One Arab World

1 - It's very relieving to read again some common balanced good sense from people that do not detain the ultimate and universal truth , Sandmonkey and his merry supporters were, even for the most cynical eye, a bit of a sickening experience...

'Ahmadinajad says that democracy and liberalism have failed' Democracy cannot fail as an ideal, as a moral aspiration. However we must acknowledge that democracy as a government representative of the will of the majority of the people had too many unfortunate experiences and that it's allways possible to study other political ways of implementing that ideal. As a moral aspiration we cannot either allow it to endorse or tolerate what it does in itself oppose.

And as arab societies may be on the verge of adapting the model we can sincerely question whether (Comment this)

2 - Assalamu 3ala man itaba3a al huda

The problem with democracy and liberalism is that it completely neglects the society. It believes that every man has the free will to do as he wishes and thus society will run well. Did you stop and consider the effect of the society on the individual? Margret Thatcher defined society as a group of individuals, extremely shallow. Taqiul Deen al-Nabhani defined society as a group of individuals, their common thoughts and emotions and the system ruling over them. This is explained further on.

Do you really have a choice in a 'free' society. I'll try not sound too much like the movie "The Matrix", but in reality, you really don't have free choice in any society, be it even an Anarchy. You simply cannot exclude the effect of the environment on the way you think. You cannot simply ignore that a society where women walk half naked will have the exact effect on you as in a society where women dress decently. You cannot ignore the effect of a society based on the market and making as much profit in as little time possible compared to another society based on your deen.

The environment puts ideas in our heads, and those ideas build up to form concepts and those concepts are the basis of our actions. That is not to say that everyone within every different environment are robots that are exactly equal to everyone else within that respective environment, that would be generalising. There will always be inferior groups, there is always also the fact that some groups gained different education from other groups. However, when it comes to it, the majority of the people will always conform with the system ruling them unless that system is outright oppressive. The common thoughts and emotions is a part of society and just as it is linked to the individuals, it is also linked to the system ruling.

The system ruling is what creates the environment, it is what molds your surroundings and therefor it will strive to protect, promote and propogate itself. This is not only done within its political borderes, but globally; expansionism is inevetible if a system is to survive.

By no means when we say we want to establish Islam do we mean that we want to grab people by the face and throw them into pools of mud and then walk all over them. Such ideas come from people who think Islamic rule is reflected by the likes to Taliban and Saudi Arabia. It is excused when such ideas come from non-Arabs, but to come from an Arab is certainly sad. As Alienkain will certainly jump up and shout, I will point out that there are certainly dark periods in the history of Islamic rule. But it is also certainly unfair to judge the whole system by those periods when the majority of the life of Islamic rule was filled with beauty.

Wassalamu alaikum (Comment this)

3 - Tamer,

One phrase from your post caught my eye. You refer to a "reformation of ideas." One common Western critique of the Islamic world is that it did not undergo a reformation as Christianity and Judaism did in the West. Hence, it has never been comfortably reconciled with modernity. How do you think this reformation can be accomplished? This is not an insignificant question since it appears that Islamic-based rule would occur more frequently if democracy were allowed throughout the Middle East. (Comment this)

4 - The reason why Europe underwent a reformation is because during the Middle Ages, Europe was ruled by the church. As Christianity is completely void of any ruling system the Pope had superiority in ruling as he pleased. Thus scientists were burned at the stake when they disagreed with "church truths", books were burnt and the period was nothing more than oppresive tyranny. Thus as a reaction, Europe underwent a reformation so as to completely remove the power of the Church and secularised society.

In Muslim country we never did go through such an experience as the West did. On the contrary, when the Church was burning books in Europe, the Muslims under Islamic rule were translating the books of Aristotle and Plato.

So the question is, why should we even consider secularism? You're experience with the church is something we never did experience and there is no need to import such an idea that is not compatible with us. (Comment this)

5 - I am going to state the obvious here Hilmi by stating that many agrue that is exactly what we (Muslim Countries) are doing now, no? (Comment this)

6 - I'm sorry Karim, I'm not sure if I understood your statement. Are you saying that we argue alot? If so then there is only so much you could do through blogs. On my part, I do work with my party almost everyday, although I do doubt that that's what you meant to say... (Comment this)

7 - Uhh, a united arab world how? Without Israel ? Uh, not happening.

Lecentre
Centrerion Canadian Politics (Comment this)

8 - I am not happy about the idea of One Arab World. Why not just One World? We all share this planet, and modern communications have brought us closer than ever.

Arab history, Brazilian hostory, Danish history are all part of our heritage. Don't build a wall around a few countries. (Comment this)

9 - One Causasian world? One African world? One Asian world? If we could just get all those people to think one way. Being caucasian,may I suggest myself as the right thinker for that particular polyglot? Oh man,could you imagine two caucasians with similar opinions on everything? We could rule the world! (Comment this)

10 - Dear Abdul Rahman Hilmi

Your theory on the Islamic world is interesting and has some good points - and yet I am inclined to disagree with it.

Please note the biographies of scientists living the Muslim world during the Golden Age of Islam - Ibn Rushd (Averroes), the famous translator and commentator of and on Aristotle and Plato, for instance. Also note what ended the aforementioned Golden Age - the rise of the ultra-fundamentalist Al-Muwahhidun (Almohads), who dragged the Islamic world from a beautiful renaissance back into barbarity. So Islam had it's share of religious oppression of the sciences... if you want more radical examples, see the Islamic rule of India.

Moreover, Islam by definition defies doubt - and doubt is the cornerstone of science. And this brings me to the point of not throwing people into pools of mud and walking all over them... please mind what the Quran has to say about Dhimmis and polytheists. If you wish, I could quote exact verses, but I am sure you know them.

And lastly... you say that importing secularism to Muslim countries is inappropriate since Muslims have no need of it and it does not suit them (forgive me if I paraphrase). I have a few problems with this statement;

One - it implies that Muslims and non-Muslims are somehow inheritantly different. Which is not true - it's same people with different beliefs, and belief is both acquired and mutable.

Two - the simple fact of it is that the Western, Judo-Christian world has advanced much more rapidly than the Muslim world in the last 700 years. Perhaps there is something to it, after all?

Three - Please examine the deeper historical and cultural roots of the people that are now Islamic. You will find such cultures as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Phoenician... all of the Cradle of Civilizations that was once known as the Fertile Crescent. And secularism and religious freedom were not at all foreign to them - see, for example, the famous "Human Rights Declaration" of Cyrius the Great (whose memory the Jews, for instance, treasure and praise).

Kind regards,

The Discordian Raccoon.

 (Comment this)

11 - Peter:
I do not have, nor do I know of any plans concerning how the reformation of ideas in the Arab World will occure. Indeed it would be unfortunate if I did. The only scenario that would be justified in my opinion, and by justified I mean real and pure, is if the individuals with the right ideas and philosophies get more exposure and influence amongst the people. Ofcourse only when the people that preach death and intolerance, word and not meaning, are realized to be the real enemey to a good life, will it come from the people to outcast their ideas into the depths of history. Unfortunatly for that to happen, one can only forsee more death and destruction, so that death and destruction can take their excessive toll on the people to a point, unbearable. Evidently, that is the future that is unfolding either way, therefore we are on due course, and with the right people presenting the right ideas at the right time, we will hopefully have our chance of turning everything on its head, like Judaism and Christianity. By then, the next time a muslim Saint Augustine comes around, the people will be more attentive.

Abdul Rahman:
Ok look, let me just say that we probably share more than our prospective ideologies permit us to. If you are a man that believes in morality in all its forms, if not bypassing the obvious is one of your charectaristics, we will speak freely, with no hidden agenda's. I am against the form of government that you champion. I am sure you are against mine as well. Yet as long as that fact is the only fact that remains, as long as it blinds us, we will witness more injustice, and that injustice will be the only thing our respective ideologies will come to represent. I can only ask of you this, to realize the beauty that is represented in the elements of diversified ideologies, in other words, nothing should be forced upon anyone. Hopefully, one day we will be able to satisfy all.

