QuoteReplyTopic: The New Middle East Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 17:15
if even 2 muslim countries would join together and live in peace I would think it was a good thing
The "live in peace" part is what worries me. Do you mean by this they'll just re-integrate back into the Western scheme of things in the region as a new combined nation? Because this is most certainly not my vision, nor the vision of those who seek unification of the Islamic lands.
I never stated peace was the objective of religion. Islam brings peace to the soul, but it does not allow Muslims to be subjugated by their enemies, and call that peace.
I never stated that the Islamic Nation or any other did not have the right to defend itself, furthermore, I also never stated that the Arabs of Palestine, the Kurds, etc., or any other Muslim or non-Muslim peoples did not have the right to self-determination.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Well I'm one of those 1.4 billion for start. I'm assuming you're not, so this gives me quite a headstart over you.
You're one of 1.4 billion. Does that give you the right to speak on their behalf?
And although I still respect Muslims to the fullest, and hold Islam dear, I am very content not being a member of that community.
PS: I'm not amused with your rhetoric.
Originally posted by Qutuz
That's the biggest sentence of blanket statements I've seen in my life. Can you elaborate more on this.. do you believe 100% of those populations you mentioned are "nationalist"? 50%? 25%?
Have you ever been to Albania, Turkey, or Iran? Do you really believe the majority of those populations place Islam ahead of their national or ethnic identity?
Again, blaming others for your woes? Vay Khoda! :(
Originally posted by Qutuz
The current Middle East is a product of their design, why wouldn't we hold them accountable for the mess it's in?
It doesn't mean that the current problems of the Middle East can be directly credited to them. The problems of the Middle East are caused by backwardness, radicalism, corruption, lack of education, and a refusal on the part of the Arab Nation to recognize the state of Israel.
If I get an arranged marriage and you play the middleman and introduce me to my bride and her family, and our marriage does not work out who is to blame, my wife and I, or you?
Originally posted by Qutuz
Which American think tank was the study conducted by? Even if it were the case, it wouldn't detract one iota from my ideas anyway, because I clearly mentioned Iran isn't included.
I believe it was either the Cato Institute or the Center for American Progress. Both are center-left politically and advocate dialogue over conflict with Iran.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Yeh you wish.
Yes, I will pretend that Muslim women in the West, in the Gulf States, and every other part of the Muslim world do not engage in such acts. I will also pretend that my Muslim girlfriend did engage in this sort of behavior with me while she was on her period during Ramadan, and then I will pretend that she did not tell me that it would be okay since she was bleeding. I will also pretend that I have never seen an Arab, Iranian, Afghan, Pakistani, or Turkish girl with a White American or Black American boyfriend. Yes, I will walk around with my head in the clouds and also pretend that the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Do you have some evidence for this? Or just another wild claim?
Whoaaaaa! Are you serious, dude?
Originally posted by Qutuz
When was that? And who carved it out?
After the irrational you've shown, you're asking me for proof? Have you any proof of your claims?? Or should I consider the I am one of those 1.4 billion BS, sufficient?
You and I both know what happens in the Islamic community.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Already answered by someone else.
Next time, conduct your own research, kid. Albanian nationalism and Albanian expressions for freedom were not the works of the Albanian Christians alone who comprise less than 17% of all Albanians (when the total Albanian populations of Albania, Kosovo, Western Macedonia, northern Greece, Italy, and others in the Diaspora are factored in), secular Albanian Muslims were also at the forefront in opposing Ottoman rule.
Originally posted by Qutuz
If they're going to be as relevant as the ones you listed, don't waste your time.
You failed to answer the question. I will assume that you had no counterargument and take it as an admission of defeat on your part.
Originally posted by Qutuz
So, as I asked, give us some examples.
I gave you examples. You refused to acknowledge them.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Pakistan is quite resource rich and is independant in many aspects of its food production and weapons manufacturing.
Whose arse did you manage to pull this BS from? Did that arse belong to one General Pervez Musharaff?
