Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Leave Your Bibles at Home - or Else...
Lindo
Thanks again for your comment! I can see that we'll have some interesting debates, though at the moment I can't get into specific areas. Let me just say that I would never deny that actions on the part of the West (and the East, in the form of the USSR earlier and Russia today) have had an influence on the current situation. But to see western policies as the root cause of the problems with the Islamic world is, in my view, a mistake.
posted by
Nautikos
on September 15, 2007 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Long Again!
Naut ..
I have to disagree with you again Naut. You mentioned Iraq with its “ civil war, based on tribal allegiances and the schism between Sunnis and Shiites that’s 1400 years old! “. This schism although as old as Islam itself had never reached the bloody levels of the Catholic-Protestant feud in Northern Ireland, in fact, the large number of intermarriages between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq dispels the myth of the impossibility of peaceful coexistence between these two sects . A more telling indication is that the Shiites and Sunnis fought side by side against the British colonization and they would have probably done the same against the Americans if it weren’t for the “divide and conquer” policy the USA employed.
In Iran, the rise of the Ayatollahs capitalized on the resentment of the people of the Shah’s regime which had enjoyed the backing of the west.
Afghanistan’s problems started with the Soviet invasion which attracted all the radical elements from the Islamic world to defeat the heretics. The lawless country provided the ideal training ground for the future terrorist and with the return of the disillusioned warriors to their home countries a seed of evil and violence was scattered all over the Muslim world awaiting the opportunity to spring to life which came with the USA’s war on terror.
Pakistan? That used to have a democratic government, I don’t recall the west complaining when Musharraf seized power by force. Don’t get me wrong I like the guy better than Shareef and Bhuto but it is the principle that is in question, but then again, the Usa has not made his job easier with all the public bullying and arm twisting.
And what’s this obsession with Wahabism? It is a movement that seeks to purify Islam from what its followers perceive as superstitions and polytheism. It has no militant or terrorist agenda (it has denounced terrorism on several occasions, the KSA has been a target of attacks by Al Qaeda more than once). If Wahabism was in any way hostile to the West then how come Saudi Arabia has the most pro-American foreign policy of all Arab countries?
In short, if the powers to be can leave this part of the world to resolve its problems without meddling, since they obviously haven’t the slightest understanding of how to handle it, but then again, the west ( and the USA in particular) need a new bogeyman for the new millennium after the fall of USSR and Islam fitted the bill perfectly.
Turkey, Malaysia, and Senegal are just a few examples of countries that have managed to embrace democracy without forgoing their Islamic identity. Shariia has been reworked into modern constitutions in most Muslim countries with many reforms introduced every year that fall in line with modern sensibilities but still take the cultural differences into consideration. One must remember that views on what is civilized and humane varies: from the European perspective the USA’s constitution that sanctions the death penalty and bans abortion lags behind theirs in terms of human right. Everything in life is relative, one just has to find the right vantage point to make sense of it.
Regards.
posted by
lindo
on September 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Forgive me Naut, this is going to be long, but i couldn't help it!
Lindo, my statement is by no means a recommendation, but merely an observation based on my assessment of the current state of affairs in most Muslim countries. Of course there are many millions of moderate Muslims like yourself everywhere who would prefer a ‘real’ democracy. But there are many millions more who do not! In most Arab countries, there is no ‘real’ democratic tradition. Iran – enough said. Iraq? We are witnessing a civil war, based on tribal allegiances and the schism between Sunnis and Shiites that’s 1400 years old!
Afghanistan – no point in talking about it. Pakistan? Well, if Musharraf gets pushed out of office, we might se the emergence of another Islamic state. KSA? If the Saudis fall, the Wahhabis will take over. It’s not a question of numbers, but determination and the willingness to die. And an Islamic state, by definition, is not a democracy. It can’t be because it is necessarily governed by Shariah law.
Now, granted, there are millions upon millions of Muslims who are moderate, opposed to violence and opposed to the imposition of many of the precepts of the Koran. But the current trend very clearly points in the opposite direction – militant Islamo-fascism is definitely on the rise. And I haven’t seen enough voices from moderate Muslims denouncing that development to make me feel more optimistic…
posted by
Nautikos
on September 12, 2007 at 4:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Forgive me Naut, this is going to be long, but i couldn't help it!
I must admit that I found your comment “The notion that these people are yearning for democracy is born of a mixture of wishful thinking, ignorance of history and naivete on the part of the West... “ to be rather disturbing not just as an Arab and Muslim but as a human being. How can one person deny another the right to a life of freedom and dignity and declare him unworthy of it or –worse- uninterested in it? The last time I checked it was called human rights not American or Western rights.
There are many like you who justify their double standards to oppression on the basis of Pragmatic Realism. You say that the Saudi regime should be left alone lest the KSA turns into another Iraq, well the west let Saddam have a free hand –until he invaded Kuwait. They turned a blind eye to the atrocities he committed against his people providing him with arms and support because he was perceived as a valuable ally again Iran. Deposing Saddam came too late after 3 decades of bloodshed and tyranny and it was done in the worse manner possible leading to anarchy and violence when the region was in desperate need of stability and peace.
The Wahhabis are a minority sect and having them impose their narrow-minded interpretation on the people of their country is akin to having the Mormon faith become the official faith of the USA when they are a small number of the population. The West is helping itself to the oil, getting the Saudi regime do their bidding in Arab politics and selling them billions of arms they appear to have no intention of using, who cares whether the people of Saudi Arabia are not happy with their rulers, the West is! I think an obliging regime like this should be allowed the luxury of passing some absurd laws, if you don’t like them don’t go there, but then who would bring home the oil ??????/
A few years ago colonel Gaddafi was the ultimate evil in the eyes of the West, now that he has opened his country up to investment and oil drilling he has the blessing of the civilized world even though his people are still suffering. Will the West ever bring up the issue of human rights in that country now that they have a willing partner at the helm of things there? I doubt it!
There will be little change in the world if we don’t accord others the common decency of allowing them to decide their own fate. The President of the USA gets to make decisions that affect the whole world and yet it is Americans and Americans alone who chose their president, do you think it is too much if other people are allowed to do the same?
P.S. you might want to read a little about the people of Arabia, especially in pre Islamic times, kings were not very popular with the fiercely proud bedouins and the tribal system allowed for everyone to give their opinion. Sounds like a primitve form of democracy doesn't it?
regards
posted by
lindo
on September 12, 2007 at 12:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Outrageous, but I'm not surprised..
Thanks, Erato. My position on Saudi Arabia is to a large degree based on what I would call 'pragmatic realism.' It's a complex issue, but for now just take a look at my comment to lindo...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM
| link to this | reply
lindo
Sorry about the domestic situation, and thanks for your comment. The West's interest (as a matter of fact, the world's interest) in Saudi Arabia hinges on three issues, that are interrelated oil, stability, and oil. LOL. These massive issues are always in play when dealing with the KSA, and that alone requires the support of the West.
The fourth issue, an ever more radical Islam, has not been adressed in the case of the KSA, because a) nobody wants to offend the Saudis and b) nobody seems to have an answer anyway. In fact, the Saudis represent the lid on a pressure cooker. Take off the lid, and the hot steam of Wahhabism will scald your face and a lot more! But I'll be dealing with some of those issues as I get further into my current series on religion...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Saudi Arabia is no ally of the United States or of any free republic
cp, if we eliminate the Saudi regime, we end up with a situation similar to the one in Iraq! The notion that these people are yearning for democracy is is born of a mixture of wishful thinking, ignorance of history and naivete on the part of the West...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Outrageous, but I'm not surprised..
All extremist forms of religion are oppressive toward other faiths. Speaking of Saudi Arabia, I'm a bit puzzled by a comment you made on an earlier post:
"Oh, and I forgot...
We are not 'coddling' Saudi Arabia - we do business with them! And we have no choice - if we won't, others will..."
posted by Nautikos on August 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Are you saying it's fine to economically support a terroristic regime if it's done in the name of business? (and we also assist them militarily, to the delight of defense corporations; recently a controversial, 20 billion dollar arms deal with the kingdom was began by the Bush administration) Yes, we in the west are oil hogs, but that wasn't the case decades ago when the U.S. made the first deals with a repressive, extreme and cruel regime and has continued to do, instead of implementing any type of true policies to end our dependence - and it remains the case this very moment. Too much profit for Big Business, regardless of terrorism and/or human rights.
posted by
Katray2
on September 11, 2007 at 9:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Hi Naut
first let me apologize for not replying to your comment , but we are in the middle of an ugly domestic situation concerning a relative and i can't seem to find the time to do any decent blogging.
regarding the situation in Saudi Arabia, let me agree with you that it is insane since Christians were allowed to worship and have churches (which by default means bibles and crucifixes) under Muslim rule . The Wahhabis and the Taliban are an exception not the rule, and i don't know of many Muslims who would want to live in KSA willingly,if it weren't for the holly lands and the once lucrative salaries the Saudi goverment offered you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree to live under such an oppressive regime run by ultraorthodox clergy with an interpretation of Islam that no else share except the psychos of Taliban. Still they are the ones people think of when you mention Islam, and guess what? they have the full unflinching support of the USA and UK so who are we to complain.
posted by
lindo
on September 11, 2007 at 8:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Saudi Arabia is no ally of the United States or of any free republic
It is precisely these sort of laws, in addition to capital punishment for disavowing Islam, the official oppression of and permission to murder non-Islamic worshipers which has led to the rise of so many groups of thugs who consider anyone who is not Muslim to be not deserving of life, what we have been commonly calling "terrorists".
What has been wrong with our Iraq policy has been to get mired in the creation of a democracy and the defense of same and not take the offense to overturn every repressive regime in the region, including Saudi Arabia.
Some may see this as promoting war, but these governments have, in fact, been waging war against their people for decades. My approach would stop these wars against the people and then move on.
Carl Peter
posted by
cpklapper
on September 8, 2007 at 3:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: "When in Rome," Nautikos. I find Wahhabism the most dangerous
Saul, clearly the Wahhabis are the worst. But having now spent some time on Islam, I am convinced that all of it is a huge menace...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 3, 2007 at 10:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Le
I am coming to the conclusion that Islam is insane!
posted by
Nautikos
on September 3, 2007 at 10:20 AM
| link to this | reply
"When in Rome," Nautikos. I find Wahhabism the most dangerous
thing on the planet at present. With Saudi money behind its dissemination throughout the world (and I mean "world", not region, or "the kingdom"), extremist Islam is on the rise. But, still, rules are rules. And this rule on their airlines isn't new, I'm pretty sure. The ruling clerics and academicians of Saudi Arabia have been Wahabbists for a few decades. It won't be long before the House of Saud is eliminated, politically or literally. They exist now only through military might and money. And I don't really give a damn what they ban upon entrance into Saudi Arabia. If ever I have reason to visit the holy land of flagellating nutcases, I will make certain my stay is as brief as possible. I look at it like this: you visit your neighbor's house, you abide by your neighbor's rules, even if you don't like or agree with your neighbor. It's his house.
posted by
saul_relative
on September 2, 2007 at 12:12 AM
| link to this | reply
That is just insane!!!
posted by
le_divorcee
on September 1, 2007 at 10:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: As for why the moderates in the Muslim world don't speak out agains
I think you're right on target about the moderates not understanding their own religion. It's the same with politics, I'm afraid. While listening to the radio the other day, a radio show host asked his listener why he belonged to his particular political party. His reply: Every member of my family all the way back to my great grandparents have been members...
posted by
muser
on August 29, 2007 at 7:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: As for why the moderates in the Muslim world don't speak out against the
I think you're right, Muser! But I also think that many moderate Muslims do not understand their own religion very well...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 29, 2007 at 10:30 AM
| link to this | reply
As for why the moderates in the Muslim world don't speak out against the
radicals...FEAR of DEATH and whatever terrible, unspeakable things precede death.
posted by
muser
on August 29, 2007 at 2:37 AM
| link to this | reply
The Saudis can "dish it out, but they sure can't take it" ...in this case
I suppose "won't" is the better word. There is NO reciprocity with the Saudis on the subject of religion. Go to Saudi Arabia and try to share your religion? The penalty is death. But in the U.S., Saudis can not only practice and share their religion...they are allowed to build mosques, and our gov't. at taxpayer expense provides prayer rooms for them in airports and other public places. We are the land of the "free stuff" and the home of the "naive" (bordering on stupid) all too often!
posted by
muser
on August 29, 2007 at 2:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your caption is misleading
Wavy, I wish I could share your hope, but the facts do not give us much reason to hope. And it's not just a question of poverty, in fact, poverty has very little to do with it.
Just who from the Muslim world is going to say what you suggest he should? And you say you have no problem with Islam - well, Islam has a problem with you! Have you read the Koran? You should! You would find it enlightening.
I have studied Islam now for about a year, many others have studied it for decades, and all I can tell you there is absolutely no reason for optimism.
No offense, Wavy, but when it comes to Islam I don't think you know what you're talking about, but you share that ignorance with untold millions in the West.
Yet many serious analysts in the West understand the problem very well. Let me just quote one of those, and what he says clearly bears out my own reading and research.