Don Cox:
Because of globalization, all that the future has in store for us is a system of blocs, large blocs I might add. Survival of the fittest, and the bigger you are the fitter. Atleast that’s what it looks like, so yea, its either all out war (in the case that a dumb leader thinks his union has become self sufficient and powerful enough to take on the rest), or much more trade and industry and prosperity (which will eventually lead to our depise because, yup you guessed it, DUMB LEADERS, who have no regards for nothing but increasing GDP in this highly competitive world. Don’t forget, caring about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, or holding any kind of regards to plants or animals, is just being a little old pussy.
As my older brother used to say "We're never gonna get together as ONE, unless the aliens attack". Unfortunatly Don, I don’t care to see that in the forseeable future, you?
 (Comment this)

12 - Dear Raccoon,
I have never denied that there were dark periods in the history of Islamic rule, I even mentioned it in my previous post. However you should remember that you are talking about a period of more than a THOUSAND years, and I'm talking literally here. Neither the empires that ruled in the region before Islam nor any regime that existed after the destruction of the caliphate in 1924 did the region ever flourish to such an extent, be it there has been black spots here and there. If you want me to list the faults of the current Western Capitalist systems I can go on for ever. Not a single period, nay, not a single year passed in the history of Europe ever since the end of the Great War where colonialism and private gains (whether direct or indirect) didn't play a role in Europe's foriegn policy. In a period of about 80 years only, the problem of Israel erupted, Afganistan invaded, Iraq invaded, selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq when they were at war, training bin Laden and his men, first gulf war and the inhuman sanctions on iraq, the oil for food scandal, the League of Nations sitting by while Italy illegally invaded Ethiopia and today the UN sitting by while US illegally invaded Iraq, debts on third world countries where each starving African born owes to the US several thousand dollars, dividing the Arab world into more than 20 states after the Great War where each state was ruled by some European colonial power even though Europe promised one state for all Arabs in return for their support during the war, Guantanomo Bay and the several other torture chambers the US holds throughout the world, Vietnam, Hiroshima, South Korea, Amritsar massacre, unfair Cuban sanctions, unfair Venezuailan sanctions. This is not to mention the uncontrolled multinational companies that if they're not working child labour in some country like the Phillipenes until their fingers bleed, they're robbing the resources off another country and sharing the loot with the tyrants and dictators that rule those countries, fooling them with a little while the companies keep the lion's share. All this is only within the last 80 years and it is off the top of my head. If I am to make an actual research for the horrors the Western systems commited in those 80 years I could get you pages and I promise.

You said: "So Islam had it's share of religious oppression of the sciences..."
Several times I meet with Communists and they told me that neither the USSR, China, Cuba, South Korea, Vietnam and apperently every other country that tried to implement Communism did not implement the "real Communism". To that I would role my eyes because it certainly does mean something significant that several countries throughout history tried to implement Communism and yet apperently failed to do so and always turned into a totalitarian regimes. So emidiatly I lay down my judgment that Communism does not work without going through the speechs of Marx and Trotsky. If every single country throughout history that tried to implement this system failed to "implement the real communism" and always ended up with dictatorships, then I believe the system is certainly flaud without bothering to go through it's books.

Like I said earlier, there has been faults in the implementation of Islam and thus problems occured here and there, but on a general scale, Islam made the whole region flourish. You should remember that Islam came from the Arabian peninsula (modern day Saudi Arabia) and expanded from there. If Islam was anything like the Western systems, you would have seen the only advancement outside of the peninsula attributed to the Islamic system are methods of transport. Taking India as an example, the only advancement that the British colonialists brought over there are bridges, trains, roads and docks. Nothing else, they didn't attempt to better the lives of the Indians nor to educate them. Why did they build and improved on transportation? To make it easier to move armies around, import British products into the new Indian market and export the resources stolen from the colonised lands. The truth is, however, that Islam was never like that, the advancement of the state brought with it the advancement of all its territories. Baghdad, Egypt, Damascus, Jerusalem, Morrocco, Spain, Turkey as well as Mecca and Medinah. Although to be fair, yes, there were unfortunate incidents like I said several times to make sure that you don't think I'm overlooking anything.

What you should also realise is that before the Islamic expansion, Arabic was only spoken by the people within the peninsula. Islam was the system within that peninsula. The people did not only adopt Islam in the countries the Muslims took over, but they also adopted her language and even after the fall of this very system they still hold on to it stronger than ever. No but even the number of Muslims calling for its return is growing. What other system in human history actually had such a success?

However, I would like to raise a very very important point. Although we might use the caliphs all the way until the last Ottoman caliph as examples to prove our point, we certainly do not aim to be like them. We are aiming to be much better than them.

Prophet (saws) said "The Prophethood will remain among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah will lift it when He wishes to, then it will be a Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly Guided) on the method of the Prophethood, it will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah will lift it if He wishes, then it will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if he wishes, then it will be a tyrannical rule, and it will remain so for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes, then it will be a Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood, then he kept silent."

According to the hadith, the prophet (pbuh) will be followed by rightly guided caliphs and after those caliphs (Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali) will come hereditary leadership (all other Caliphs) and after that will come tyrannical rule (today) and after that will come a rightly guided caliphs yet again.

You said "Moreover, Islam by definition defies doubt - and doubt is the cornerstone of science."
Islam does not defy doubt. On the contrary, I think it was a famous scholar of the old times that once said "the difference of opinion in Islam is a blessing". And this has been repeated by several other scholars.

You said:"please mind what the Quran has to say about Dhimmis and polytheists. If you wish, I could quote exact verses, but I am sure you know them."
Please do quote what you're refering to.
I hope you also give a look to the draft constitution.

you said: "One - it implies that Muslims and non-Muslims are somehow inheritantly different. Which is not true - it's same people with different beliefs, and belief is both acquired and mutable."
This is certainly not what I meant to say, what I meant to say is that EUROPE (and not the non-Muslims, if I said "non-Muslims" in my previous post then i apologise) went through a different experience than the people who lived under Islamic rule (be that Muslims or non-Muslims). According to the environment in Europe at the time, their reaction and their implementation of secularism is understandable. However, on the other side of the Mediteranian are other people who live under a different system and who never did undergo what Europe went through.

you said: "Two - the simple fact of it is that the Western, Judo-Christian world has advanced much more rapidly than the Muslim world in the last 700 years. Perhaps there is something to it, after all?"
700 years?? That's almost since the 1300? The Ottoman Empire just began in that period and kept on rising and conquering parts of Eastern Europe until the 1800s.

You said: "Three - Please examine the deeper historical and cultural roots of the people that are now Islamic. You will find such cultures as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Phoenician... all of the Cradle of Civilizations that was once known as the Fertile Crescent. And secularism and religious freedom were not at all foreign to them - see, for example, the famous "Human Rights Declaration" of Cyrius the Great (whose memory the Jews, for instance, treasure and praise)."
To a degree I suppose, you're right. Europe was secular as well during the Roman Empire, before the Church took over. But after the Church did take over and what happened happened, the people removed the church and reimplemented secularism. But that doesn't remove the fact that in our lands, the secular systems that ruled before Islam have been likewise removed and replaced by an Islamic one and the people accepted it, took it and practiced it. They weren't forced nor did they overthrow it, nor did they even turn their backs to it after the fall of the Caliphate.

I hope you see where I'm coming from in my argument. I tried to be as clear as possible.

Take care.

@Tamer;
I agree with you akhi. We are not militants and we will not implement our system on an unwilling community. Our fight will be the fight for the people's hearts and minds. Hopefully it will be a clean ideological fight.

with all respect.

Abdul Rahman Hilmi (Comment this)

13 - Dear Abdul Rahman Hilmi

I am so happy we can actually discuss it without airborne insults and death threats to yours truly - it is, sadly, a rare delight in my experience. I mean to savour it for all its worth, though :)

However, since you have asked me to delve into the depths of the Quran to bring forth examples, I can but discuss a small part of the points you have made. The rest, I will deliver tomorrow (it's 7 in the morning now here in Israel, and I really should be in bed :) ).

It is interesting that you suggest that the rule of Islam over the Middle East was, more or less consistently, the nourishment of civilization. Moreover, you imply that the morality (and here this connects directly to Karim's impassioned prose) was high in Dar el-Islam from its instigation and at least until the fall of the Caliphate. This is an interesting notion - but to the best of my knowledge of history, utterly incorrect. I can give you infinite examples, and will if you find it necessary - but from what I have read on assorted histories of the world, the Islamic world was just as dark and oppressive (or enlightened and liberating, if you're the half-full-cup kind of a person :) ) as the rest of hunamity. By the way, the fact that you include the "problem" of Israel as an example of Western Capitalist faultiness is... both amusing and sad.

So I tend to see what you describe as "unfortunate incidents" as the rule rather than the exception.

Moreover, the spread of Islam was hardly peaceful. Again, if you wish I can quote ad nauseum, but I am sure that you are well aware of this fact. The spread of the relatively primitive Arabic culture and language erased countless civilizations - civilizations that have flourished for tens of thousands of years until the coming of Islam. I hardly see this cultural genocide - mind-boggling in its scope! - as being an example of the benevolence of Islam.

This point - of conversion by the sword and cultural genocide - is also the reason why the once-mighty nations long conquered by Islam forgot their pre-Islamic identity, and also part of the reason why they cling to Islam now.

An excellent example to such behavior is, for instance, Christianity. It has been no different than Islam in its proselytization practices until all of Europe was conquered by it. Countless cultures (some ancient, but not even approaching the ineffable depth and antiquity of what was lost in the Middle East) were wiped out, to be replaced with Christianity. These were not, by the way, secular societies - they were all pagans, most extremely religious - nor was Rome. A huge part of the reason why Romans persecuted Jews with such zest was - you guessed it - the repugnant strangeness of monotheism, according to Tacitus (Historiae, book 5 IIRC). But I have strayed from the matter at hand. Pre-Christian Europe was pagan, and for many of the people occupying those territories, the various pantheons could coexist spiritually. In this, they can be said to have enjoyed some sort of religious freedom - but not secularism, and nothing official.

Ahh, but I digress and lose the track of my own thoughts. I will simply conclude briefly now and continue with Quranic quotes tomorrow:

It appears to me that a large part of your ideology is built on a somewhat lopsided view of history. I did not exactly understand what are the rules of this lopsidedness, but it appears to stem from the notion of Islam being better by definition that any other system. If I am wrong, I deeply apologize.

Oh, a few additions:

Regarding success of Communism, see Kerala (a state in India).

Why are you certain that Islam wasn't forced? I mean, I KNOW it was, from by far too many sources of repute... and yes, the people of Spain, for instance, cast Islam aside after the Moors were driven back into the Maghreb.

I have read a little bit of the proposed constitution... and I am sorry, but I pray such a state will never rise. And if it will... Hitler, Djugashvili and Mao will be remembered with longing. I'll just point out the first internal contradiction I found after browsing it for 47 seconds:

Article 26
Every mature male and female Muslim, who is sane, has the right to participate in the election of the Khaleefah and in giving him the pledge (ba’iah). Non-Muslims have no right in this regard.

And yet:
Article 6
All citizens of the State shall be treated equally regardless of religion, race, colour or any other matter. The State is forbidden to discriminate among its citizens in all matters, be it ruling or judicial, or caring of affairs.

Did you spot Waldo yet?


You see, I am afraid of monotheists in general, be they Communists, Christians, Jews or Muslims. Communism has been contained, Christianity and Judaism have lost their spirit of divinely sanctioned homicidal mania... uhm. And I am still afaid of them, because they are people driven not by rational thought or even emotion - they are people driven by belief in a "something" that surpasses any actual fact, and they believe that THEIR "something" is the ONLY "something". And Islam... well... it's kind of the same, only without the assorted Torquemadas weeded out.

Oh... backtracking now... please compare the achievements of the Islamic World in sciences and arts with the achievements of the Western World in sciences and arts, in the last 700 years. You will see what I have meant by " ...the simple fact of it is that the Western, Judo-Christian world has advanced much more rapidly than the Muslim world in the last 700 years. Perhaps there is something to it, after all?" While considering, please ignore body counts - I assure you, they are incredibly high on both sides. And yet the Western guys that discovered and learned how to mass produce penicillin (Fleming, Florey and Chain - two Christians and a Jew) have saved more lives than were lost in all the wars in the history of hunamkind :)

Oh, enough of this rant. I am obviously too tired to continue...

The Discordian Raccoon, signing out.

Peace.
 (Comment this)

14 - Dear Raccoon,
First I would like to apologise on the Israel remark I made earlier. I did not know you were Israeli, if I have I guess I would have put it in a more gentle way. I wouldn't delve into the the Arab-Israeli conflict now as it would need a whole new discussion, it would suffice to say that if it wasn't for the British meddling, there wouldn't have been this whole problem now.

"It is interesting that you suggest that the rule of Islam over the Middle East was, more or less consistently, the nourishment of civilization. Moreover, you imply that the morality (and here this connects directly to Karim's impassioned prose) was high in Dar el-Islam from its instigation and at least until the fall of the Caliphate. This is an interesting notion - but to the best of my knowledge of history, utterly incorrect. I can give you infinite examples, and will if you find it necessary - but from what I have read on assorted histories of the world, the Islamic world was just as dark and oppressive (or enlightened and liberating, if you're the half-full-cup kind of a person :) ) as the rest of hunamity."
I am proposing a system that I agree with theoretically. Practically today it does not exist thus we can only see it being practiced in history. During it's history of implementation, there were great periods of wonderful scientific achievements, arts and social gains. There were also periods of blood, oppression and fanaticism. But mind you, there was no such thing as an Islamic Empire that ruled from the death of the prophet (pbuh) until 1924. There were several dynasties throughout the region and each implemented Islamic rule according to their understanding. For example, the Ottomans were VERY tolerant of Jews. The Muwahids were fanatics. During the period of the Muwahids the Abbasides still existed in Baghdad. What I'm trying to say is, because one dynasty tried to implement it one way and another dynasty tried another way doesn't make the whole system faulty. When the system was implemented like it should (and there were periods that it was) it brought out great consequences. The fact that the Muwahids were fanatics does not make the Umayyads fanatics, does it? On what basis do you put judgement on the Islamic history? I believe Islamic history is filled with much more light than you tend to credit it for. It certainly was not an utter failure like the Papist leadership and Communism. Islamic history did have some dark periods, but these periods were clearly missimplementation because you have alot more periods where Islamic rule brought alot of achievements. Islamic rule is what I am proposing. If you have a system in mind that never in its history cause any bloodshed or persecution then please tell me and maybe I will even follow you. If you can't and you still support such a system, then I have to ask you to look at Islamic rule in the same light.

You said: "So I tend to see what you describe as "unfortunate incidents" as the rule rather than the exception."
miss-implementation of Democracy? Earlier when you were talking about the evils that occured in some periods in Islamic history you did not consider this as miss-implementation but as a rule. Theoretically, I am waiting for you to bring the Quranic verses in order to prove that those incidents in Islamic history were not missimplementations. Theoretically, you cannot argue the consequences of Capitalism. The whole basis of this system is to make profit with as little cost as possible by any means, and there hasn't been a single period in the history of democracy that the West ever did anything that opposed this rule.

You said: "Moreover, the spread of Islam was hardly peaceful. Again, if you wish I can quote ad nauseum, but I am sure that you are well aware of this fact. The spread of the relatively primitive Arabic culture and language erased countless civilizations - civilizations that have flourished for tens of thousands of years until the coming of Islam. I hardly see this cultural genocide - mind-boggling in its scope! - as being an example of the benevolence of Islam."
Politically, the spread of Islam was indeed through military conquests. However there has never been any forced conversions. You cannot thrust religion down people's throats and then watch as they defend Islam during further campaigns like they were born with it. Heroic campaigns, armies, sultans and waalys from all the territories where Islam conquered exists. Actually, very few were from the Arabian peninsula after Islam began to spread. People that defend a belief with such a zest are not people who have been forced into that religion. Neither would the religion take roots in those lands after the Caliphate was destroyed. In the Far East like Indonesia, in China, and many parts of Africa, there are no records of any Muslim armies having gone there and yet there is an Islamic presence in its natives. In the U.S., Islam is the fastest growing religion and has over 7 million followers, and no form of coercion works there.

Secondly if there has been any forced conversions then naturally all the churches and synagogues of the past would have been systematically destroyed and you would have found not a single Christian or Jew in those lands. Take Spain for example. It is a historic fact that after the Christians took back Spain from the Muslims, a series of enquisitions occured where both Jews and Muslims were indeed given the choice between Christianity and death. Like you said later on in the your reply, there are almost nil native Spanish Muslims today that are not modern day converts.

There is one more point I would like to make. Monarchies and dynasties are not Islamic. Ever since the death of the last Guided Caliph, Ali, the Caliphate turned to a dynastic twist under Muawya I. This would mean that the heir, whatever his character is, took rule of the Caliphate. Naturally there would be bad rulers and thus dark periods, and good rulers and great periods. According to our constitution, the Caliph will take his seat of power through elections and thus hopefully we'll remove this whole dynastic problem.

You said: "It appears to me that a large part of your ideology is built on a somewhat lopsided view of history. I did not exactly understand what are the rules of this lopsidedness, but it appears to stem from the notion of Islam being better by definition that any other system. If I am wrong, I deeply apologize."
If I thought there was a better system then I wouldn't be supporting Islam, would I?

You said: "Regarding success of Communism, see Kerala (a state in India)"
OK, so that's one in the 20th century that lasted for 2 years and wasn't even an independant state but part of a federation. Got anything else? ;)

You said: "Why are you certain that Islam wasn't forced? I mean, I KNOW it was, from by far too many sources of repute... and yes, the people of Spain, for instance, cast Islam aside after the Moors were driven back into the Maghreb."
Add to my reply on the issue above, this site that has a few Western references that believe Islam was not spread by the sword.

As for what you saw as a contradiction in the constitution, then I have to make it clear that a basic Islamic rule is that non-Muslims can never be caliphs because by definition, a caliph should rule by Islam. So certainly article 6 by no means meant to include the ruling, it was taken for granted.

"You see, I am afraid of monotheists in general, be they Communists, Christians, Jews or Muslims. Communism has been contained, Christianity and Judaism have lost their spirit of divinely sanctioned homicidal mania... uhm. And I am still afaid of them, because they are people driven not by rational thought or even emotion - they are people driven by belief in a "something" that surpasses any actual fact, and they believe that THEIR "something" is the ONLY "something". And Islam... well... it's kind of the same, only without the assorted Torquemadas weeded out."
After 80 years of the absence of a Caliphate, you simply cannot have any more blood, war, division, fanatics, you name it, in the region. What I want is to establish unity under a system that I see just and fair and will give every man, be it Muslim or not, his right as a human being. It is not like we are going to establish something only to go into more wars. By god man, I just want to turn on the TV one day and watch the news and not have to hear about some Muslim killed in Iraq, Palestine, Afganistan, Chechenia, Somalia, Kashmir or some other Muslim killing inocent civilians here or there. It seriously cannot get any worse, I'd say your best bet for any stability in the region is the restablishment of the Caliphate. This is the only thing that can contain extremists as it will make their purpose empty and Muslims will no longer see the need of militant extremism. The Muslims will then have a state that represents them and takes care of them. The extremists would then die down as their fire would be extinguished peace would finally be brought to the people. The sole reason why extremists exist is because the rulers in Muslim lands are treacherous dictators and tyrants and the West keeps on invading and meddling in our lands. If a Caliphate is established the extremists would find very little, if any, support for any cause they could make up as people would finally after years of torture, find a state they would love. Democracy would not solve the problem because first of all, asking a Muslim to integrate into a capitalist system is like asking a communist to do so. Islam is a system in itself and we have answers to things that disagree with capitalism. The Caliph Umar once said "There can be no Islam without unity, no unity without leadership and no leadership without obedience." Islam requires a state. Without that, as long as there are Muslims, the circle of violence will never end.

You said: "Oh... backtracking now... please compare the achievements of the Islamic World in sciences and arts with the achievements of the Western World in sciences and arts, in the last 700 years. You will see what I have meant by " ...the simple fact of it is that the Western, Judo-Christian world has advanced much more rapidly than the Muslim world in the last 700 years. Perhaps there is something to it, after all?" While considering, please ignore body counts - I assure you, they are incredibly high on both sides."
Ok, after a little research I realised you meant the begining of the Renaisance. Well I never denied that the Renaisance and the removal of Papist rule in Europe brought Europe out of the darkness. There was a huge rise in science and art in Europe, certainly. But as far as comparing that with the Ottomans, there are two points you have to consider. First, like I said in my previous post, the Ottomans went through internal decline from the 18th century onwards (coincidentially this is when they started bringing in French civil laws) and second would be that during the whole reign of the Ottomans, even in their golden years, they weren't that enthusiastic on scientific achievements but were more inclined to military spendings. So yes, I do agree that ever since the renaisance Europe advanced more than the Muslims, but there is a very justifiable reason for that that does not have to do with the Islamic system itself.

It has been a pleasure discussing with you. :) (Comment this)

15 - ِAbdul Rahman Hilmi;


You said “In the U.S., Islam is the fastest growing religion and has over 7 million followers,”

Islam in the US grows because of Islamic immigrants(mostly from India and Pakistan), not by conversion of native American citizens. 7 million in a country of 300 million is statistically nil - about 2%, which is the same percentage of Jews and Buddhists.


Raccoon,

You said “I am afraid of monotheists in general, be they Communists,”

Communism is an atheistic philosophy. It killed more people than all of the monotheists put together.
 (Comment this)

16 - Dear Strange Attractor

Communism is a "substitute" religion - that is, it is an ideology that seeks to replace religion. The substitution of "state" for "god" seems irrelevant to me, as monotheistic religions and Communism have too many similarities by far.

 (Comment this)

17 - "In a period of about 80 years only, the problem of Israel erupted,"

The problem of Israel erupted earlier. It is the many Arab countries' way of dealing with minorities that made a Jewish state necessary in my opinion. The problem of Israel erupted when Arabs made Jews second-class citizens, when Palestinian Arab mobs attacked Jewish Palestinians, and when Arab nationalists and the mufti of Jerusalem cooperated with the Nazis.

The creation of Israel solved many of these problems.


"Afganistan invaded,"

I believe that was due to Afghanistan attacking NATO?


"Iraq invaded,"

Yes. Saddam really shouldn't have invaded Kuwait and shoot at US and British aircraft for 13 years now, should he? Saddam is another home-born problem of the Arab world.


"selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq when they were at war,"

Who did that? I know that Russia and France sold weapons to Iraq. There was a scandal in the US when the US sold weapons to Iran. But I don't know who sold weapons to both parties.

You have to give the US and Britain credit for not selling weapons to Saddam.


"training bin Laden and his men,"

Do you count ALL urban legends as evidence against America? Isn't it likely that you are plain wrong if all your evidence consists of urban legends?


"first gulf war"

I believe that was Iraq attacking Iran.


"and the inhuman sanctions on iraq,"

The sanctions did allow for humanitarian aid. If Saddam didn't forward that to his people, you must blame Saddam. I suggest you start blaming him immediately. You seem to have lost some time.


"the oil for food scandal,"

Good point. Compare the perpetrators to those who sold weapons to Saddam. You might find out something interesting.


"the League of Nations sitting by while Italy illegally invaded Ethiopia"

Yes, and Ethiopia didn't attach its neighbours, did not shoot at Italian planes, and was always cooperative. But the US were not in the League of Nations. They did attack and beat the fascists at the end though.


"and today the UN sitting by while US illegally invaded Iraq,"

What exactly makes that invasion illegal? Didn't Iraq sign a cease-fire and violate it? What does "cease-fire" mean? What does it mean if one fires at enemy aircraft during a cease-fire? What happens if a cease-fire ends due to somebody breaking it? Does one not return to war?



"debts on third world countries where each starving African born owes to the US several thousand dollars,"

I believe that is mostly Europe they owe money to. But I agree that more should be done for Africa. Perhaps their dictators should not be allowed to buy weapons?


"dividing the Arab world into more than 20 states after the Great War where each state was ruled by some European colonial power even though Europe promised one state for all Arabs in return for their support during the war,"

I believe you can blame the Saudis for breaking that apart. The Hashemites were prepared to unite Iraq and Jordan. I assume they would have made the Mecca/Medina area part of the union if they had had the chance. Syria and Egypt were of course taken over by Arab nationalists (and then Iraq too), making a peaceful union even more impossible.



"Guantanomo Bay and the several other torture chambers the US holds throughout the world,"

From what I have heard I'd rather be a prisoner in a "US torture chamber" than in a typical Arabian prison!

There is no evidence of torture in Guantanamo Bay. The UN inspectors refused to go there for some reason. But you seem to know more. Home-made facts again?


"Vietnam,"

I believe you will find that the entire region was a lot worse after communism drove the US out.

Can't blame the US for losing now, can you?


"Hiroshima,"

I believe Japan started that war and was told to stop OR ELSE. They could have stopped. I believe their emperor tried.


"South Korea,"

...is doing very well, thank you. I think you mean North Korea which is the part that the US could not occupy.


"Amritsar massacre,"

I didn't think massacres of less than 500 people even counted when the context is the Arab world.


"unfair Cuban sanctions,"

The wisdom of the Cuban sanctions is one thing, but the fact is that Cuba is, by its own choice, an enemy of the US.


"unfair Venezualan sanctions."

I guess countries should simply stop pissing off America and then demand that America keep treating them like a friend. (Comment this)

18 - Abdul Rahman Hilmi,

if you truly want a united Arab world, I suggest you do four things:

1. Accept Israel and the fact that Jews do NOT want to live under Arab/Islamic rule. Treat Israel and Jerusalem with the same respect you expect Jews to treat your united Arab world and Mecca.

2. Stop blaming the west for everything. Heck, to get used to it, stop blaming the west for ANYthing. Even if you are right, it won't help.

3. Use the opportunities when they come around. You complained about Arab dictators preventing Arab unity. Well, one of them is gone in Iraq. Convince the Iraqis to vote for Arab unity. They can do that now.

4. Be loyal to the Hashemites. They were the traditional rulers of the holy cities and they are among the most respected leaders you have. Stand behind the King and the King can unite your people. It's not just a cliche, it's the way it was usually done before nationalism showed.

Good luck! (Comment this)

19 - ِAbdul Rahman Hilmi;

You said :“If you want me to list the faults of the current Western Capitalist systems I can go on for ever.”

If those systems were so faulty, there would not be such a mass migration from your countries to theirs. I don’t see too many Westerners lined up in front of middle-eastern embassies asking for residency cards.
 (Comment this)

20 - Dear Abdul Rahman Hilmi

Here come the quotes from the Koran (M.H. Shakir's translation, published 1983 by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc.);

Regarding People of the Book and Polytheists in Islam:

[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.

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

Corellate 5:64 to 5:33 -

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement

And now to Dhimmitude and conversion by the sword:

[9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[9.55] Let not then their property and their children excite your admiration; Allah only wishes to chastise them with these in this world's life and (that) their souls may depart while they are unbelievers.

[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

[9.113] It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire.

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

I think this should do for now. For further non-Koranic reference, see the Pact of Umar (partial and non-authorative reference at http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm).

As you know, there are other Suras regarding this that are just as horrid, but I can't be bothered finding them right now (there was that lovely one about blood money, for instance).

Please mind that I am not even getting into ahadiths relating to dhimmis and such - but these tend to be so repugnant in their holy hatered and debasement of people that I shudder even to think of them. If you REALLY want, I can quote them too.

Ditto regarding non-Koranic sources of conversion by the sword - but I think Sura 9:29 speaks for itself.

Given all of the above, how can a truly Islamic state be anything but utter and complete disaster for all non-Muslims?

I will address your other points in a short white - all that digging in the Koran made me hungry :)

Kind regards,

The Discordian Raccoon.




 (Comment this)

21 - @Andrew Brehm: May I ask for some historical references, when I read you it seems to me that I must have a severe auditive and visual trouble as you claim exactly the opposite of what I used to consider universally accepted facts:

"I believe that was due to Afghanistan attacking NATO?"

NATO as in NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation? How the hell did the PEOPLE of Afghanistan reach NATO? by using catapults?

"You have to give the US and Britain credit for not selling weapons to Saddam."

Very funny indeed, improvising some British humour maybe? They DID sell, and for the iraqui part, it's all written black over white in Jane's. Saddam was a U.S. ALLY in 1982.

"What exactly makes that invasion illegal? Didn't Iraq sign a cease-fire and violate it? What does "cease-fire" mean? What does it mean if one fires at enemy aircraft during a cease-fire? What happens if a cease-fire ends due to somebody breaking it? Does one not return to war?"

Planes that were attacked were attacked far beyond the cease-fire zone over Iraqi territory, were warned that they were not respecting the cease fire, and in some cases fired first, so there's no question about who did not respect the cease fire . Besides some Air Force officers stated in interviews that they had the feeling all this was meant to provoke Iraqi reactions. But they surely were antipatriotic self-hating or coward officers. But let me just ask you this, is there any doubt in your mind that invading Iraq was a political decision taken by the US government independently of the military situation?

"Perhaps their dictators should not be allowed to buy weapons?"

Maybe a good way of achieving that is not selling them weapons, but nevermind I am just guessing here...

"There is no evidence of torture in Guantanamo Bay."

No evidence, just testimonies. But sure the official position is that they're just being intensively interviewed, which is exactly what was stated for Abu Ghrib a few months ago...

But excuse me, I'll stop here, I can read from the rest of your very nice statement that you're probably too omiscient to question your beliefs, by confronting them to facts for example... (Comment this)

22 - Andrew Fan;

You said “Very funny indeed, improvising some British humour maybe? They DID sell, and for the iraqui part, it's all written black over white in Jane's. Saddam was a U.S. ALLY in 1982.”

No. The US and the UK did not sell Saddam a single weapon system. However, the US did provide Saddam with intelligence. Most of Saddam’s weapons came from the Soviets and the French. Several Gulf countries gave him loans.

Here’s a link that explains what was sold to him and by whom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The fact is that the US contributed less than one percent to Iraq’s military machine and virtually all of that was dual-use materials – for example, civilian helicopters converted to military use and cultures diverted to biological weapons research
 (Comment this)

23 - Dear Abdul Rahman Hilmi

Now I can address your other points. The main line I see there can be summed up as follows:

"All the systems of government ever tried have failed - with the notable exception of Islam. It has also failed, but that is only due to incorrect implementation."
I do wonder how can you believe that, given the suras I have quotes above. This is especially strange in the light of what you have said about the failure of Communism. Or perhaps we have very different notions of failure or success (a dreaded thought).

Now, as for a system that consistently did not fail... democracy. Statistic show that liberal democracies have the highest rates of progress, happiness, health, etc. Also, see Jainism for an example of a continously highly succesful system.

"Democracy is the worst system of government - except for all the others ever tried"... now who said this?

I must admit that I can only suggest to you to study democracy and liberalism in depth, if only to fully understand that which you oppose. I do it with Islam :)

Kind regards and peace out,

The Discordian Raccoon.

 (Comment this)

24 - I like a lot of what the article says.
My wife and I often talk of a United Turkistan (our homeland) and of a United States of the Midle east or a midle eastern Union.
We also speak of the need for enlightenment.

Russia, later with the assistance of China divided and conquered Turkistan. Now Over half of Turkistan is independent, but still hopelessly divided and suddenly fughting over their rights to a common history that they share with the Turks of Turkey as well(though the Turks of Turkey don't fight over it, but are happy to share with all).

However, I did not like the fact that you say Ahmadinajad "claims democracy and liberalism have failed"
He actually said:
"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed"

The comments are completely and 100% different. I beleive the comment as you quoted him is false, but the comment as he actually said is quite true in almost every case where it is attempted all over the world. Even in America, many American's see our representation inadequate, they critisize the legitamacy of our ellections, they doubt the functionality of the legal system, and are continually discouraged by the excess political power big business holds compared to the public.

You have heard these same thoughts over and over again in your time in America. Are they fairly accurate? Yes they are solid complaints. The answer given is well it's the best we can do. The question should be is it even true enough to be called a functional democracy with these failings?

Even if not fully right Ahmadinajad is partly right in stating the failure of Western style democracy. However, we are not ready to concede its failure yet because we see no better alternative.

The Middle East can not make it work better than America.

I can write more, but let me know if you are interested first. (Comment this)

25 - Sorry about the qoute mistake, and please if you have an opinion, i am always interested to hear it.

 (Comment this)

26 - "May I ask for some historical references, when I read you it seems to me that I must have a severe auditive and visual trouble as you claim exactly the opposite of what I used to consider universally accepted facts:"

That can happen. Many people consider all sorts of things as accepted fact.

I believe the Iraq arms deal matter was already made clear by a previous poster. It is in fact true that the US and Britain did NOT sell weapons to Iraq.


"NATO as in NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation? How the hell did the PEOPLE of Afghanistan reach NATO? by using catapults?"

You might not be aware of the fact that NATO have acknowledge the attacks of 911 as an attack on NATO, which is why all NATO forces were activated, including Germany's and France's. Of course, only American and British (and Canadian) troops made a difference. I believe France was late for the war.

They used passenger planes.

You surely must have noticed? (I would not normally be as sarcastic, but since you indicated that you believed that my views are based on "trouble", I thought it would be appropriate.)


"But excuse me, I'll stop here, I can read from the rest of your very nice statement that you're probably too omiscient to question your beliefs, by confronting them to facts for example..."

The defence of the ignorant. Just because I know more than you, I do not claim to be omniscient. I merely know more than you.

But let's look at the facts again:

1. Afghanistan did, in fact, attack NATO when Al-Qaeda and the Taliban attacked the US. I assume you didn't realise that.

2. The US and Britain did not, in fact, sell arms to Iraq. I assume you read somewhere that they did and accepted that as fact without checking?

3. Saddam did shoot at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. In my book that constitutes a break of the cease-fire. (His refusal to allow UN inspectors into certain areas also constitutes a break of the agreement, btw.)

4. The UN refused to go to Guantanamo and check on what the status was. To conclude that there must have been torture there based on testimonies while the US did offer that inspectors could check, is plain anti-Americanism. You believe that there was torture because you want to believe it. (Comment this)

27 - "May I ask for some historical references, when I read you it seems to me that I must have a severe auditive and visual trouble as you claim exactly the opposite of what I used to consider universally accepted facts:"

Sorry, I misread that as "you must have severe...". Ignore the related statement in my post and accept my apology for the sarcasm, if you will. (Comment this)

28 - "I can read from the rest of your very nice statement that you're probably too omiscient to question your beliefs, by confronting them to facts for example..."

THAT statement, however, was offensive. What made you think that I didn't base my statements on facts?

The fact that you disagree with me hardly makes my statements wrong.

How did you think I knew about US arms deals with Iraq? I found the SIPRI data quoted in the Wikipedia article mentioned above. (But where is your information from?)

How did you think I knew about NATO and Afghanistan? It was announced on German television that we were at war with the Taliban. (I lived in Germany at the time.)

As for Guantanamo, I suggest you check the facts next time before you accept something as read. Until the agencies that make claims about the camp actually GO THERE, you can hardly accept their word as fact. Also, what should the US have done with enemy fighters of a force that did not accept the Geneva Conventions? Kill them all? Let them go? (Would you want to take responsibility for what they do when left alone?) Put them in normal prisons? (Again, would you want to take responsibility for what they would do to other prisoners?)

It's easy to scream torture. It's more difficult to actually read the entire article and find that the agency who screamed did not even take a look before they made their decision. And it's most difficult to actually come up with an alternative course of action. It's a lot more difficult than criticising the US, I am sure. (Comment this)

29 - "Now I havw already discussed this with you before and yet you keep on bringing it up. So now once and for all, if you can't bring me an authentic neutral source that says that Jews were prosecuted under the Ottomans, then you aught to apologise and admit your mistake"

I didn't say anything about the Ottomans. I would in fact defend their treatment of minorities as acceptable.

I was talking about Arabs, specifically Arab nationalists.


"Now if you're complaining about the way the Arabs treated Jews after the establishment of Israel"

Before and after. Jews and other minorities.


"If before Israel Arabs treated Jews well and after Israel Arabs misstreated Jews, then any sane man will realise the cause of the problem, the existance of Israel."

IF... the existence of Israel should be a problem for Arabs in the same way that the existence of Arab countries is for Jews: get used to the fact that other people want to live in their own countries.


"Now if you have a good reason to create Israel on Arab soil that has treated you well prior to it, then tell me."

I never said that Israel was created on "Arab soil". I also never said that Arabs treated Jews well before Israel was created. So what exactly do you want me to tell you?

"If not, then we are honestly justified for everything we did."

Including the war crimes (i.e. attacking civilians)?

If you think you were justified in killing Jewish civilians just because you believe they lived on Arab land, then I suppose Jewish extremists would be just as justified in killing Arab civilians who Jews believe live on Jewish land.

We'll have excellent excuses, both of us. But how will it bring peace?

IF Palestine was "Arab soil" before the creation of Israel (and I do not agree that it was), then surely it must now be Jewish soil by the same right of conquest that once made it Arab soil.

Palestine (so named by the Romans) was Jewish, then Greek, then Roman, then Roman-Greek, then Arab, occasionally English/French/whatever, then Turkish, then a mandate, then Jewish again.

The fact that Jewish immigration was often forbidden doesn't make the land "Arab soil". But the fact that the Turks lost it to the British does change the owner.

If you read the Qur'an, I don't know how strong your faith is, mine is very strong, you will see that the land in question was given to the Jews by G-d and that the Jews will return from all lands.

I don't believe that that is an argument in the political sense (as other people might not have the beliefs you and I have), but it would show, I suppose, that Muhammed was convinced that the land was Jewish land and not Greek or Roman at the time.

So how do you know it was "Arab soil" 60 years ago? And where do you think should the Jews live?


"Oh and by the way, Japan did surrender but the US wanted to Nuke it anyway as part of the pissing contest it had with the USSR."

Japan surrendered AFTER the nukes. The pissing contest was between Japan and the US. Japan could have surrendered earlier, whenever they wanted really. I hear the emperor wanted to surrender earlier all right.



(As for US arms to Iraq, a list of claims is not an argument. If you have reason to believe that Reagan sold arms to Iraq, report it to SIPRI. Until then, I tend to believe SIPRI.) (Comment this)

30 - Dear Abdul Rahman Hilmi

Thank you for the answer. I have been waiting for a while now for a Muslim to coherently answer the aforementioned Suras.

Let me start from the end of your post and work my way up (Warning - this is going to be protracted:) ).

Jainism:
http://www.jainism.org
or;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism for an easier read
or;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jainism.htm for a brief overview of the religion/philosophy.

Regarding democracy - I have not ignored your list of the ills of democracy. Hunams are frail and corrupt little beasts (unlike Raccoons ;) ), and make a mess wherever they are. And yet, despite all of the failings of hunams in democracies, it is still the most successful system in terms of human prosperity and happiness;

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/02/happiness-this-utilitarian-argument.html

also http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/economics/discpapr/DP0102-57.pdf for a heavier read, but more authorative.

Again, I am not ignoring the ills of Democratic societies - I am merely pointing out that they succeed much better than all others.

Capitalism is not expansionist, unlike Islam or Communism. It is a socioeconomic theory which can be described also as a socioeconomic ideology. Since its main tenets are free markets and a socioeconomic order based on private ownership of property - it is not a social or political system - it has no need to expand.

The Cold War was about Communism versus Democracy, not Communism versus Capitalism. It was a clash of sociopolitical ideologies and systems - one domineering and tyrranical, the other free and liberal. And yes, Communism has been a failure as a global system from the word go (although I stick by Kerala - which has been succesfully communist since 1957). It does seem to work for small communities, though - google Kibbutz for examples. (I am not an adherent of communism, BTW, only of truth ;) ).

Now, regarding Capitalism - and keeping in mind what Capitalism actually IS - let us re-examine the history of capitalism. The Muslim land law, for example, can be seen as vaguely Capitalistic. Traders are almost by definition Capitalistic. I am sure you can project this thought on Islam in general and Muhammad in particular.

Now... when you speak of the dark times in Dar el-Islam being due to split-off groups and such... I presume you mean split off from the Caliphate? Also, you say that these were only insignificant spots on the glowing white sheet that is the history of Dal el-Islam... that's just plain incorrect. I will give examples below when I regard the question of Dhimmis throughout the ages. For now, I would ask you to address another question: just which advances, exactly, is the Muslim world responsible for since the rise of Al-Muwahiddun to prominence?
As a contrast, I will give some advances of the Western world since the same times:

The invention of scientific thought.
Printing Press.
Exploration of the globe.
The works of William Shakespeare, Michelangello, Leonardo DaVinchi, Raffaello Santi, etc.
Emancipation.
Penicillin.
Railroads.
Electricity.
Flight.
Space Flight.
Psychology.
Biology.

Also, see above achievements - many of which had developed under the yoke of the Holy See. BTW, some claim that the springboard of the Western civilization was the Plague - it wiped out half the population... and most of the famine in Europe along with it.

I could go on and on and on...(I should probably mention PCs and Internet, since these are highly relevant to this discussion :) )

As for the Pact of Umar... the Christians offered these terms to the Muslims. Do you honestly believe that the Christians made these humiliating terms up? Do you seriously believe that the Christians, of their own free will, chose to impose such cruel and demeaning restrictions on themselves? REALLY?

Also note that the Pact of Umar was later used as the basis for Muslim legislation regarding Dhimmis, and was widely accepted in Dal el-Islam. Moreover, I have no idea why you think that Dhimmis were treated with any respect or equality in Dar el-Islam. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

If you do not count wikipedia as a reliable source, there is a plethora of references at the bottom of the page. They make for an interesting reading.

Moreover, I know of the treatment of Dhimmis in Dar el-Islam from first-hand accounts of Sepharadic (Eastern) Jews. Many of my friends' grandparents come from Muslim countries (Yemen, Persia, Morocco, etc), and I have heard from them how they were treated as Jews - even worse than the rest of the population.

Additionaly, part of my family have been living in what was Palestina for a long time. I have read the accounts of Jewish life in this area out of interest - and under both the Turks and Arabs they were oppressed, slaughtered and degraded.

See http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/presence.html for a non-authorative reference. Check the references at the bottom for the page for authorative researches into the matter.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/juice/2000/jerusalem/j3k-9.html is another non-authorative source

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html
is yet another non-authorative source, but also have references to authorative researches.

Regarding Jizyah - the Ashkenazi Jews in Jerusalem were ruined by it during the days of the Ottomans. I cannot currently find the source, but I happen to have studied this subject and these Dhimmis were driven into extreme and constant debt and poverty by Jizyah. In some times and places the Jizyah was as high as 50% of all the income.

For references regarding Jizyah see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizyah
Again, a non-authorative source, but cites many authorative sources.

You failed to corellate Sura 5:64 to 5:33. 5:64 basically states that Jews are evil by design of Allah, and that they strive to "make mischief in the land". And 5:33 calls Muslims to massacre "those that make mischief in the land"
in a variety of interesting ways.

Now, let us get to the cherry on the cake - Sura 9:29.
I must admit that I am disappointed with your explanation for it. You simply excuse it by saying that it is right and natural for humans adhering to a specific ideology to slaughter and subjugate all others. This is just.. wrong, akhi. If this is the world you're living in... it's sad. You should learn more history, see that competing ideologies CAN peacefully coexist. See Buddhism and Hinduism. See Shinto and Christianity. Not every ideology needs to expand itself violently and exponentially - some are just better than others, and people WANT to embrace those without having their heads cuts off. Democracy doesn't do that, akhi - you're misreading the facts, presumably because your view of world events is colored by your grim perception of it.

And regarding Jizyah... people born into a democratic state enjoy ALL the benefits of that state. If they wish to emigrate, they have a probation period, during which they are expected to adjust to the system. How is that similar in any way to Jizyah? Apples and Nightshade (rather than oranges).

Now allow me to conclude the attitude and practices that Islam demands towards non-Muslims:

They are to be seen as unclean and foul. They are not to be admired, EVER, no matter what they do. A Muslim should not ask for their forgiveness, no matter who they are and no matter what they did. They cannot marry a Muslim woman. Jews are evil and scheming. A Muslim cannot befriend a non-Muslim. Non-Muslims MUST be subjugated. And this is not even a complete list! This is just a small part of what the Koran has to say about non-Muslims - and I am not even speaking of Hadiths!

If there was a system that viewed YOU in such a light, how would you feel about it? If there was a system that ORDERED its adherents to treat you like scum, how would you like that system to be forced upon you at the point of a blade? I know I wouldn't - and by Eris, I don't! I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees - and these are exactly the two options that Islam gives me.

And lastly... give USA a break, would you? They are not "expansionist", they have not annexed any territory since the war with Mexico. USA is the biggest aid donor in the world by a very wide margin - most of it coming from private citizens. It is struggling to maintain a hegemony, yes - but the reason for this is realpolitik, as USA feels - rightly - threatened (see your notes regarding Sura 9:29, see Chinese 1000 Years Plan, see Russian Nationalism, see World War I and II, etc). If USA really wanted, they could have more or less wiped out the rest of the world, or just conquered it - the fact that they don't do so speaks volumes. Read up on liberalism, on democracy, on USA foreign policy throughout the ages - and try to be objective.

I just hope that you'll understand that hunams are hunams, and there is no "final solution" to hunam stupidity and corruption in forcing a system that tries to govern every aspect of their lives on them. It has been tried, akhi. The mountains of skulls speak for themselves.

Peace out.

The Discordian Raccoon.


PS

Whatever system you'll try to force on people will benefit Eris, in her mischievous wisdom.

 (Comment this)

31 - ِAbdul Rahman Hilmi;

Regarding 7 million muslims, half of them native born.

Your statement fails to mention how many are born to immigrant Islamic parents, which no doubt accounts for most of that “native-born half”. Conversions to Islam in the US are actually very rare. Even conversions between Christianity and Judaism are uncommon. The vast majority of religious conversions in America involve Christians switching denominations. Baptists becoming Catholics, Methodists becoming Mormons, etc …

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

Regarding your link on Iraq’s weapons:

Hughes are utility helicopters, like pickup trucks. Saddam turned them into war vehicles. If the US had sold him a fleet of Winnebagos and he put machine guns on them, would you then say the US sold him weapons? Of course not.

The rest of the article in your link re-iterates my point about dual use products. The US did not sell him a single weapon system.

Again less than 1% of the total war machine. It is specious to imply the US armed Saddam up to the sky.

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

You said : “In Capitalism, there simply has to be an enemy, there has to be someone to fight because war is one of the biggest ways to make profit.”

War is extremely costly for all systems, even capitalistic ones. It is costly in money and lives, resources which could be better used for needs at home. The US went into debt winning the cold war and Americans are still feeling the financial repercussions from that era. The US sure isn’t making a profit on Iraq or Afghanistan. Its debt has increased because of these wars.

We in the West make a bigger profit selling products to other countries than we do warring with them.

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

You said “there is simply no other seriously competing ideology in the world, and yet, the US and Europe can't simply stop attacking other countries”

The US and Europe would have destroyed their economies by now if they couldn’t stop attacking other countries.
---------------------------

You said “however Islam actually excels over the democratic countries in that it give non-Muslims even more rights than the west give to the visa holder,”

Compare apples to apples, my friend. Don’t play with rhetoric. Islam is not a country. How do countries that have majority Islamic populations treat non-citizen visa holders?

Cheers

The Discordian Raccoon.

Eris? The Greek Goddess of Discord? The one that started the Trojan War with that silly apple? You'd better be careful of the company you keep :-)

I would like to mention that the Incas also maintained a fairly successful form of communism.


 (Comment this)

32 - SA:

Yes! That Eris! Kallisti! She is my mistress and the one I love next only to the Mongoose, my wife! Wheeee! *does a little raccoonish dance while waiving tail in the air*

BTW, she didn't really mean to start the war, you know... she just wanted to piss off them snobby goddesses for not inviting her to the party :)

Do you have a source for Incan communism? Sounds interesting... and 2012 draws nigh, so Incas are in the limelight :)

Peace out.

The Discordian Raccoon

 (Comment this)

33 - I see one very logical, open minded, and realistic professor giving solid ideas, and fairly solid accounts of history. If there are ways to use irrelevent details to discard his relavent accounts of history, you are trying to do so.

However, the things that you state uplifting the success and relative faultlessness are not even agreed upon by the majority of America's baby boomer generation. Yes, most westerners would accept your reading of middle eastern/north-African/spanish/central Asian/Indian history, but only because that is all their system taught them.

The system of European derived education on history is 100% ego-centric with a 'china is our hero of antiquity' thrown in for good measure.

You are more of the same propaganda and spun history I was fed from birth. The problem is it does not give the Islamic world their fair place.

Further more, you are obviously unconvincable of anything relevant, because you refuse to do anything but argue. If he makes 10 solid points and one week point, you throw 10 irrelevent, but non-supporting specifics toward his generalization which do nothing to address the general historical fact, jump on the week point, make a few snide comments full of hatred and disdain and then claim your great superior knowldge.

You are working for hatred, war, and capitalistic westeren domination and it is really quite discusting!

Go ahead rip me up and enjoy your meaningless blog.

The professor makes sense. (Comment this)

34 - @Andrew:
You said:---------------------------
"I didn't say anything about the Ottomans. I would in fact defend their treatment of minorities as acceptable.

