53
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:26 am
you missed my point. Turkey and Egypt are today normal and civilized countries with democratically elected governments. And they both have political and religious freedom. I really doubt that there is any difference between Egypt and, let's say, Greece, Poland or South Korea.
And I don't see a reason for someone not "supporting" egyptian government today.

But, as I said, generally I agree with you, I just think that you have choosen few wrong countries Wink
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 09:32 am
Are we talking about the same Egypt?

You can't be speaking about the one along the Nile River at the north of Africa. This Egypt is neither normal nor civilized. That their government is "democratically" elected is a sham, Mubarak is a dictator (supported by the US I might add) that is kept in power through force. Dissent is stifled and any opposition is jailed.

You can make an argument that there is "democracy" in Turkey, however there it has a huge problem. Under the Constitution, the military has the right to change the government by force (how else would a military do it?) if the democratically elected government does something it deems "non-secular".

I hate making an argument that would seem to be on the opposite side of my previous posts.

But saying that Egypt in Turkey are normal, civilized democracies strains all logic.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 09:34 am
Quote:
I can tell by your avatar that you support the States. Then tell me, why does not the USA condemn or speak out against Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bolivia, Tajikistan, Egypt, Israel, etc, but instead actually fund these pro-torture, corrupt countries military and economically? This is where the great saying with the stone and the house made of glass comes in.
I'm not trying to blame anyone or any nation here. I'm just trying to get a little perspective on the whole situation.

I acknowledge the criticism. Let me make my own feelings perfectly clear. The US ought to speak out emphatically regarding all nations that promote murder and chaos. That includes Saudi Arabia; Egypt; France; Sudan; Syria; China; North Korea; and many others. I do not know enough about the particulars of Bolivia and Tajikistan to add them to this list. Nor do I agree that Israel is corrupt, or in my words, promotes murder and chaos.

Now, my feelings are not government policy, nor will they ever be government policy.
And whereas, I desire the US to condemn these countries, to answer your question "Why does not the USA condemn or speak outÂ…," it is because the United States government has to decide which "bridges it is willing to die for."
There is much injustice in the world, and any person, any nation, has to decide which battles to fight. To declare all the world corrupt when you need good relations with some of these corrupt nations is foolish.
No one does this, including Sweden. Every nation has its corruptions and its own "weasley ways" of not offending other nations that it wishes to do business with. (Even Sweden).
The other side of the coin regarding "condemning" what you might believe is corrupt is to condemn no one at all, and to believe that everything is the same.

This leads to the immoral equation of saying and believing that religious Islamic fascists publicly slaughtering an innocent Jewish American citizen in the name of their G-d is the exact same as Israelis assassinating the leader of Hamas, who has publicly vowed to destroy Israel and who has sent killers to murder innocent Israelis.

All things are not the same.

There is a difference between the deliberate act of murdering innocents because you believe G-d approves of your actions and acts of war, which you believe are necessary to preserve your country.
The first is an immoral, evil act.
The second could be misquided; could be wrong; or it could be the best possible course, but it is not immoral and evil if you are not deliberately murdering innocents.

When a nation or people believe that all death; all war; all corruption is exactly the same as any other, then that nation or people is, by definition, an immoral people. They have rejected morality in the name of equality. And that is a false paradigm.

Therefore, whereas I might wish the USA to condemn all immoral acts, I understand the need for accommodating nations that may be less immoral than others.

I also believe that those who choose not to condemn the most immoral acts of any nation or peoples in favor of "understanding" why these nations or peoples choose to commit the most heinous crimes, are themselves without a moral compass and have forfeited all right to condemn anyone.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 09:44 am
I think we have slight misunderstanding, althought I think that you are over-reacting, but you are entitled to your opinion...here are some facts about Egypt - far from ideal country, but it seems like they are trying to get on the right path. I do agree, however, that I made a mistake in lining Egypt and Turkey, and for not making myself clear enough.
And I also admit mistake of thinking that Egypt has free elections. My bad.

And as for Turkish law, that wasn't used for ages, there are some laws in USA that are bizarre or even non-democratic - simply left-overs from some other times.

