"Foreign Affairs" analysis of US approach to Middle East.

Here is the recent post-script:

Losing Hearts and Minds
Marc Lynch
From foreignaffairs.org - author update, April 28, 2004




Summary: Lynch's postscript to his September/October 2003 essay "Taking Arabs Seriously."

Marc Lynch is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Williams College and the author of "State Interests and Public Spheres: The International Politics of Jordan's Identity."





Taking Arabs Seriously
By Marc Lynch
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003


The Bush administration has spoken often about the importance and urgency of spreading democracy and empowering moderate reformers in the Islamic world. Unfortunately, however, the administration's actions have consistently undermined those goals, systematically alienating precisely those moderates upon whom American success depends.

The president's recent press conference with Ariel Sharon epitomized his administration's failures in dealing with Arab public opinion. Like Bush's description of Sharon as a "man of peace" at the height of the bloody reoccupation of the West Bank in 2002, his public embrace of the Israeli leader last week made news around the world and became an instant symbol of American policy. Not only did Bush fail to coordinate his moves with his Arab allies, but his administration made no real effort to explain itself to Arab audiences or to respond to deeply held, and entirely predictable, Arab concerns.

Instead of demonstrating respect for Arab views or offering a real dialogue about the future of the region, therefore, Bush's intervention signaled little but contempt for Arab opinion. Small wonder that a prominent writer despaired in Al Hayat last week that "Bush has declared war on the forces of moderation in the region."

My article "Taking Arabs Seriously" warned against treating the Arab media as an enemy and argued that new U.S.-backed Arabic language media outlets would be unlikely to have a significant impact. Instead, the administration has only escalated its rhetorical attacks on stations such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Indeed, the immediate trigger of the current Shia uprising in Iraq was the closing of Muqtada al-Sadr's newspaper. Such U.S. attempts to muzzle Arab voices only increase the widespread perception in the region of American hypocrisy while enhancing the reputation for bravery and independence of those who are targeted. It is telling that months after the launch of the American satellite television station Al Hurra the popularity of existing stations has only increased -- even in Iraq, where audiences had long been skeptical of Al Jazeera for its perceived bias in favor of Saddam Hussein.

The consequences of the administration's hostile and manipulative approach to the Arab public grow ever more apparent. Opinion polls show ever deepening levels of anti Americanism in the region; radical forces have been emboldened and moderates isolated. The greatest victims have been those brave souls who have attempted to defend American interests in the region, who feel betrayed and humiliated by American disregard for their sensitivities. This is one of the reasons why the administration's Greater Middle East Initiative, a relatively anodyne and underfunded package of reform ideas scheduled to be presented in June, has been widely shunned not only by authoritarian Arab leaders but also by the Arab civil society reformers who would presumably most benefit from it.

It may well be too late for the Bush administration to undo the damage done by its failed approach to Arab public opinion. Certainly, the administration shows no signs of being open to the kind of dialogue which would be needed. But few tasks are more urgent for long-term American security than restoring the faith of moderate reformers in American credibility.

Summary: The Bush administration's tone-deaf approach to the Middle East reflects a dangerous misreading of the nature and sources of Arab public opinion. Independent, transnational media outlets have transformed the region, and the administration needs to engage the new Arab public sphere that has emerged.

The link works fine. A very informative piece of writing.

Thanks Deb.

Blush - you're welcome!

Quote from page 2:

"The conventional wisdom that the Arab media simply parrot the official line of the day no longer holds true. Al Jazeera has infuriated virtually every Arab government at one point or another, and its programming allows for criticism and even mockery. Commentators regularly dismiss the existing Arab regimes as useless, self-interested, weak, compromised, corrupt, and worse. One recent al Jazeera talk show took as its topic the question, "Have the existing Arab regimes become worse than colonialism?" The host, one of the guests, and 76 percent of callers said yes -- marking a degree of frustration and inwardly directed anger that presents an opening for progressive change.

Al Jazeera may have pioneered the new format, but its success has sparked an explosion of market-seeking Arabic satellite stations broadcasting political news and argument. The field is intensely competitive, with the Saudi MBC, the Lebanese LBC-al Hayat, Hezbollah's al Manar, Abu Dhabi TV, and others contesting al Jazeera's leading position. Stations are eager to differentiate themselves; whereas some seek market share by engaging in what the scholar Mamoun Fandy has called a "political pornography" of radical views and shocking imagery, others cultivate an image of seriousness or an image attractive to cosmopolitan businessmen. Abu Dhabi TV, for example, did surprisingly well during the Iraq war with a less sensationalistic approach."