Food production is not a natural resource, and last I checked, Pakistan imported weaponry and artillery from friendly Western nations, i.e. the United States. Try again.
Originally posted by Qutuz
I could go through a few other countries if you like, but the fact we possess a large % of the worlds most used resource is enough in itself. Don't forget the gas rich regions of central asia.
Turkmenistan? Yes.
Kazakhstan? Yes.
Uzbekistan? Maybe.
Tajikistan? Hell No.
Kyrgyzstan? Nope.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Too bad our puppet rulers are handing all our resources over to the West, and you still insist they're not puppets.
Only in the minds of the Islamists is this true.
Pretend that you have a commodity, say oil. In order for you to benefit from this resource, you need a buyer, correct? Because keeping it under lock and key and not selling it to anyone is not going to benefit you or feed your family. So what do you do? You will find a buyer, and you will sell him this commodity for as much as you can get. Who is the buyer that can offer you the most in return? It is the West.
Welcome to Economics 101, genius: simple DEMAND and SUPPLY structure.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Ahhh, so all Islamic history books are invalid, whilst all Western history books are valid. Nice..
Did I say that? Where did I say that?
I insinuated that the ISLAMIST viewpoints, written records were biased. I never said anything about Islamic textbooks, genius.
Originally posted by Qutuz
He was a stooge yes, but he later made repentance and fought sincerely for Islam.
Maskhadov was in the Soviet military, but upon Chechnya declaring independence, he disavowed all allegiances to Moscow.
Is every head of Islamic state that you do not agree with, an agent of the West? You don't have to answer that I already know the answer.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Come on, these two guys are famous for slaughtering and torturing Muslims, not supporting them. You really need to do some homework.
The Baathists are Arab nationalists; Muammar al-Qadhafi is a self-proclaimed Arab nationalist. Do your own homework, genius:
You're one of 1.4 billion. Does that give you the right to speak on their behalf?
The Islamic texts and shari'ah is what speaks on their behalf, I'm simply conveying what it says.
Have
you ever been to Albania, Turkey, or Iran? Do you really believe the
majority of those populations place Islam ahead of their national or
ethnic identity?
No I have not been to any of those countries, but then again I wasn't the one making the blanket statements about what these people supposedly believe and don't believe. What I know is they are majority Muslims, and therefore one can assume they adopt the Islamic beliefs and ideology, which I've presented to you. You've made the claim they don't sincerely believe in it, and are just "nominally muslim", therefore the onus of proof would be on you.
And the links you gave are not really sufficient. Again you've provided links to how irreligious Iranians are, when I've clearly stated about 5 times already in the course of this thread that the Iranians are not included in my statements.
Also the link about Albania actually proved my point:
"Formidable barriers frustrated Albanian leaders' efforts to instill in
their people an Albanian rather than an Ottoman identity. Divided into
four vilayets, Albanians had no common geographical or political nerve
center."
As this quote shows, the Albanians prior to the breakup of the Ottoman Caliphate didn't even have their own identity, they just considered themselves Ottomans (Muslims, from the Millet Muslimeen). And that the nationalist leaders (no doubt Western cultured leaders at that) had to work hard to instill the idea of nationalism into them. Thanks for bolstering my argument.
I didn't bother about the other links, as I assumed they'd be about as relevant.
Again, blaming others for your woes? Vay Khoda! :(
Are you even aware what Sykes-Picot is? Did you know it's the committee that drew the borders for most of the Arab states you mentioned? How is it blaming others, if I directed you to ask those who drew up those Arab states, why they existed? I think it was quite a reasonable request.
If I
get an arranged marriage and you play the middleman and introduce me to
my bride and her family, and our marriage does not work out who is to
blame, my wife and I, or you?
If the parties of the marriage were not willing participants to the marriage (that would make the analogy more precise) then yes, the middleman could most definitely be blamed.