According to its Constitution, Egypt is a social democracy in which Islam is the state religion...
Over the past decade, policy reforms encouraged a transition from a government-controlled economy to a free market system

There were no reports of political killings or of extrajudicial killings of suspected terrorists by security forces during the year; however, police committed other extrajudicial killings (my note - as in many other countries including USA)

The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) reported one disappearance during the year. On February 9, Adel Mohammed Kamiha, a coffee shop owner, reportedly disappeared following his transfer from police custody to the custody of State Security in Alexandria.
In December an administrative court ordered the Ministry of the Interior to pay $46,200 (100,000 Egyptian pounds) to a family in compensation for the disappearance of their son, detained in 1989

The judiciary is generally independent; however, under the Emergency Law, cases involving terrorism and national security may be tried in military, State Security, or State Security Emergency Courts, in which the accused does not receive all the normal constitutional protections of the civilian judicial system.

The Constitution provides for the independence and immunity of judges and forbids interference by other authorities in the exercise of their judicial functions, and this provision generally was observed in practice
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 10:03 am
Freedom House, by the way, lists Turkey among "partly free" countries - FH is pretty harsh in many subjects, but Turkey is in the upper part of "partly free" list, much better scoring then Russia for example. You don't think Russia is evil we should avoid, do you? Wink
Egypt is in the "not free" list, however, lacking only point to be in "partly free" company. But, since FH gives enormous attention to free elections so their list sometimes suck - Qatar is on "not free" list although this country has much much more civil rights then many on "partly free" list with much better score.

Btw, FH lists Bolivia as "free country" - relating to my main objection Wink
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 10:42 am
Maybe you are right that I am over-reacting, but I am no big fan of Egypt or Turkey.

I would probably end up jailed in either of these countries.
0 Replies
 
Chain
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 10:51 am
Moishe3rd wrote:
Now, my feelings are not government policy, nor will they ever be government policy.
And whereas, I desire the US to condemn these countries, to answer your question "Why does not the USA condemn or speak outÂ…," it is because the United States government has to decide which "bridges it is willing to die for."
There is much injustice in the world, and any person, any nation, has to decide which battles to fight. To declare all the world corrupt when you need good relations with some of these corrupt nations is foolish.
No one does this, including Sweden. Every nation has its corruptions and its own "weasley ways" of not offending other nations that it wishes to do business with. (Even Sweden).
The other side of the coin regarding "condemning" what you might believe is corrupt is to condemn no one at all, and to believe that everything is the same.

Of course. Diplomacy is a tricky thing to handle, and you simply have to be able to make friends amongst the most wicked regimes. That's how it works. What I don't find that understanable, however, is why the US is so willing to actively support these nations. There's a clear differenct between accepting and aiding. I can't find the logic in condemning dictatures, violations against human rights and so forth in some nations and at the same time encourage it in others. Why does the Bush administration first tear Al Grahib down and announce that there will be no more torture (or "rape-rooms" as Bush prefer to call it Smile ), and weeks later fly arab suspects to Egypt to be exposed for the very same treatment the US so proudly claimed to have saved people from. We actually got swedes down in Egypt right now sent there by US agents, and that, frankly, sucks.
Hypochrisy?
Moishe3rd wrote:
This leads to the immoral equation of saying and believing that religious Islamic fascists publicly slaughtering an innocent Jewish American citizen in the name of their G-d is the exact same as Israelis assassinating the leader of Hamas, who has publicly vowed to destroy Israel and who has sent killers to murder innocent Israelis.

All things are not the same.

There is a difference between the deliberate act of murdering innocents because you believe G-d approves of your actions and acts of war, which you believe are necessary to preserve your country.
The first is an immoral, evil act.
The second could be misquided; could be wrong; or it could be the best possible course, but it is not immoral and evil if you are not deliberately murdering innocents.

You can tell the victim's family that. That'll probably lighten their hearts a bit.
0 Replies
 
Chain
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 10:59 am
MyOwnUsername wrote:
Freedom House, by the way, lists Turkey among "partly free" countries - FH is pretty harsh in many subjects, but Turkey is in the upper part of "partly free" list, much better scoring then Russia for example. You don't think Russia is evil we should avoid, do you? Wink
Egypt is in the "not free" list, however, lacking only point to be in "partly free" company. But, since FH gives enormous attention to free elections so their list sometimes suck - Qatar is on "not free" list although this country has much much more civil rights then many on "partly free" list with much better score.