From page 4:

Arabs and Muslims recognize and dismiss such efforts as propaganda, something they are quite familiar with from their own regimes. They are angered at being treated like children and feel the sting of contempt in being objects of manipulation rather than true interlocutors. As one Egyptian bitterly complained, "Americans think Arabs are animals, they think we don't think or know anything." Only by treating Arabs and Muslims as equals, listening carefully and identifying points of convergence without minimizing points of disagreement, will a positive message get through. It may be uncomfortable -- particularly for this administration -- but Washington needs to put its own interests and viewpoints up for discussion as well, rather than focusing solely on Arab pathologies. And words will have to be matched by deeds if they are to have any chance of persuading a highly suspicious and skeptical audience.

from page 5:

Taking Arabs Seriously
Marc Lynch
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003




Summary: The Bush administration's tone-deaf approach to the Middle East reflects a dangerous misreading of the nature and sources of Arab public opinion . Independent, transnational media outlets have transformed the region, and the administration needs to engage the new Arab public sphere that has emerged.

Marc Lynch is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Williams College and the author of State Interests and Public Spheres: The International Politics of Jordan's Identity.





Topics:
U.S. Policy and Politics
Middle East


Containing Arab Nationalism: The Eisenhower Doctrine and the Middle East
Salim Yaqub. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East
Rashid Khalidi. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

Track-II Diplomacy: Lessons From the Middle East
Hussein Agha, Shai Feldman, Ahmad Khalidi, and Zeev Schiff. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004.

Syria Under Bashar (I): Foreign Policy Challenges, Middle East report no. 23
International Crisis Group. Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2004.

Syria Under Bashar (II): Domestic Policy Challenges, Middle East report no. 24
International Crisis Group. Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2004.


[continued...]

Nevertheless, if a call for true dialogue were ever sounded, it would resonate powerfully in the new Arab public sphere, where people have been discussing the concept obsessively ever since Iranian President Muhammad Khatami's abortive outreach to the West in the late 1990s. Rather than targeting Arab rulers or overbroad categories such as "youth," Washington should concentrate on engaging the intellectuals, politicians, journalists, and other public figures who have become so instrumental in shaping Arab public opinion. An ongoing, meaningful conversation with these new media elites could give them a stake in the success of the American enterprise by making it their own and perhaps even generate some level of common identity and purpose -- something that Arabs and the United States so glaringly lack today.

Successful dialogue requires minimizing power considerations and demonstrating mutual respect. Obviously, no U.S.-Arab dialogue could or should avoid the reality of American power, but invoking that superiority too directly would cripple efforts at rational persuasion. Arab and Islamist commentators focus obsessively on the imbalance of power and hardly need to be reminded of their weakness. Relying on "shock and awe" to win respect will alienate far more than it will persuade. Threats of force, no matter how useful in the short term, will entrench the impression of American hostility and ensure future conflict.

Unless the United States reaches out, it is unlikely that Arab attitudes will change spontaneously, for as it stands, ambitious politicians and public intellectuals have powerful incentives to criticize the United States in ever stronger terms and almost no incentives to defend it. Anti-American rhetoric earns one a reputation for authenticity, courage, and clear thinking, whereas a pro-American line -- though praised by Americans as the height of courage -- is usually perceived in the Arab world as cheap opportunism.

If the Bush administration seriously wants to rally Arabs to push for a more democratic and liberal Middle East and win their support for its occupation of Iraq and the war on terror, it must change those incentives. It needs to recognize that the elite Arab public can speak for itself, deeply resents being ignored or condescended to, and is more than capable of directly observing American words and deeds for inconsistencies. Frequent and appropriately frank appearances in the new Arab media by American representatives could have a salutary effect simply by changing the pool of participants and the style of argument, creating new ways for individuals to stand out and enhance their reputation. They could open up a space for influential Arab intellectuals to triangulate between the extremes, staking out a new, reasonable middle ground.

This does not mean simply assisting moderates and shunning radicals, however. Open American support goes a long way toward discrediting any Arab, so anointing favored candidates would likely doom them to irrelevance. It would be better to engage with the full spectrum of existing political debate, trying to shift the balance and style of argument by gradually inserting the United States into the conversation. Indeed, engaging those who hold hostile political views is more important than giving a platform to those who already agree with American positions. Currently, the vast majority of politically active Arabs -- most especially those Westernized and educated members of the new media elite -- feel powerless and frustrated. Giving them a respectful hearing could bring them into an ongoing discussion about realistic alternatives, other possible readings of motivations and actual policies, and a search for solutions in which they have a stake.

From page 6:

The United States could begin by addressing the nearly unanimous consensus on American insincerity in calling for democracy. American policymakers have long hesitated about promoting democracy for Arabs out of fear that Islamists might win free elections. Now that political liberalization has been put forward as such a prominent American objective, however, the only way for the United States to retain any credibility in Arab eyes is by demonstrating its willingness to accept unpalatable electoral outcomes -- as it eventually did, albeit with bad grace, in Turkey recently.