I
will also pretend that my Muslim girlfriend did engage in this sort of
behavior with me while she was on her period during Ramadan, and then I
will pretend that she did not tell me that it would be okay since she
was bleeding
Let me guess.. She was washing down a ham sandwich with a beer at the same time right?
Keep dreaming.
secular Albanian Muslims were also at the forefront in opposing Ottoman rule
As your link above showed, they had to work quite hard to dupe the people into believing their anti-Ottoman tripe also... you are your own worst enemy in this discussion. I need not even try to counter your points, just wait for you to post links that do the job for me.
Welcome to Economics 101, genius: simple DEMAND and SUPPLY structure
When you have the vast majority of that resource, you can ask whatever price you want for it, or even better don't give it to your enemies altogether. Is this what we see from the so called Muslim leaders? Or do we see them hand it over to the enemies of the Muslims virtually for free.
Maskhadov was in the Soviet military, but upon Chechnya declaring independence, he disavowed all allegiances to Moscow
He initially betrayed the Islamic resistance and made a peace deal with the Russians. He later regretted and made repentance for that, and joined with the Islamic Resistance.
The Baathists are Arab nationalists; Muammar al-Qadhafi is a self-proclaimed Arab nationalist. Do your own homework, genius
Well genius you just proved my point. They're Arab Nationalists and not Islamists. They've both had records of torturing Muslims from Islamist (what you'd probably call terrorist) movements and also slaughtering them. Bashar's father even incinerated an entire town once because some of the Muslim Brotherhood members in that town called for the return of the Islamic ruling system.
I have to add that most of these "research institute" reports are distant from reality and just make's some people in the West feel better thinking that the people in Iran are all with the West, hate their regime and are fighting hard to get rid of it.
The reality is quite different, the regime in Iran domestically is quite succesfull, most people are fine with it and alot support it.
In Turkey, the populace is pretty religous and see's religion as something beautiful, due to their conversion being due to Sufi and the Sufi thinkers views being trasmitted to mainstream society, their view is that "Allah loves and they love Allah" this ofcourse can make them see sometimes a little less religous as they're not as dogmatic generally. However, go to any village and you'll see a number of mosque's, people are generally pretty conservative and have Islamic values.
I've never been to Albania so I don't know but most Kosovans I know have Islamic values and belief.
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Have you ever been to Albania, Turkey, or Iran? Do you really believe the majority of those populations place Islam ahead of their national or ethnic identity?
I dont know about albania but I think at Turkey or Iran majority of people care their religion more than nation.(I think we had a pool about this)
At the end it comes down to two types of muslims, everything else can be ignored. There are those who are muslims before being a turk/arab/african etc.. and those that are turk/arab/african before muslims.
One of the basic goals of islamic society is to create equality among the various nationals without loosing its pluralism. It demands that you be muslim before all else.
I dont know about albania but I think at Turkey or Iran majority of people care their religion more than nation.(I think we had a pool about this)
Due to Communist policies which promoted atheism, the Albanians -Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian -place their ethnic and national identity ahead of their religion.
Originally posted by malizai_
One of the basic goals of islamic society is to create equality among the various nationals without loosing its pluralism. It demands that you be muslim before all else.
You and I both know that this is an ideal and not practiced.
Originally posted by Bulldog
Alot of people in Turkey feel that theyre nation and religion do not conflict, they're proud/care about both.
Then why is Turkey the most secular state in the Islamic world?
Originally posted by Bulldog
I've never been to Albania so I don't know but most Kosovans I know have Islamic values and belief.
There is a difference between having religious values and beliefs, and practicing those beliefs.
Originally posted by Qutuz
The Islamic texts and shari'ah is what speaks on their behalf, I'm simply conveying what it says.
I'm sorry; I didn't realize you were an Islamic scholar. How long have you been in the practice of interpreting others' religious beliefs? I think a better question would be, how long have you been in the business of spewing nonsense?