Btw, FH lists Bolivia as "free country" - relating to my main objection Wink

I'm sorry, but I just can't trust an organization that is funded by both US Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency. There's too much politics involved.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 12:24 pm
Quote:
Why does the Bush administration first tear Al Grahib down and announce that there will be no more torture (or "rape-rooms" as Bush prefer to call it ), and weeks later fly arab suspects to Egypt to be exposed for the very same treatment the US so proudly claimed to have saved people from. We actually got swedes down in Egypt right now sent there by US agents, and that, frankly, sucks.

Assuming that what you say is true, you're correct. That sucks. I offer no defense other than ordinary beauracratic idiocy, which, of course, is no defense at all.

Quote:
You can tell the victim's family that. That'll probably lighten their hearts a bit.


Your statement actually strikes to the core of the difference between an immoral and moral act.

When a person acts, they will invariably cause damage to something. It is impossible not to do so.

In some countries and philosophies therefore, the solution is to do nothing. No action equals no consequences for this way of thinking. This is of course again, a false paradigm. But, it is considered better by many to surrender; to acquiesce; to do nothing; rather than by acting, create the possibility of damage; to create new victims of action.

However, there is another school of thought which says a person must act in order to preserve what they believe is moral and good, knowing that these actions will invariably damage others.

The difference between moral and immoral actions is that a moral person will try to minimize the damage that his actions cause.

An immoral person will either not contain his actions because he does not believe that the damages to life and property mean anything to his philosophy or he believes that maximum damage to any and all life and property is good according to his philosophy.

What happens to the survivors; the victims, will depend on their moral philosophy.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 01:41 pm
e-brown - I am absolutely sure that you wouldn't be jailed in Turkey. I am not saying that you should try it Wink But I am sure you wouldn't be.

Chain - that's the first list I ran into, I believe results from Amnesty International or HRW would be more or less same. Of course, in that case there is not much politics, but is lot of over-reacting as well, because I sincerely doubt that Amnesty International considers any country in the world good enough. I am sure there is plenty of racism, fascism and unbelievable violations of human rights in their report about Sweden as well Wink
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 03:05 pm
Try: http://www.hrw.org/ , and more specific http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=sweden
And also: http://www.amnesty.org/ , and more specific: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-swe/index
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 03:11 pm
I just knew that those Swedes are just fooling us around. They are actually worst of all Wink
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 03:13 pm
Shame on them :wink:
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 04:20 pm
Folks who figure Utopia is just around the corner wind up doin' nothin' but runnin' in circles.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 04:23 pm
are you trying to say that Utopia is not just around the corner??
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 05:06 pm
:cool:
0 Replies
 
Rose68
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 01:42 pm
QKid wrote:
portal,

Can u show me the verses from the Quran where it is so violent? The ones u are talking about on this post. I want to see that you make statements with its evidence. Or else, everyone should believe me when I say I ate breakfast with Elvis at my home.


Please find below the evidence you requested Smile It is no different than the any other religious books such as bible , dont you think so ?

Muslim atrocities, and the collective Muslim response to those atrocities, might be better understood knowing their belief system as spelled out by a few, among many, passages from the Quran: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29). "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them" (Quran 8:12). "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures" (Quran 98:1-8). "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam), until they are subdued" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29).
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 01:46 pm
Here, Have Fun

For those with time constraints, here are some Specifics

The same can be done with the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures, too, BTW.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 08:11 am
timberlandko wrote:
You're proceeding from a logical falacy ... the one has nothing to do with the other. How many Catholic nations would pass your test? Not too many in Latin America, not Spain or Ireland, nor Greece, Cyprus, or Malta. How many nations populated predominantly by those of Sub-Sahara African descent would pass your test? Not too many anywhere. How many current or former Communist nations could pass your test? Not very many there, either, are there? How many Asian nations would pass your test, or Third World nations, or emergent democracies?

What you've got there is a prejudice, not a premis.


I'd argue that there is a disproportionate amount of Muslim nations engaged in conflict. The reasons for this are debatable, but it is what it is. Do you seriously deny this?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 08:26 am
Not having done a quantitative analysis of the relevant data, I have no idea of the proportionality of conflict/theologic correlation. The notion any paricular individual religion is causally pertinent to the phenomonon of conflict is immaterial to the root of conflict, which is a function of the perception of relative advantage/disadvantage held by the parties to that conflict. religion may be a component of conflict, it often is; no concept history has wreaked more havoc or shed more blood than "God's Will", but conflict is always about power and advantage.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2019 at 12:26:18