Arab liberals complain that they have long been fighting for human rights and public freedoms without any palpable American support and ask why things should be any different now, at a time when the war on terror and public outrage over Iraq have made Arab regimes ever more repressive. They want to believe American promises and credit American good intentions, but Washington must give them a reason to do so. The goal should be to establish the United States, through words and deeds, as an ally of the Arab public in its own demands for liberal reform, rather than making such reform an external imposition. A recent al Hayat essay nicely captured Arab ambivalence about the United States' role: "We need to reform our educational systems even though the Americans tell us to." Washington should recognize such sensitivities, understanding that attempts to coerce change, whether through threats or hectoring monologues, will provoke resistance even among those who share its basic goals.

This is an interesting debate place on Al Jazeera. This debate is about whether or not it is hard for Arabs to understand freedom:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_id=1686

here are the first few items of this discussion:



Home > 'Lets Talk' your host Dr.Kareem

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

It is hard for most Arabs to understand what freedom really is...
26/04/2004 13:00:00 GMT



It is hard for most Arabs to understand what freedom really is...

Dr. Kareem:

Please allow one troubled American to be published on your site, to tell the world, especially the Arab world, how most Americans feel.

Please do not believe what you see and read about Americans wanting to control the world, colonize it, destroy the Arab world. Any Arab who has ever spent any time in the USA will tell you that he or she agrees with that, honestly. I speak for almost all Americans who do not want their men and women, husbands and wives, their children in the Middle East fighting a group of criminals who are bent on destroying the Middle East. We want our men and women home, not over there being shot at. Period. We don't care about your oil, we respect your religious choices, we want you to live in peace, with you controlling your own destiny.

We see the problem in Iraq as quite simple. The Iraqis were being ruthlessly and continually destroyed as a country and as a society by a madman, who saw to it that hundreds of thousands of his own people were slaughtered, just as Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. As with Hitler, the rest of the world sat on its hands and did nothing to prevent that slaughter from occurring. Iraq's next door neighbors, as those European countries who watched Hitler kill off millions, did nothing to stop it. What it took to stop Hitler - and Saddam - is history. It is sad to see that in other Middle Eastern countries, while the slaughter is not going on a la Saddam, the dictatorships along with the repressive mode of life dished out by who is running the show, the mode of control is one of stark fear.

Americans don't want to kill Muslims. Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan are killing thugs, and criminals, and killers of Iraqis and Afghanis. If they are Muslims, so be it. If they are Christians, or Zoroastrians, or Hindus, they are still criminals. Obviously their faith does not preclude them from storing bombs in mosques or schools, or shooting out the windows of hospitals. They deserve to be exterminated. They alone are stopping Iraq and Afghanistan from achieving peace.

Americans want the Middle East to be at peace. It is truly unfortunate that the history of the Middle East has been one bloodbath after another. It is hard for most Arabs to understand what freedom really is when they are told what to wear, what to say, what they might believe, and that they are totally subservient to a man (never a woman) who got his power from being in a particular tribe and carries the biggest gun or sharpest knife. For that, we feel great sorrow for you.

But we don't - and please believe me, all Americans feel this way - want our government to spend billions of our dollars to build your roads and restart your electricity and enable you to sell your own oil so you can help your starving, poor masses only to have you burn our flag and dance on humvees that you just bombed and shoot our soldiers. We want to be out of your hair faster than you want us out.

But find a book if you can and read about the American Civil War 1861-1865. The greatest catastrophe ever to hit the USA cost over 600,000 American lives, as we killed off our brothers in a bloody, ghastly, and costly war. In so doing, it united us and turned the corner on a path to being (unfortunately the title is an unwelcome one) the world's only superpower. Only you can decide if that sort of bloodshed is worth it. For if you stay on the current path, you will see bloodshed far worse than you can eve imagine. And that would be an unequalled shame.

Unless you can come to your senses and stop the criminals, stop the infighting, rise up as a people to gain freedom from tyrants, you will condemned to a life that has been your lot for a few thousand years: you will be governed by whoever has the biggest gun. The USA is not a tyrant. We will be out of Iraq as fast as we can leave, if you let us. We don't want your countries. That you are being force fed that lie is an absloute shame. We'd like to see your part of the world enjoying peace, with your people able to work where they want, go to school where they want, marry who they want, enjoy the fruits of their labor, worship where they'd like, travek where they want safely, kearn more about the outside world, without the bloodthirsty overtones of fanaticism that are a part of your every day existence.

This we believe frevently.