Originally posted by Qutuz
No I have not been to any of those countries, but then again I wasn't the one making the blanket statements about what these people supposedly believe and don't believe. What I know is they are majority Muslims, and therefore one can assume they adopt the Islamic beliefs and ideology, which I've presented to you. You've made the claim they don't sincerely believe in it, and are just "nominally muslim", therefore the onus of proof would be on you.
Okay, then by utilizing your irrational use of logic, it can be inferred that since the Muslim-majority countries of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. are secular nations, that the Muslim populations of these countries are largely nominal. See how silly your logic is, genius?
Originally posted by Qutuz
And the links you gave are not really sufficient. Again you've provided links to how irreligious Iranians are, when I've clearly stated about 5 times already in the course of this thread that the Iranians are not included in my statements.
Iranians are not included in your statements because like most other Salafists, you consider them heretics. Great way to practice the Muslim unity you preach, mullah.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Also the link about Albania actually proved my point:
"Formidable barriers frustrated Albanian leaders' efforts to instill in their people an Albanian rather than an Ottoman identity. Divided into four vilayets, Albanians had no common geographical or political nerve center."
As this quote shows, the Albanians prior to the breakup of the Ottoman Caliphate didn't even have their own identity, they just considered themselves Ottomans (Muslims, from the Millet Muslimeen). And that the nationalist leaders (no doubt Western cultured leaders at that) had to work hard to instill the idea of nationalism into them. Thanks for bolstering my argument.
I didn't bother about the other links, as I assumed they'd be about as relevant.
The Salafists have taught you well, you are very adept at manipulation. Read the entire text in the context in which it was presented. The Ottomans tried to use Islam to divide the Albanian nationalist movement that sought independence; history proves that this Ottoman policy failed.
Read the other links, maybe you won't be so close-minded.
Originally posted by Qutuz
Are you even aware what Sykes-Picot is? Did you know it's the committee that drew the borders for most of the Arab states you mentioned? How is it blaming others, if I directed you to ask those who drew up those Arab states, why they existed? I think it was quite a reasonable request.
The nation-states in the Americas were not drawn up by foreign European powers? India? Pakistan? Indochina? Central Asia? Sub-Saharan Africa? Eastern Europe? What makes the Arabs so much different? Why is there predicament so special? Do tell.
Originally posted by Qutuz
If the parties of the marriage were not willing participants to the marriage (that would make the analogy more precise) then yes, the middleman could most definitely be blamed.
Were the Spaniards and Portuguese willing participants to Arab-Berber savagery? Were the Hindus willing participants? Were the Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, and Jews also willing participants?
Originally posted by Qutuz
Let me guess.. She was washing down a ham sandwich with a beer at the same time right?
Keep dreaming.
Not cute. I'm not going to stop you from living in your fantasy world in which you believe that racism, premarital sex, and alcohol consumption are non-existent, and Islam is the law of the land.
Originally posted by Qutuz
As your link above showed, they had to work quite hard to dupe the people into believing their anti-Ottoman tripe also... you are your own worst enemy in this discussion. I need not even try to counter your points, just wait for you to post links that do the job for me.
Yes, everything that doesn't go the Salafist way is a manipulation of the Christian West. Brav
te]Welcome to Economics 101, genius: simple DEMAND and SUPPLY structure[/quote]
Originally posted by Qutuz
When you have the vast majority of that resource, you can ask whatever price you want for it, or even better don't give it to your enemies altogether. Is this what we see from the so called Muslim leaders? Or do we see them hand it over to the enemies of the Muslims virtually for free.
You cannot charge whatever the Hell you want, genius. You can only charge what the market is willing to pay.
Originally posted by Qutuz
He initially betrayed the Islamic resistance and made a peace deal with the Russians. He later regretted and made repentance for that, and joined with the Islamic Resistance.
Bullsh*t. Where is your proof?
Originally posted by Qutuz
Well genius you just proved my point. They're Arab Nationalists and not Islamists. Bashar's father even incinerated an entire town once because some of the Muslim Brotherhood members in that town called for the return of the Islamic ruling system.