I was talking about Arabs, specifically Arab nationalists."
-----------------------------
But Arabs didn't have any control back then. Before Israel, it was the Ottomans ruling. Arab nationalism only erupted on a high level (due to the trickery of spys like Lawrence "of Arabia" may I add) during the Great War, and at the stage, they were fighting for Arabism and not Islam, and they were fighting the Ottomans and not the Jews. The British then stabbed us in the back and divided our lands into more than 20 states, each state ruled by some European mandate that they gave Palestine to the Jews. By then, what exactly do you expect of the Arabs? Heck, i don't even blame them for siding with the Nazis during the second world war. What other choice did they have? Side with the British again?? The Nazis promised to give Palestine back, so I say, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is justified. Personally, if I was in a position of leadership at that time, I wouldn't side with neither the British nor the Nazis, as I honestly doubt the Nazis will hold their end of the bargain if they've won. But still, you can't blame the Arabs after all what they've went through. And you certainly can't blame Islam.

You said:---------------------------
Before and after. Jews and other minorities.
---------------------------------------
I replied above to the 'before' and I actually replied to the 'after' part as well, but I'd like to add one other point. In deal we had with the Allies, the Allies broke their end of the bargain after we completed ours. When the state of Israel was established, it's an all out war. Why don't you try establishing a state in the US and see what happens. You took a land that you had no right taking, expelled her people and made it a state for the minority that was taken care of by the very people you took the land from.

You said:-----------------------------
IF... the existence of Israel should be a problem for Arabs in the same way that the existence of Arab countries is for Jews: get used to the fact that other people want to live in their own countries.
----------------------------------------------
Fine with me. I believe most of the Israelis came from Russia, Poland, Belgium, US, and possibly France.

The Palestinians? They are still in refugee camps stuck between two borders. Refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (I'm not very sure if there are any in Egypt). These are the rightful owners of those lands.

You said:------------------------------------

Including the war crimes (i.e. attacking civilians)?

If you think you were justified in killing Jewish civilians just because you believe they lived on Arab land, then I suppose Jewish extremists would be just as justified in killing Arab civilians who Jews believe live on Jewish land.
----------------------------------------------

I never supported any attacks on civilians, but I also cannot go to a man whose house has been bulldozed down and whose daughter has been shot going to school and start talking to him about morality. If he goes to attack civilians, then I wont support him, but I also will not attack him. I realise his pain and I realise his thirst for revenge and until I actually feel what he's feeling, I am in no position to start lecturing him. I would also add to that that Palestinians don't have the education system that Israelis have, they don't have the sanitations Israelis have, their life revolves around getting past Israeli checkpoints every day while trying to get some food on the plates in theirs homes - while they still have homes before some Israeli bulldozer comes along. So you honestly can't expect them to philosophise about the whole issue and start thinking about political correctness and the rest. For my side of the world, on my coach, typing on my laptop, coming back from university, I can tell you what I believe should be done. Most Israelis are in my position of comfort. But you can't expect a Palestinian to have the same ideas. Not because they are any mentally weaker, but because they are living in a completely different environment.

You said:------------------------------------
IF Palestine was "Arab soil" before the creation of Israel (and I do not agree that it was), then surely it must now be Jewish soil by the same right of conquest that once made it Arab soil.
--------------------------------------------
Not really. You only conquer a land when you subjugate her people. The Palestinians have been resisting the Zionist occupation since the establishment of Israel, so technically, Palestine is still not Jewish land. It might be occupied by Jews, but the only thing that's keeping you in your position is the constant wave of US aid you're recieving. Once that is cut, Israel will be ripped apart. Or maybe not so fast actually, because you still have the main line of defence of Israel (as Ben Gurion likes to put it) the Arab rulers.

You said:---------------------------------
Palestine (so named by the Romans) was Jewish, then Greek, then Roman, then Roman-Greek, then Arab, occasionally English/French/whatever, then Turkish, then a mandate, then Jewish again.
-------------------------------------------------
Palestine was inhabitted by Canaanites who weren't Jews. They were invaded by the 12 Hebrew tribes who conquered the land and established the Kingdom of Israel. This Kingdom was later divided into two, Judah and the Kingdom of Israel both of which were soon afterwards destroyed by the Babylonians and Assyrians respectively (around 500 BC). By then, the Jews were exiled and Jerusalem destroyed. The Persians later conquered the land and permitted the Jews to return. Persian rule was then replaced by Greek rule and Greek rule was later replaced by Roman rule. It was not until around 600 AD that the Muslims took over the land from the Romans.

So in other words, the Jews lost the land in around 500 BC. 500 BC! And you're using that as an excuse why you should take it back today! Let me put it in a more obvious way to show you how silly that sounds. That means the reason why you claim Palestine is because more than 2500 years ago you once ruled it. Do you honestly know what will happen to the world if every nation wants to take what it had more than 2500 years ago?

You said: ----------------------------
The fact that Jewish immigration was often forbidden doesn't make the land "Arab soil". But the fact that the Turks lost it to the British does change the owner.
---------------------------------------
The land is owned by the ruling group where everyone under her rule is obedient and publically accepting of the rulers. Jews can't own Palestine while they're in Europe.

The fact that the Turks lost the land to the British does not change anything except whose army is walking the streets. The Arabs not a single moment stopped fighting for that land.

You said:------------------------------------
If you read the Qur'an, I don't know how strong your faith is, mine is very strong, you will see that the land in question was given to the Jews by G-d and that the Jews will return from all lands.
-----------------------------------------
Exactly where in the Quran does it say that?

You said:--------------------------------------
So how do you know it was "Arab soil" 60 years ago? And where do you think should the Jews live?
--------------------------------------------------
I don't have a problem with Jews staying on that land. I have a problem with Zionists staying on that land. And I honestly couldn't care less where the Zionists end up, as far as I'm concerned, I care as much for Zionists as Jews care for Nazis.

You said:-----------------------------------------
Japan surrendered AFTER the nukes. The pissing contest was between Japan and the US. Japan could have surrendered earlier, whenever they wanted really. I hear the emperor wanted to surrender earlier all right.
--------------------------------------------------------
Look up 'Walter Trohan' on the internet. He's a reporter that managed to get leaked reports stating cleary that the Japanese are offereing a complete surrender more than 5 months before the bombing of Hiroshima. Under wartime sensorship, he was forced to remain silent about the documents until the end of the war where he then revealed them in the newspaper.
In this link click 'control+f' and type 'Trohan' then read that paragraph. Or you could just read the whole thing.
also here

@Raccoon:
You said:------------------------------------
And yet, despite all of the failings of hunams in democracies, it is still the most successful system in terms of human prosperity and happiness;

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/02/happiness-this-utilitarian-argument.html
-------------------------------------------
OK, no offence Raccoon, but this article is probably the silliest article I have ever read in my life! I mean, just look at this graph!!
are you serious? Sum of freedom house ratings vs the mean of percent happy???? How exactly do you measure freedom house rating? No, forget that, how the hell do you measure happiness????????

This article is measuring happiness by two things, how free you are (therefor he already took for granted that the more free the more happy you are) and the GNP of the country, which absolute nonsense. And on what basis for the love of god? I mean...how...?? The graph...the happiness on the x-axis...the freedom/happiness rule.....it's too much!!!
XD

you said:---------------------------------------------
...
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/economics/discpapr/DP0102-57.pdf for a heavier read, but more authorative
----------------------------------------------------------
These articles are talking about economic growth. You didn't need to bring me these as I never denied that capitalism brings economic growth. At least until they suck Africa dry, then the Capitalist countries will start ripping each other apart.

you said:-------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I am not ignoring the ills of Democratic societies - I am merely pointing out that they succeed much better than all others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Facism in Germany brought Germany out of incrediblly horrible economic and political state. Germany was litterally crummbelling before Hitler took over. Does that mean Facism is good? It's a form of capitalism, it's an exterem form of capitalism. Trotsky once said facism is the reaction of capitalism. He can't be more right in this case.

The ills of capitalism that I pointed out are not minor that we ignore against the greater glory of capitalism like you're doing. the ills of capitalism are the basis on which capitalism exists, they are what it's all about. Colonialism, imperialism, corporations and monopolies, debts and economic control of other sovrign nations. This is precisly what Capitalism is. Capitalism is NOT free elections. This is included in capitalism, this is also included in communism (at least in their books). elections, freedom of speech, and the rest of the red/white/and blue are things included and disposable in a capitalists system. Economic monstrosity, is basics.

you said:---------------------------------------------------
Capitalism is not expansionist, unlike Islam or Communism. It is a socioeconomic theory which can be described also as a socioeconomic ideology. Since its main tenets are free markets and a socioeconomic order based on private ownership of property - it is not a social