Michael, USA



This comment is regarding: It is hard for the Arabs to understand...by Michael in USA. The question is why U.S. attacked Iraq. In Micheal's opinion it was because the U.S. wanted to free the Iraqi's from Saddam Hussain. I agree that most of the Americans do not mean any illwill towards Muslims and Arabs. However, I disagree that this was the reason why U.S. attacked Iraq. Is is now clear that Mr. Bush and his team decided to invade Iraq because of two reasons: U.S. control of Iraqi oil and influence of U.S. in the middle east so that Israel could continue its dominance and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. We all know that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have very close ties with the oil lobby .........
Mazhar Rishi from USA



Dr. Kareem,


Let me first say that is not what all Americans think. I happen to believe that any informed American should only speak for themselves and not an entire country. I feel that since the first aggressive act last year the American media machine has led the American people astray. We have been mis-informed about the reasons for war (i.e. weapons of mass derstruction). We have also been led to belive that Saddam is the reason, however his capture has not ended the occupation. Countless lives have been lossed on both sides, and for what? Is it the American thirst for control of the second largest supply of the worlds leading resource? Or, is it the beginnig of the middle east take over for all countries involved? My number one question is, if America is attempting to hand over power to a country, why don't they just leave. I'll tell you why. Because America will not leave until they have successfully uprooted any form of Islamic government and put in place their hand selected puppets. If I can accomplish anything with my comments, I would like to challenge my fellow Americans to think beyond what your fed through the media. Especially since they are all owned by the same people who put Bush in office. Let's think critically about who has the most to gain by waging a war in the middle east, and believe me it isn't the American public. Have we really become safer since 9/11. I don't think so. We have been led to believe that anything goes when it comes to protection from terrorism, and in the proccess we have lost plenty of civil liberties (i.e. the Patriot Act 1 and 2). So without being redundant wake up America and realize that there is a much bigger war being fought here and the media machines are winning it without your consent. My condolences go out to all who have lost a loved one during this time of strife. I don't sympathize with anyone who uses violence as a first option, but when lives are being expended in false pretense I can't stand by and watch silently.


John from USA



I think Michael has been watching too many of G. Bush's press conferences.

Who gives the US to dictate to people living in another sovereign state.
The US went to war for strategic / economic reasons as mentioned by Mazhar.

The US want a stable pro-western government , therefore it does care about its religious choices. The US will not allow a islamic state such as Iran to be built in Iraq. Therefore and this is just one example the choices of the Iraqi people are limited.

It shows your limited understanding of your own political leaders if you think this war was based on some kind of humanitarian concern.

Your own country has extreme differentials of poverty and crime. What is so perfect about the American system that makes the US desperate to export to unsuitable circumstances. The US always talk about democracy etc. Your last election proves the falsities within US society.

I think half the mis-understanding in the US is based on the failure of the US media to accurately inform its citizens of world events in an impartial way. Hence why there are some many reading this website(which is a breath of fresh air, and the journalism is excellent).
emma from uk

And more from Dr Kareem's page: on the possibility of separation of church and state in Islamic countries.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_id=1687


The beginnings of this debate:







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

Is it possible for the Islamic world to embrace the idea of separation between church and state?
26/04/2004 13:00:00 GMT



Is it possible for the Islamic world to embrace the idea of separation between church and state?

Is it possible for the Islamic world to embrace the idea of separation between church and state?

From my limited understanding of Islamic teachings, it seems very likely that this separation is not possible. For instance Muslims are compelled to excise a tax on non-Muslims.

I would continue to argue that without this very fundamental concept relations with countries such as the US will suffer.

For you information i am neither a Christian, Muslim. If i had to classify myself it would me agnostic.

Win, USA



Hello Win,

From everything that I have read and heard, this is exactly the stance that Ayatollah Ali Sistani (the top Shia Cleric in Iraq) is advocating, not only in Iraq, but across the middle east.

Bob
Bob from USA



NOTHING, in the history of ALL time...STOPS progress. The sooner the Islamic world understands this...the sooner it will be possible for them to move forward.
AL from USA



To a muslim there is no such separation because he is guided by religious injuctions in all his affairs and is rewarded for applying them.To A Muslim this life is temporary as such the next life is of more importance.He lives in this world and act to please his lord who alone created him and all that is in world and heaven.GLORY BE TO HIM.
hamza from niger



hello,

Your comment derive from a mistaken understanding of islam.

First the tax on non muslim under islamic state:

This tax is levied because non muslims do NOT have to pay the Zakat tax (1% on capital) and do not have to serve in the army among other things.

This is therefore fair. Islam is the religion of justice.

Second, the comment on progress.

Progress is definetely rooted in islam which encourages development and science. A mistaken understanding of religion being against progress comes from the history of chritanity but the thing is the other way round with islam.

