participants from nearly every European country.

 

Don't pin that bullshit on Muslims. WE HAD NO BLOODY PART TO PLAY IN THE HOLOCAUST. NOTHING. IT WAS A EUROPEAN CRIME. YOU DEAL WITH IT.

 

As far as Jews in Muslim lands. Here's what happened to them over the course of ONE MILLENIUM of Muslim rule.

 

Nothing.

 

Thats right. By and large, nothing. No pograms. No Holocaust. Nothing. No destruction of synogogues (the first Muslim caliph to take Jerusalem refused the rabbi's offer to pray in the synogogue, SPECIFICALLY because he didn't want some misguided fellow after him to convert it into a mosque!)

 

The biggest advancements made by Jews, culturally and theologically, post Roman destruction of Judea was .... under Muslim rule.

 

The reason why they are not there now? They upped sticks and legged it to Occupied Palestine post 1948.

 

Muslims had NO PART to play in the Holocaust. We have no guilt to assuage over it. The Holocaust was a EUROPEAN crime. If recompense needs to be made to the Jewry of Europe (and it bloody well should), then EUROPE can do it.

 

Instead, you took OUR land, and gave it to YOUR victims, pretending that this act assuages YOUR guilt. Like FUCK it does. Give YOUR land. LEAVE OURS ALONE.

 

You committed the crime. You pay.

 

Yeah but, you see, the thing is, if something happens to a Muslim in (say) Palestine, then a Muslim in Pakistan thinks he has a right to do something about that.

 

And thats a bad thing? How?

 

Europe post WW2 has moved towards a communal spirit. Muslims have always FELT part of one nation. You cut one part, the other bleeds.

 

Which is why you can't pick on one defenceless part, and expect no response from the others.

 

Thats why the Hajj is the single most humanizing event on the planet. You see people of every colour, of every culture, from every corner of the globe. And they are all one.

 

And you think thats somehow bad?

[Redexile]

And the reverse can also be true, in different ways. For example, its not unheard of for a ruler to don a concealing garb, and just wander out to the local markets to get a feel for what the people are thinking and saying. The former Emir of Kuwait was notorious for this.

 

You don't realise that even absolute monarchs have to be sensitive to public opinion. Only in extreme cases is the public totally powerless. And, in addition, there are tribal customs, cultural and religious restraints.

 

 

 

"ours" being the operative word. What you're missing is "ours" does no always equal "theirs".

 

Pretty much every society on Earth wants personal prosperity, law and order, social stability, etc. Thats a given. What is NOT constant, is how each society thinks the best way to achieve this is.

 

You're speaking from the perspective of a Western, capitalist, liberal democracy. Western liberal democracy can work in pluralist societies, where:

1) the State sees itself as being apart from the predominant religon of its citizens (the Church v State battle fought in Europe, over the centuries)

2) there have already reached a certain economic level.

 

These conditions are not universal.

 

 

Religon v State

--------------

In the Muslim world, in the majority of cases, the MAJORITY of people do NOT want a complete divorce between religon and state. This is not implied Talibanism, or even an Iranian solution. The only example, in recent history, of a Muslim country making that break has been Turkey.

 

And guess what. Without the constant threat of military intervention, that break would have been largely reversed by now (even the current Turkish government is largely Islamist in orientation).

 

 

Economy

--------

BUT, there are many societies, at a lower level of economic attainment, who predominantly WANT strong (and yes, at times authoritian) leadership. Because they see this as the best way forward, given their current situation.

 

Most examples we have today of succesful economies built in the post-colonial world, were NOT built under Western standards of democracy.

Singapore (a small scale example, but Lee Kuan Yew was never a poster child for Western democrats)

South Korea

Japan (single party rule for most of its economic revival)

 

I am over-simplifying. There are many more layers of detail I can go into. But I've already gone WAY beyond what this thread, and this forum, is about.

 

In the end, what you're advocating is that "THEY" must adopt "YOUR" standards, because you know whats best for them. Even if history, and public opinion, says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

In most Arab countries, there is a strong historical and cultural preference for a STRONG ruler (who might appear harsh by Western, 21st century standards).

 

You want to give them democracy? Guess what - in most cases, they will vote for strongest bad ass out there. Because they are comfortable with that type of leadership.

 

Oh, and Chavez? For what he has done for his people - worth his weight in gold. For what he has done internationally - priceless!

 

 

I have been reading the posts on this thread for a few days now. ISR are you living out in the middle east or Pakistan?

[Moo]

You don't have a choice. You have hardly any democracies.

 

 

 

Who allows those bases to remain there?

 

 

I'd tend to agree with this one.

 

 

Not Israel again. Please. That's your excuse for everything. The only reason we had to create Israel was because your fucking friends in Germany decided it would be a good idea to kill all the Jews. And I wonder what happened to all the Jews in Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Jordan?

 

Regardless, it's done, it's there, and it's staying. Live with it.

 

 

Tend to agree. But there aren't any sanctions now on Iraq. Stop using that as an excuse too.

 

 

Who indeed. But I opposed that war. Most of us did.

 

 

Yeah but, you see, the thing is, if something happens to a Muslim in (say) Palestine, then a Muslim in Pakistan thinks he has a right to do something about that. Why is it that you Muslims want to "avenge" everything that happens to another Muslim, even if it happens halfway across the globe?

 

What a horrible piece of work you are.

You ignorant, arrogant, deluded so and so.

 

(If you're on a wind up it's really not a funny one)

[isr]

I have been reading the posts on this thread for a few days now. ISR are you living out in the middle east or Pakistan?

 

A Pakistani (and spend most every winter there), born in England, lived mostly in Ireland, now in California. Many Arab friends, and have spent extensive time in Saudi Arabia.

 

Imagine how difficult that is to explain at airline passport control these days?

:eek:

 

[paranoia = on]

Yes, yes, I know many out there will say - "well, if you don't like the West so much, then get the fuck out".

[paranoia = off]

 

Just like to reiterate. Whatever anger was in my previous couple of posts, relates entirely to the Wests interaction with the Muslim world. It was not intended as a commentary on the ills of Western society, or some such. If you're living within a society, you should respect and honour the rules of that society.

 

Plus, my arguments were simplifications. If we were arguing in person, over a coffee (or 7!), I would flesh it out a lot more. As it is, I've already gone way beyond what most on this forum should be forced to tolerate.

 

I'm not someone who has a blind, rosy picture of what the Muslim world is like, nor do I have an unrealistic, bigoted view of the West. In Ireland, my family helped build the airport at Knock, ostensibly to better allow Catholic pilgrims to visit. When we built a local mosque, Christians from all over the local area were invited, and came to visit. I attended a Jesuit boarding school. Dammit, I even attended a Convent for half of my primary schooling. You want to debate Catholic theology - I'm your man :)

 

(insert Catholic priest jokes here ...)

 

Why say this? I'm not blind to the many shortcomings we Muslims have, nor to the many many improvements needed to improve the backwardness of our countries. But, I firmly believe the following:

 

1) the needed improvements within the Muslim world, is a debate primarily for Muslims. The necessary evolution from 5 centuries of post-Mongol deep-freeze is something we need to undergo, WITHOUT interference from the outside. We have our priorities, our experiences, and our values. The solution is not one which we can import from Europe.

 

2) oppresion breeds, and deserves, resistance. Be it in Occupied Palestine, the US/UK in Iraq, or even a misguided Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

 

3) the taking of innocent life is never, ever right. Ever.

[G Richards]

Christianity and Judaism were like that a long time ago too, but they were superceded by something better; secular liberal democracy.

 

It is your opinion that secular liberal democracy has superceded Judaism and Christianity. This is certainly not fact. And there are well over 2 billion Christians worldwide who would disagree with your opinion that secular liberal democracy is better than Christianity.

 

Further to this, you are comparing apples and oranges. One is a political system and the other a matter or faith/religion. Apart from the secular aspect, they are not exclusive either. You can have a faith system and still play an active part in the political process.

[John101]

reasoning and basis were dropped long ago. This thread has turned into a few people trying to display how wonderfully intellectual and worldly they are, whilst infact coming accross as nobs to most

[Stu Monty]

reasoning and basis were dropped long ago. This thread has turned into a few people trying to display how wonderfully intellectual and worldly they are, whilst infact coming accross as nobs to most

 

I'd ask "most" before you speak for them if I were you because I'd say you're off the mark.

[John101]

you are right, replace most with me, i shouldn't generallise.

[Strontium]

WTF? OUR friends in Germany? WTF!

 

Don't pin that bullshit on Muslims. WE HAD NO BLOODY PART TO PLAY IN THE HOLOCAUST. NOTHING. IT WAS A EUROPEAN CRIME. YOU DEAL WITH IT.

Grand Mufti of Jerusalem not mean anything to you? Educate yourself buddy. And the Palestinian struggle today is led by the ideological followers of Al-Husseini.

 

The Shah of Iran was staunchly pro-German too, so much so that Britain and Russia had to invade Iran to get rid of him.

 

As far as Jews in Muslim lands. Here's what happened to them over the course of ONE MILLENIUM of Muslim rule.

 

Nothing.

Indeed. That wasn't my point.

 

The reason why they are not there now? They upped sticks and legged it to Occupied Palestine post 1948.

Yes, they all moved to Israel. MY question to you is do you want the Jews back in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon? Or do you want them to stay in Israel?

 

Secret option three, favoured by many in the Middle East - exterminating or exiling the bloody lot of them - is not an option I consider viable.

 

And thats a bad thing? How?

Because we sort of have this CRAZY idea in the West that you also owe some loyalty to your countrymen, as opposed to just people who share your misguided zealotry. Or to put it another way, if a vegetarian atheist is murdered in Brazil, I don't massacre dozens of British meat-eating Christians in revenge.

 

 

What a horrible piece of work you are.

You ignorant, arrogant, deluded so and so.

Answer the points cocksucker, or butt out.

 

 

It is your opinion that secular liberal democracy has superceded Judaism and Christianity. This is certainly not fact. And there are well over 2 billion Christians worldwide who would disagree with your opinion that secular liberal democracy is better than Christianity.

 

Further to this, you are comparing apples and oranges. One is a political system and the other a matter or faith/religion. Apart from the secular aspect, they are not exclusive either. You can have a faith system and still play an active part in the political process.

Yes, you misunderstood my point somewhat. Secular liberal democracy superceded Christianity and Judaism as a political philosophy. Obviously they remain as faith systems. The point I was making was that Islam is both a religion and a political movement, which is why it is more dangerous.

[cochcaer]

I'd ask "most" before you speak for them if I were you because I'd say you're off the mark.

 

He's spot on, it drifted off Liverpool and Sheikh Mo days ago.

[CtrlAltDelete]

He lives in an area more or less based on medieval values. Human rights doesn't quite have the same priority down there, I fear. So should we pass judgement over their way of living? Tough question! What would we gain by claiming the moral high ground? Is it even a call we should make?

 

History has always been written by the winners and this is no exception...

[isr]

SDog,

 

During WW2, most Arab/Muslim lands were under colonial occupation, or close to it, of Britain and France. Any "pro-German" sentiments had nothing to do with Nazism, or Jews. It was purely this:

1. we need to free ourselves from Britain and France, so

2. hey, these guys are fighting them too. Lets see if they will help.

 

If Japan, or even The Kingdom of Outer Mongolia had been fighting in North Africa at the time, then they would have tried to enlist their help also. Similar to Finland (invaded by Stalin) getting assistance from Germany.

 

It was a WORLD war. Pre-existing conflicts and issues got subsumed into it, which had nothing to do with the main issues of the main war itself.

 

(Love this one - people always trot him out) The Grand Mufti was one man. Who was staunchly anti-Zionist (which is not the same as anti-Semitic). And, whatever his views, he played no part in the Holocaust. Not a single Muslim shipped a single Jew to any camp, nor did one flip a single switch.

 

Thats the reason why so many Arab Muslims today fail to comprehend the enormity of the Holocaust. They had no part to play in it, and its hard for them to conceive of such a thing. Thats why you can get dumb statements from people at times, about the Holocaust.

 

Ok, I'm out. Cochcaer is right - this stopped having anything to do with LFC a while ago. I'm off my soapbox. Apologies to everyone, and normal service is now resumed.

[Guest bigf00t]

Well said mr Isr.

 

I think "most"(i dont mind generalising) would agree you've proved what a ignorant prat SD is. Although I know that wasnt your aim.

 

"Our friends" indeed... shocking statement that one.

[Dirk]

Well said mr Isr.

 

I think "most"(i dont mind generalising) would agree you've proved what a ignorant prat SD is. Although I know that wasnt your aim.

 

"Our friends" indeed... shocking statement that one.

 

I don't agree with some of SD's lines of thought but I reckon you calling him an ignorant prat is a bit rich.

[Guest bigf00t]

]He lives in an area more or less based on medieval values. Human rights doesn't quite have the same priority down there' date=' I fear.[/b'] So should we pass judgement over their way of living? Tough question! What would we gain by claiming the moral high ground? Is it even a call we should make?

 

History has always been written by the winners and this is no exception...

 

Oh dear...

[Strontium]

"Our friends" indeed... shocking statement that one.

You might well be interested in this then.

 

Still trying to pretend the Holocaust didn't happen. Sad.

[Guest bigf00t]

I don't agree with some of SD's lines of thought but I reckon you calling him an ignorant prat is a bit rich.

 

Regardless of how ignorant you may think I am... its hard not to notice the total hate and prejudice when this so called liberal tries to pass the blame of the holocaust on to the muslims.

[Strontium]

Regardless of how ignorant you may think I am... its hard not to notice the total hate and prejudice when this so called liberal tries to pass the blame of the holocaust on to the muslims.

 

Oh please. That's not what I said, so don't twist my words. I said the Germans were the friends of Arab states, and they were.

[Guest bigf00t]

You might well be interested in this then.

 

Still trying to pretend the Holocaust didn't happen. Sad.

 

Urrm... how does one muslim leader denying the holocaust prove it was the muslims who did it?