Salafist-inspired Islamism, genius has replaced Arab nationalism, unless you're having delusions that Syria and Libya no longer, and have never supported radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and greater Islamic world, i.e. the PLO, Fatah, Hezbollah.
Originally posted by Qutuz
They've both had records of torturing Muslims from Islamist (what you'd probably call terrorist) movements and also slaughtering them.
I don't think that all Islamists are terrorists and I do not believe terrorism and Islamism are interchangeable terms. I believe that there are legitimate resistance movements that target only opposing military factions, and I believe there are terrorist organizations that are inspired by religion, i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda international, HAMAS in the territories, Hindutva in India, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Chetniks in the former Yugoslavia, etc., I also believe there are states which sponsor terrorist activities under the guise of military maneuvers, i.e. the Israeli Defense Forces targeting of Arabs, the Red Chinese Army's occupation of East Turkistan, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia, the terrorism inflicted by the Russian Army against the Chechens, etc., need anymore clarification, muchacho?
btw: Next time, try to counter all the arguments instead of the only ones you can irrationally think up a retort for. Thanks, genius.
Albanians (wherever they live) are characterised by a strong national (ethnical, mainly linguistical ad traditional) identity, which they put before the religious identity. Of course not all of them , but a strong majority.
This identity was not a product of the XIX century and the independentists. The Albanian folclore, and the epic tales, which date before the XVIII century are full of wars with the turks, or with the slavs, and these songs/tales, were always told to the children through the times. (Read the Songs of the Border Warriors etc)
The battles of Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg against the turks were always remembered with pride, by the albanians be they muslim or christian. There exist some epic cycles on Skanderbeg, and even some of the Canon Codes are named after the warlords who fought the turks. (The Canon of Skanderbeg, the Canon of Leka Dukagjini etc.)
The movement for independence (which before was a movement for autonomy) from the Ottoman Empire was not a religious movement, nut a national one. The people who partecipated were albanians, regardless the religion.
It is not true that Communism forced the albanians to become atheists. Forced atheism, or something similar existed even in other communist countries, but this fenomenon is albanian. Even in Kosova, Montenegro or Macedonia they identify themselves firstly as albanians, then as muslim or catholics. Those who visited the albanian lands in the XIX century or in the beginning of the XX century testimony this (Lord Byron, Miss Edith Durham etc). I am not saying that the albanians do not practice the religion, but I am saying that for them the national identity is more important. They always intermarried between reigions, but only rarely intermarried with other nations.
This is heights of amusement. Pakistan was formed for the Indian muslims, but they oppressed the poor & militarily weak muslim bangladeshis so much that India had to intervene & cut pakistan into two.
The afghans are so fierce & independent minded that it is only a matter of time before they unite back with their country again in to a united Afghanistan.
Same for the baloochis, they are also muslims, but crying or independence.
The kashmiris are crying for independence from the oppressive rule of pakistan.
The differences are too many to sort out to have a united islamic empire.
Even in the olden times in almost every few generations, there were cases of relatives of the muslims kings murdering each other to claim the throne. All of them were muslims.
LOL! Here is one Iranian who cares more about Our Nation then about Islam, and so are there many with me ;) specially the younger generation same in Turkey, but like the guy who made this thread said, Iran is excluded (luckely) in his ummah thing :) Iranians or Turks will never never never never never ever give up there language for Arabic, there culture for Arabic culture there ways of doing things for Arabic ways of doing things which is one of the main things of this Ummah thing ;) Ask a TUrk or AN Iranian randomly on the streets about this and they will all answer they are first Iranian or Turk and then muslim ( if not before muslim a political ideology like monarchist(Iran) socialist, liberal or pragmatist) Just make sure you make yourself some arab ummah instead of a muslim one cuzz i m not seeing Turks joining it ;)
Then why is Turkey the most secular state in the Islamic world?