When muslims were faithful in the past centuries they were at the forefront of technological development and science. If the arab world is under developed today , it is because their rulers are NOT islamic and are corrupt people skimming the countries wealth. The sooner muslims embody the islamic values and follow the path of the prophet, the faster will they start working hard and develop.

Unfortunately secular dictators across the arab world manipulated by the west for lavish interests opress the arab people and impede its development.
Sam from Spain



The idea of seperation of church and state only works in theory... It would appear that America has done so, but tune in to any speech Bush makes and I guarantee you will hear Christian rhetoric almost every time... Our constitution forbids it but nevertheless, he does what he wants... Just like every other issue that crosses his desk. There is a real war going on in the US between the religious fanatics and moderate people. When I hear the world declare: "America doesn't care about it's dead soldiers, only winning war" or "Americans are aggressive and greedy", I want to remind everybody out there... THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH!!! One out of two Americans DO NOT SUPPORT HIM!!! We all stand behind our poor young guys fighting his dirty, stupid war in Iraq, but at the same time, we also feel sorry for the young men on the "other side". Just as it pains me to see a young dead American soldier, as much pain is fealt in my heart for the young soldiers who are called "our enemy"... WE BLAME BUSH FOR THIS JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO! Seven more months and God willing we'll be rid of him forever...
Layla from USA



Re: Is it possible for the Islamic world to embrace the idea of separation between church and state?

Why is it USA'a business how any other country governs itself? Whether they are or are not separated from the religion it is not for US to dictate. It sounds hypocritical for US to "SUPPORT" the Jewish state but not the Muslim state. My fellow Americans is this not double standards?
John D from USA



'Is it possible for the Islamic world to embrace the idea of separation between church and state?'
If it's not, what then?
and if it is, same question.
Isn't it amazing how only one side is always waiting for the other side to change.
I haven't heard a Muslim yet claim that they believe the West should change because they have the answer.
I've heard them say the West should mind their own business as they seek to do.
I've heard them ask as to why it is so imperative that they should change.
If a Muslim walked up to the West and said I am now a Christian, the West would classify him as a second class Christian instead of a first class Muslim and he'd still be low man on the totem pole

Lee from Banalia/Australia



Dear brothers:

Before islamic revolution in Iran everybody believed that there should not be any separation between Religious establishment and the state, but after 25 years of suffering under control of a bunch of greedy corrupted people like Rafsanjani and Khamenehii, people realize that even if it is about keeping religion as sacred idea, it is better to separate it from the politics. Don't forget that we, the people are far from perfect, and our act will be written for our riligion.
just to tell you a fact that the mosques are empty in Iran, and the young people rarely attend for prayer.
masoud22 from usa



Hello Win,

I will proceed to answer your questions, but before the answer can be understood there are THE REALITIES that NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD and taken into ACCOUNT. Also people need to understand the events and developments leading upto the 'rennaissance' (which is when
christianity was separated from temporal life and compartmentalized as an 'INDIVIDUAL FORM OF BELIEFS/WORSHIP)

Firstly, The reality of ISLAM is completely different from that of a RELIGION (like Christianity for example). If we were to study ISLAM and its COMPREHENSIVE NATURE, we would find that provides solutions to and GOVERNS:

1) Human Being's relationship with the SPIRITUAL ASPECT.(i.e. provides rational and intellectual proofs that a CREATOR exists and acknowledges that the creation is the subject of and subject to the WILL of the creator, who is NOT fallable or IMPERFECT)

2) Human Being's Relationship with OTHER HUMANS. Islam has a comprehensive SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL and JUDICIAL
SYSTEM to ensure that a Society (or Nation, Country, Peoples) is run smoothly.

3) Human Being's (one Society's) relationship with Other Societies (or States, Peoples). it provides detailed rulings on international relations.

Now going back to understanding history of SECULARISM. we need to understand how christianity became marginalized to only the INDIVIDUAL ASPECT.

Firstly, When we study the FEUDAL SYSTEMS in operation prior to the renaissance. we see that christianity DOES NOT and NEVER DID have answers or detailed systems for the governing or administering of individuals in realtion to trade, disputes, social welfare and hence as a result it ruled with an iron fist. this is why Galileo Galilei was beheaded because "the Earth was NOT The centre of the UNIVERSE!" contrary to what christian RULERS (or Popes) had the masses believe.

This is exactly the point to bear in mind. due to the lack of detailed systems of governance and comprehensive answers to satisfy the curiosities of the peoples of these societies run by FEUDAL SYSTEMS implemented by CHRISTIAN RULERS resulting in corruption, oppression naturally the peoples would look change. and so we had the renaissance.

So now to answer your question: Is it possible for the Islamic world to embrace the idea of separating Islam from Politics? No. this is because the Islamic Ideology is perfect and comprehensive and does not lack the systems to govern the peoples affairs whether these peoples are muslim, christian or jew.

even Jewish friends that i have tell me that the best period for them was when they lived in ISLAMIC SPAIN (Al-Andalusia) or Caliphate of spain. this is because of the practical implementation of a JUST and PEACEFUL systems that provides HUMANS not just Muslims with tranquility and security.

Thank you for your time.

Wassalam


Maurizzio from USA



Dear reader

Do NOT have an great knowledge on this subject

My personal response to this question, it be better to seprate them to an extent, one example is Pakistan where there is a constitution with islamic principle, but the country can in theory be run by anyone. other muslim countries should find a compromise, the worst thing to do is being a total religious dominated state like Iran or a secular state like Turkey, this will be against the peoples wishes and values
ALI from England




It's of course possible. Turkey has done it in 1923 by seperating religion and government and creating a true belief/religion freedom. Politicians rule the country as it's in the modern world, not the religious leaders, scholars ext.
Ibrahim Gunay from Turkey



Thats what i was afraid of Maurizzio. As long as that line of thought prevails one can only expect conflict.


win


win from us



ASA,
Looking at west some of the people take a false idea of its progress from its openness and very very Libral society.I mean freedom to do everything that suits you is not the way west has progressed in science and technology.Their generations worked hard to reach upto this point.Now coming to the main point..If i define a progress tied to an open and Liberal society,Then of course Islam should be seperated from the state.But if progress is tied to hard work and Justice then Islam is not a hurdle in the way of state ..but Its a booster.It can dramatically improve the Living standard of masses through its ever flowing concept of money(Zkat and Ushr).As Quran say"Afala Yatadabbroon" means why dont u think deep (In the creation of this universe).So Islam Unlike christianity helps the state to Govern well.....BUT ITS VERY IMPORTANT,COMPLETE SET OF RULES AS SET BY PROPHET MUHAMMAD NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED..Not just some.
zeeshan from Pakistan



Response to win:

Im sorry if you misunderstood my comment, maybe you should READ the words very carefully and the WHOLE ARTICLE? before you speak of your neo-con viewpoint.

Firstly, the United Snakes of America can justify invading a country on the basis of WMD(before even a stone was chucked by Saddam(who no-one likes)), and your telling me that MY train of thought is leading to conflict?

this is the kind of thing i expect from a die-hard invader-mentality capitalist satanists who wish to change the deen, the TRUTH that was revealed and APPLIED by the Last Messenger(saw) of God.

Go study history(the unbiased version would help) you might notice that Islam and its Systems were applied for 1300 years in the form of Caliphates the leadership of which was at various points in history in different parts of the world(in terms of sprawling civilizations) ranging from Spain in Europe circa 732-1492CE, Istanbul in Asia circa 1453-1924CE, Medina(saudi arabia), Damascus(Syria), Baghdad(Iraq) in the Middle East circas 732-1258CE, and finally Cairo in Africa circa 1258-1517CE there used to be a UNITED LEADERSHIP across 3 Continents.....are you still with me win? or is it becoming all too complicated for you.

ISLAM is only complete when it is in the form of a state irrespective of what invader-Bremer thinks, and NO it cant be separated to become a mere religion as it is far more SUPERIOR THAN A RELIGION.

and No, the Caliphate does not go looking for conflict with other peoples or states. in fact on the contrary the fact that the seat of the Caliph(Ruler) TRANSCENDED the RACIAL BARRIERS and Moved from One place to another demonstrates that it UNITED peoples of ALL RACES and RELIGIONS because they wanted to be the privileged citizens of a righteous, prosperous, advanced, enlightened, honourable and noble State that provided peace and justice to ALL including JEWS and CHRISTIANS so much so....that when Richard the cowardheart invaded the holylands in 1099, He was surprised to see CHRISTIANS and JEWS helping zealously to repel the aggression and occupation by a system that was INFERIOR and UNJUST compared to the one that they had had the priviledge of being citizens of enjoying the same rights as afforded to ALL.

Please read your history. you will see that all religions were respected in ONLY and ONLY in states that the Muslims RULED when they ruled with THE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM (the Caliphate system) of ISLAM.

to the others making comments exposing their INFERIORITY COMPLEX; what has happened to Turkey since 1924 when the treacherous Mustapha Kemal through forced military coup separated Islam from Politics and Destroyed the Ottoman Caliphate? where is Turkey now? compared to being a Super Power Prior to 1924? that of a Compliant Satellite State with Hardly a Political Will worthy of a Carrot.

and Ibrahim, my friend the Caliphate was not Ruled by religious preists, It was Ruled By Gutsy Politicians and Statesmen that the world had ever Known. Please study your Islamic History Brother.

Wassalam
Maurizzio from US



to İbrahim Gunay,

Do you think that the change in Turkey from the Ottoman khilafat to secularism benefited the country in any way?

the actions of the past goverments against the female muslims and the islamic clerks cannot be justified.

İ also ask can our best ecenomic situation of the secular time be compared to our worst during the Ottoman Khilafat? İ dont think so.

We have changed from our creators law to man made law. only the creator knows what is needed for its creation. Not only Turkey but millions of Muslims around the world are looking to Turkey if there is any signs of the ottoman time.

wassalam

Esat
Esat from Turkey



I second Mauri..The US is the largest theological state, hear Bush speak and no more evidences are needed. ......... See for instance India,it was socialist to the core, we couldn't even own a radio w/o license. ........ Had that brute given asylum in UAE or Qatar, would it have been right for Iraq to attack them in future? Come on Win, first unshackle the US, ... The ruler who has no accountability fear from the Unseen Lord is susceptible to corruption and chaos in our beautiful world as long as there are good lawyers to bail him out during trials and hearings!!
khalid faridi from india



To Maurizzio:

I agree with the general ideas of your synopsis of the Caliphate. Yes once a geographic area was under the Caliphate, the majority of the people (no matter what race or religion) under its leadership had a substantial improvement in their daily lives. Islamic values helped advance the modern world at that time. In fact the Islamic world was the modern world at that time. Yes the Middle East has been led by unislamic dictators, supported western democracies for shortsighted economic gain.

But, I feel that you have ignored an important fact to make your point. If in fact we are taking an unbiased look at history, then please answer the following question; How did the Caliphate come to have all of these people under their enlightened rule in the first place? The simple answer is backed up by all of the unbiased history you want to shake a stick at, Conquest. The Caliphate was an empire expanded through conquest. Please remember this.

As for your interpretation of Turkey, you have oversimplified the effect of secularism and ignored countless other factors that have shaped what we see today in Turkey. Your argument towards Turkey has as much merit as claiming that the United States' super power status is the result of the majority Christian population's belief system (no I am not a Christian). You know as well as I do that argument is without merit. So why do you draw the conclusion that Turkeys decline in the world was the result of secularism?

On another note regarding biased history, one of my History professors in college once told me that, despite your own religous beliefs, you need to drop God as a player in history and take a broad wholistic approach to the events. You can take into account the effects of religious beliefs on people's decisions they made but you can't say that God came down and smote thee. History is created by fallable human beings making decisions on their own. This is the only way to have an unbiased interpretation. If I were to take the belief that God favors one religous belief over the other, then History would not make any sense at all. All of the conflicts and killing on a massive scale that have been started over God is sickening. Do you think a God who loves his people would want to cause so much suffering? I don't think so, that is why when I look at history, I take God out of it to get better look at the root causes.

No I am not a "capitalist satanists" I was against the invasion of Iraq, and I have been a supporter of Palestinian quest for statehood. Yes, I have read the Quran, the Bible and the Torah.
Nate from USA



I think the only reason the US would like to see the separation is to protect all people from religious persecution, thereby ensuring the muslim religion and all religions the right of expression. Keeping any government out of religion is essential to fostering a free country. With that said, I believe the opposite is also true. In order to protect freedom for the people, the government must keep religion out of government (laws), therefore fostering religious freedom.
mark z from america