"Because most Americans and Europeans misunderstand the political nature of Islam, they talk about Islamic terrorism as if it bears no relationship to Islam proper. But the notion that authentic religion in general is naturally peaceful is a Western prejudice rather than a demonstrated truth." (Gregory M. Davis, Religion of Peace?, Los Angeles, p. 4)
Islamo-fascism is emerging as the scourge of the 21st century.
posted by
Nautikos
on August 26, 2007 at 7:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your caption is misleading
Nautikos: Hopefully, Muslims in the Middle East, especially young males, will reject terrorism and just look at their own countries and try to improve them internally without resorting to violence. Blaming the West for their poverty isn't the answer. Someone from the Muslim world has to say that we should accept all religions and not try to convert others. I have no problem with Islam providing they don't take away my religious freedom or my choice not to have a religion.
posted by
WavyDavy
on August 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Your caption is misleading
It's about leaving your bible at home when you're traveling to a particular Muslim country!
posted by
Nautikos
on August 26, 2007 at 11:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Your caption is misleading
Cos it's about Islam and Muslims!
posted by
Straightforward
on August 26, 2007 at 11:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Your caption is misleading
How so?
posted by
Nautikos
on August 26, 2007 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Your caption is misleading
posted by
Straightforward
on August 26, 2007 at 9:41 AM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
You're welcome...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin
Forgive me - I must have been out of my mind! Maybe I need a little more of the new Crimean wine therapy, preferably with a booster...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Naut, So anyone dressed in another religions' garb isn't allowed in either?
Thanks for the good wishes, Mary! As to the permissible attire, that might depend on what you wear. If you came dressed as an elephant, you might have problems...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Justi
As in many cases in the Middle East, we are faced with the problem that a chasm is opening between the government and large parts of the population. Large sectors are getting radicalized, and the government doesn't really know what to do about it...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Thank you for clarifying. I was a little thick headed due to other things on my mind. LOL
posted by
TAPS.
on August 25, 2007 at 11:25 AM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
The principle of barring religious symbols from entering one's country. Even if it didn't cause inconvenience...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Battered
Neither do I, and I'm glad to hear that your grandmother doesn't need one either! Makes for convenient travelling...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I'm not quite sure what principle you are talking about.
posted by
TAPS.
on August 25, 2007 at 11:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Offy hon
I don't understand the difference between your first and your second comment...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:14 AM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
I find the
principle abhorrent...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 25, 2007 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
But, Naut.......
They are an open....loving.....peaceful lot. How could you say such things????
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 25, 2007 at 7:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut, So anyone dressed in another religions' garb isn't allowed in either?
posted by
FoliageGold
on August 25, 2007 at 5:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
This is an excellent post. Anyone could have seen the Pakistani situation if they had been looking with unbiased eyes. Duh...
The Muslim Imams are suing for being ticked off on airlines here. They should have been kicked off. I was glad to see that in all the 'God's Warriors' only the Christians did not use guns or threat of death to change anyone. You can live among us as long as you want and not be a believer but don't expect us to change. Don't use your guns to scare us into your plagiarized religion or we will use our guns to defend ourselves as in the Middle East now. The Saudis are the worst, they are the home of all of the participants of the 911 and they support all radical junk here with money. That is the home of Ben laden (spelling?). It is so radical, so satanic and so vulgar.
posted by
Justi
on August 24, 2007 at 10:19 AM
| link to this | reply
nautikos
I don't really carry one around. My grandmother knows it by heart!
posted by
Tattered_Knight
on August 24, 2007 at 9:46 AM
| link to this | reply
I meant to say like Taps...I always take mine with me...
posted by
Offy
on August 23, 2007 at 6:06 PM
| link to this | reply
I take my personal Bible with me when I travel..
posted by
Offy
on August 23, 2007 at 6:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I don't have any current plans to travel outside the US, but if I did, I would pack a Bible either in my bag, carry on, or luggage, simply because I always do. I like to read some out of it every day. If someone decided to confiscate it, so be it. I would just have to be satisfied with what I could remember from past readings until I got where I could get another one.
posted by
TAPS.
on August 23, 2007 at 6:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Your last paragraph is an excellent point...yeah, imagine! But we're run
Yes, Ariala, you made my point for me well! "It's rational versus irrational, unfortunately", and I see irrationality in the ascendance...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 23, 2007 at 3:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Your last paragraph is an excellent point...yeah, imagine! But we're run
on a democracy here, not a theocracy...it's rational versus irrational, unfortunately
posted by
Ariala
on August 23, 2007 at 3:07 PM
| link to this | reply