Is Islam at war with the non-Moslem world?

Americans did not divide victims of the attack on WTC into compatriots and foreigners (there was a certain number of foreigners in the building that were there for business needs; I know that at least two Israelis were killed), they just reported on the number of victims; that is the difference between civilized and tribal approaches. Israeli press, by the way, did not give any special treatment to Israelis killed there (except mentioning their names), it mourned all the victims together with Americans.

0 Replies

Quote:

Suicide Bombings Are Condemned in Saudi Mosques

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, May 16 — As they arrived in the torrid heat at Abu Bakr Mosque for the first Friday Prayers since this week's bombings, most worshipers seemed to expect that today's sermon would condemn the attacks as contrary to Islamic tenets. They were not disappointed, or in disagreement.

"I totally reject these attacks, and I don't think anyone in Saudi Arabia would approve them," said Khalid Ibrahim, 32, an elementary school teacher.
But Mr. Ibrahim added that the killing of 34 Americans, Saudis and others in the explosions at three residential compounds here in the Saudi capital on Monday night had to be placed in context.
"I see hundreds of our Muslim brothers dying in Iraq and Palestine," he said. "Part of the reason for these attacks in our country is retaliation against that injustice."
Such comments were echoed by a dozen other worshipers in an upper-class suburb in eastern Riyadh. Many cited the Koran as teaching that the killing of innocents, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is not simply forbidden, but certain to lead to punishment in hell. They cited recent headlines to make the point of suffering by fellow Muslims.

I could be wrong but in reading between the lines I see outrage and sorrow for Islamic dead and an excuse for the death of others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/17/international/middleeast/17SAUD.html?thl

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

It would appear as I said there are those who commit the atrocities, those that fund and support it and the rest who cheer it.

Thing is, to many Arabs the same perception is held. That "atrocities" are commited against them, and that other peoples fund and support and cheer.

But I get your point. My take is that it does seem that the general Arab animosity toward the US is as prevalent as is the general animosity in the US toward Arabs.

0 Replies

I want to repeat once more: tribal approaches in Arabs are still strong, and they still tend give different relation to their brethren and all the others (put apart real or imaginative enemies). It will take time until they absorb idea of being part of mankind, and not only of the ethnoreligious entity.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I could be wrong but in reading between the lines I see outrage and sorrow for Islamic dead and an excuse for the death of others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/17/international/middleeast/17SAUD.html?thl

I don't see it as an excuse, many believe that the "context" the man mentioned (what you call an "excuse" for atrocity) is very relevant, that the hatred of the suicidal terrorists is not random and that there are sources of frustration that they twist into a right to kill. Mantioning the source does not have to mean excusing the act, it might simply be a wish to draw attention to what they see as the problem instead of focusing on how manifestations.

0 Replies

steissd

What, do you think, differs your opinions from those you criticise?

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

I want to repeat once more: tribal approaches in Arabs are still strong, and they still tend give different relation to their brethren and all the others (put apart real or imaginative enemies). It will take time until they absorb idea of being part of mankind, and not only of the ethnoreligious entity.

Take the beam from out of thine eye first. Isreal is one of the most tribal and ethnocentric places on earth. You talk about "different relation to their brethren and all the others", in Isreal Arab citizens are considered second class and many nations have condemned this apartheid.

0 Replies

craven

Quote:

But I get your point. My take is that it does seem that the general Arab animosity toward the US is as prevalent as is the general animosity in the US toward Arabs.

My point was not about the animosity of Islam to the US but to everything non-Islamic. They are engaged in areas where there is or was no American involvement.

0 Replies

American involvement in one particular area has generated generalized animosity.

But I think I get your point. Yes, they are engaged in many places. I'd like to know where you are going with this. Do you draw any conclusions based on that or are you musing?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Isreal Arab citizens are considered second class and many nations have condemned this apartheid.

It is not accurate. They have exactly the same rights all the other citizens have (Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank/Gaza are not Israeli citizens, since Israel did not annex these territories).
There is no law in Israel (unlike the pre-Mandelan S.Africa) that restricts any of the Arab citizen's rights.
They have less duties (service in the army is not compulsory for them): this is true. No one among Israeli Arabs has ever emigrated to the Palestinian authority (before the outbreak of violence) where they would not be an ethnic minority. On the contrary, many of the Palestinians search for possibilities to marry an Israeli Arab in order to get in future Israeli citizenship. I have never heard of Black people immigrating to S. Africa when there was an apartheid regime.

0 Replies

Craven,
I don't know how to answer your question regarding a conclusion. What I am convinced of if Islamic thought does not have a metamorphosis and is able to seperate the secular from the religious the "war" will be with us for many years to come. I might add IMO there is little chance of that

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Isreal Arab citizens are considered second class and many nations have condemned this apartheid.

It is not accurate. They have exactly the same rights all the other citizens have (Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank/Gaza are not Israeli citizens, since Israel did not annex these territories).
There is no law in Israel (unlike the pre-Mandelan S.Africa) that restricts any of the Arab citizen's rights.
They have less duties (service in the army is not compulsory for them): this is true. No one among Israeli Arabs has ever emigrated to the Palestinian authority (before the outbreak of violence) where they would not be an ethnic minority. On the contrary, many of the Palestinians search for possibilities to marry an Israeli Arab in order to get in future Israeli citizenship. I have never heard of Black people immigrating to S. Africa when there was an apartheid regime.

Steissd,

This is very convenient rationale. Arab neighborhoods (I am not talking about the occupied territories, Isreal owe nothing to those people, I am talking about Israeli Arabs) receive less funding than do the others.

The reason Arabs are not required to participate in the military is because many of Isreal's social benefits are tied to military participation.

I do not see any logic in your raising of the lack of immigration to the territories or S. Africa from Isreal or the US. That is only indicative of the difference in the desireability of said nations and does not mean inequality is non-existent.

Yes, there are no obvious laws to relieve them of rights, so I concede that S. African apartheid was far worse. National discrimination is not, however, exclusive to law. A deliberate underfunding of arab society in Isreal is ethnocentric and tribal.

I happen to understand some of the motivation, Arab Israeli population can't be allowed to out pace the Jewish population. But its ethnocentric and tribal nonetheless.

0 Replies

n

au1929 wrote:

Craven,
I don't know how to answer your question regarding a conclusion. What I am convinced of if Islamic thought does not have a metamorphosis and is able to seperate the secular from the religious the "war" will be with us for many years to come. I might add IMO there is little chance of that

Of what? Advancement or the consequence of a failing to advance?

Personally I do not limit the needed metamorphis to just religion.

I think Arabs need to change their governments, their education and their culture. I think religion is a big impediment to improving education and government but see religion as only an impediment, not really the rot of the problem. If forced to name the root I'd say lack of democratic recourse, low levels of secular education, and a status quo that is easily interpreted as disadvantageous to Arab society.

0 Replies

Craven
Of what. A metamorphis of any kind. IMO it is religion that keeps change from happening in the Islamic world. If religion and adherence to it does not change nothing else ever will.

0 Replies

Ok, I'd probably agree. i just wasn't sure if you were saying you thought a change was unlikely or that it was unlikely that change would not happen and the perceived war continue.

Incidentally though I do not see sweeping change looming it is comfortin to note that even more repressive religions have undergone change in the past and that change is often rapid and unforetold.

Basically what I'm saying is that hopefully we are wrong and rapid change is around the corner.

0 Replies

Is Islam at war with the non-Moslem world?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know