Each person defines progress differently based on their spiritual beliefs that we all are free to decide internally, no matter what state or country we live in. Whether one chooses to do so is another story. What I see written here by some of those that look to be of Islamic belief is that a nation can certainly be one in which the direction of the governing body, empowered by the people of that nation, is guided by the Islamic teachings of the people. Separation isnt necessary and may not be the will of the people of that belief. Where the obvious conflict arises is when two or more groups of humans, with fundamentally different views of how to live their lives, collide. The people of the US and many other countries with multinational business are progressing forward in their "way" and they are trying to bring some nations of people with them. The "way" the US and many of these other countries are moving forward is not the will of these people. The Islamic people just want the rest of the world to "leave them alone". The problem is, that argument doesnt logically add up when we look at the world today. If that was the case then why are so many Islamic people migrating to countries where the government is not guided by Islamic values? England is on the road to having a majority population of muslims. There are many many muslims in the US too. If the rest of the world pulled everything associated with their "way" out of Islamic nations, would all the people of Islam all flock back to the motherland and leave the rest of the world alone and come together as a people to run their nation the Islamic "way"? Furthermore, if Islam does have such a perfect "map" for governing a nation based on Islamic values then why is it that the Islamic people can't seem to come together as the "United Nations of Islam" and act as a represented region in the world much like Europe and the United States? Is it the rest of the world's fault or just the US's fault? I truly am trying to understand the arguments made here but none of them are very strong. Remember, an argument is strongest when it uses proven facts and logic and less emotion, while taking into account as much evidence as possible. Not easy to do but most of these arguments are not even close. The fact is that the Islamic religion is not as perfect as many make it sound and there are just as many people of Islam that have an interest in money, individual achievement and power as there are in other countries. If that is not the case, then the only other logical explanation is that the Islamic people that want to live by the true values of Islam simply have not reached their breaking point yet. They have not gotten to the point where they all come together as a people and demonstrate their will as a people. Maybe they never will. It looks like some of them have but their method for demonstrating their will is not representative of the whole of Islam, yet they claim it is and no other Islamic leaders are standing up to condemn them so the rest of the world assumes that their actions are the will of all of Islam. The power of the people is stronger than any number of bombs or guns. A peaceful demonstration of a couple million people in the streets of Baghdad (or anywhere) will always accomplish much more, much faster, than a handful of gun toting idiots resorting to savagery. The power of democracy is that it allows the people to dictate the actions of a government to ensure certain things that have nothing to do with religion are managed such as building roads, providing heathcare, education, etc...so that each individual can focus on living their life the way they want to and each individual can develop their own spiritual relationship with their creator because after all, when you go to meet your creator, its just you and nobody else. Democracy is not perfect but it allows us to live as individuals and be our own dictators. If you want to try to make millions, nothing is stopping you but yourself. If you want to live in seclusion in the mountains, you can do that too. In the end, we are all human beings and we are all individuals.
And to Layla....unfortunately I think you will be let down on November 9th....Im not agreeing with it I am just stating the likely outcome.
Jason from USA



To Maurizzio:
You make some excellent points. Jews in Islamic Spain did flourish, and rose to be the leading intellectuals of Europe, translating many "lost" Greek classics from Arabic into modern Latin and thus, some say, initiating the Renaissance.
However, you seem to view Islam's past through rose-colored glasses. I quote: "...there used to be a UNITED LEADERSHIP across 3 Continents." Indeed there was united leadership, but what about united followership? The Islamic Empire was spread by military conquest and maintained by a small ruling Arab elite and often brutal wars of supression. The Empire was good at getting its subject populations to convert to Islam because if they did not, the doors to high office and education were closed to them. Many of the Spanish scholars I mention above actually converted to Islam in order to enjoy the fruits of their labor, while still practicing Judaism in secret.
Both Islam and Christianity have bloody and ignoble periods in their past. A radical fringe of Islam seems determined to have another one in the present.
By the way, where did you get your "unbiased" history education? I'm betting it was in the U.S...
Rick from USA



Rick from USA, so Islam was spread my military conquest? Can you please tell us which armies conquered Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, America, and Europe?


Sammer from USA



I agree the idea of Khilafah.

I think, only Caliphate can make the world better and peace.
Zam from Malaysia



Send Dr.Kareem a follow up message


IMPORTANT NOTE:
All posting to LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM are moderated by Dr Kareem and Aljazeera.com.

This website reserves the right not to publish any comments posted and if so do not have to provide reasons for doing so. All comments posted and published on Aljazeera.com DO NOT reflect either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement of Aljazeera.com. All comments expressed are private comments and DO NOT necessary reflect the view of this webstie. All comments are posted and published without liability to Aljazeera.com.

Postings are for people ages 13 on up. Those under age 13 must have consent from their parent/guardian before using LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM.

LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM is provided as a free service. As such, there are no guarantees given or implied. Use of LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM is at your own risk. Your use of LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM constitutes an agreement that you will not hold aljazeera.com or its affiliates liable for anything said or done in the service to anyone at anytime.

Use of LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM signifies that you are in total agreement to the terms contained here within. If you disagree with any of these terms, then please do not use the chat rooms. If you use LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM and do not agree to these terms aljazeera.com cannot and will not be held responsible.

Aljazeera.com and its affiliates reserve the right to ban anyone from using LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM at any time and for any reason they deem necessary to include, but not limited to: Abusive language or comments; Disrespect of others; Causing a disturbance; Purposely annoying others. Aljazeera.com does not discriminate due to race, color, or religious background. All are welcomed from any walk of life to LETS TALK - DR.KAREEM.



The majority of Iraqis trying to help themselves?

What are the similarities between Christianity and Muslim values

Can Muslims mix the four schools?

It is hard for most Arabs to understand what freedom really is...

Is it possible for the Islamic world to embrace the idea of separation between church and state?

Whats this about 72 virgins - Myth or Truth?

Should Saddam be pardoned and released?

The 72 virgins "thing":

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_id=1607

Iraqis wanting to help themselves?


http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_id=1647

Similarities between christianity and islam?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_id=1649

Actually, Islam bears stunning similarities to Ebionite Christianity, which had been popular in the near east in the period from about the mid second through the later 12th centuries.