Turkey has its own "interpretation" of secularism
It this example of governance was introduced into some Western Secular state's they could really debate it's level of "Secularism."
Firstly, Turkey isn't Jacobite, it has a more liberal view of secularism. It has a "Ministry of Religous Affairs" which is run by Islamic scholors.
Turkish view of secularism is, seperation of State and Religion, ie people cannot use and manipulate religion to win votes and give empty promises, the state is not "divine" and cannot claim to be connected to the "divine". However, most Turks also are to some degree "religous" in other words they don't hate or feel oppressed by religion.
You have to go there to see it, its very interesting, the society can seem pretty religous and conservative but it doesn't feel oppressive, like you see head-scarf and non-headscarf woman walking holding hands as friends and nobody turns their head. A guy who drinks Raki does so with his friend who doesn't drink. There are "family areas" and you musn't violate the codes and conducts in these areas. Then there are male or female only places, like the Coffee-House, Turkish Baths, in the home etc Basically, it seems pretty laid back and relaxed, people are convervative/religous generally, if your not religous people don't bother you.
TheGR
There is a difference between having religious values and beliefs, and practicing those beliefs.
How can we measure this though? at Juma, there are many Kosovan's, alot of them fast and have religous values. However, I don't live with them so I can't actually say that they're this or that, as such descriptions are down to the individual you can't label a whole nation in such a manner.
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
How can we measure this though? at Juma, there are many Kosovan's, alot of them fast and have religous values. However, I don't live with them so I can't actually say that they're this or that, as such descriptions are down to the individual you can't label a whole nation in such a manner.
We cannot measure each and every person's degree of religious values or conservatism; however, we are able to draw certain conclusions by utilizing proven scientific methods for gathering data, i.e. taking sample populations, comparing systems of governance, and the influences of religion in politics and communities, etc.
For example, we can conclude from the rate of inter-religious marriages, regular attendance at prayers, secular forms of government, and the enforcement of atheist policies by past Communist regimes in the Balkans that the Bosnian and Albanian Muslims tend to abide by Islamic principles far less than their co-religionists in the Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The latter countries have a strong and visible history of theocratic tradition, inter-religious marriages are the exception and not the norm, the state and daily life is directly influenced by Islam, an interpretation of Islamic principles, and other visible factors.
btw: I attended university with a Turkish fellow from Istanbul, his name was "Ismet" (correct spelling?), and I've heard nothing but good things about Turkey and the wonderful Turkish people. Insh'allah, I would love to visit your country -if you're offering me an invite, that is.
This is heights of amusement. Pakistan was formed for the Indian muslims, but they oppressed the poor & militarily weak muslim bangladeshis so much that India had to intervene & cut pakistan into two.
too much propoganda. Bangladish independance was due to Urdu institution in Bangladish and neglecting the Bangal different identity, language, and culture. Of course there have been violations during the struggle of Bangladish independance.
Your picutre of the conflict sounds too simple. Bangladish response to forcing an outside Pakistani culture is the same as Mizorams respond to what they perceive as forced Indian culture, language, and habits on them with their neglected region by the central government despite they have the highest literacy rate of all of Indian's states. Bangladish or Mizoramis or any other people will do the same when they feel their culture and region is neglected.
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma
The kashmiris are crying for independence from the oppressive rule of pakistan.
Is this why India occupy them without giving independance or even accepting a general poll to vote on independance?
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Qutuz TheGR is right about Afghanistan it was one of Nader shahs generals who after his assassination went and seperated Afghanistan from Iran.
Honestly i think both Qutuz and The GR are right about some things and wrong about some things.
First TheGR hey you may have bin correct about the Afghanistan thing but wait a minute.Its already known by almost every person who lives in the middle East that most of our problems are caused by the western powers (mainly England and U.S. and Russia). TheGR i hate to say it, but it just seems like you are one of those persons from the U.S. who is totally not seeing what is going on.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum