Do We Hate Jews and Christians?
Dr. Khaled Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Some of my Jewish readers have doubts.
They suspect that Arabs and Muslims hate them, blaming them for Israel’s misdeeds and past mistakes such as trying to kill God’s prophets and messengers (peace be upon them). They say that Muslims still remember with bitterness how the Jews in Madinah tried to kill the Prophet (pbuh), broke their pact and betrayed him by siding with his enemies.
A good article from Khalid Batarfi, Editor of the Arabic daily Al-Madina. (Not surprisingly, it’s published in that city and has its largest readership there).
Batarfi aims his pen at those Muslims who “cherry pick” quotes from the Quran to find authority for their intolerant views of Christians and Jews. I’ll help him by noting that there are many Americans who do the inverse: they’ll dig through the Quran, the Hadith, and centuries-old laws to find reasons to hate Muslims and Arabs in general, Saudis in particular.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
The discrimination, abuse and oppression of non Muslims isn’t just in the Koran, it’s in Saudi laws. Treating Jews and Christians with dignity, giving them equality is literally against the law in the kingdom.
The issue here is not hate, it’s just a statement of fact. If someone pointed out the discrimination inherent in the laws that governed Nazi Germany, would that be an example of Nazi-bashing?
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other similar organizations have documented the abuses and deaths that have resulted from the Saudi Laws. Are they ‘cherry picking’?
There is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. Islam is the official religion, and all Saudi citizens must by law be Muslims. Saudis adhere to the strict Wahhabi sect of pure Islam. Apostasy is a capital offence under the Sharia Islamic law.
The Muttawa enforce laws prohibiting the public practice of any non-Muslim religion. The many millions of foreigners working in Saudi Arabia are also under Sharia law. Under Saudi law non-Muslims cannot testify in criminal court.
I understand Saudi attitudes – they’re based on traditions that this very traditional society has followed for hundreds of years. I don’t understand why any western-educated, enlightened person would choose to defend this brutal society at the expense of the millions who suffer as a result of it.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary, you mistake the purpose of my blog. I am not doing this to defend the Saudis, particularly against the indefensible. Nearly everything you cite is undeniable true.
My purpose is to put those things into context, and try to explain how they came about. My goal differs from yours, however. Rather than just point out things, I also try to suggest how they can be understood so that when we demand changes we know why things are as they are.
Simply pegging rocks doesn’t do much to encourage change. You have to know what can be changed easily, what can be changed with difficulty, and what can probably not be changed within a lifetime.
Please do try to find Mamoun Fandy’s book that I cited in an earlier comment. His book focuses on where the hardliners really are in terms of general attitudes. It also talks about why they think the Saudi gov’t is too “mild” in its approach to matters the hardliners think of as life-and-death issues. That should give you some sort of marker of where things actually do stand. I suggest that you do need to know the political landscape before you start demanding change.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Changing the attitudes of this brutal and very traditional society could take more than a lifetime – and in the meantime, how much death and oppression will they inflict on the world? A lot.
If we cared about those millions of potential victims, we would use other, less time consuming tactics to stop the current Saudi-inflicted destruction. Should we have patiently waited for the Nazis to achieve self-acutalization?
If our first priority is to save Saudi lives at the expense of American, Thai, Hindu, Spanish, Moroccan, Iraqi and Sudanese lives, then our State Department is doing the right thing.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary, I really do wish you could get off your soapbox of hatred. You don’t see “millions of potential victims”, you see the entire world under threat from Saudi Arabia.
I certainly don’t know how you can conclude that “‘our’ first priority is to save Saudi lives as the expense of American”. (By ‘our’, I assume you mean the US government.)
The US government (and State Dept. as an element of that government) is not reacting as you would wish because they do not share your reasoning. The US government does not see Saudi Arabia or Islam as a grave threat to itself or the world.
It sees certain groups and individuals–some of whom are Saudi–as being serious threats.
You could, of course, be right in your judgment. At the moment, though, your opinion is not shared by the government, nor the majority of Americans. Or Saudis, for that matter.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
I’ve already provided the links to the Senate inquries and the polls that state that the government is very much aware of the damage that’s being caused by Saudi sponsorship of jihad factory madrassas, groups like Hamas and al Qaeda, etc. And it’s a fact that more than 70% of Americans know that the Saudis are not our allies. You even linked to a book which notes that our current efforts in Iraq are meant to ‘contain’ Saudi Arabia.
The US used to believe that Saudi Arabia and Iran were the ‘twin pillars’ supporting their alliance in the Middle East. We fail to realize that these states are now the Twin pillars of terrorism. I’m just wondering how long it will take us to figure it out.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Senate inquiries and polling are all well and good. But their relationship with reality is subject to question.
Seventy percent of American’s do not “know” that the Saudis aren’t our allies: they think so because certain media keep telling them that that is so. My link to the book (a review, actually) was to note the error in the premise of the book.
Your citation of the “twin pillars” doctrine, which expired when the Shah was ousted, is puzzling. You really can’t use historic reference points to make contemporary conclusions any more than you can use contemporary reference points to “explain” the past.
I fear is is you that needs to do some figuring out. I suggest you take a look at this article.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
You refer me to an article about the “Mythic Foundations of Radical Islam”?
Tell the black Sudanese about the “Mythic Foundations of Radical Islam” Millions of them have died or been enlaved by radical Islam. I’m sure they’ll be pleased to discover that the threat is mythic.
John, I’ve noticed something in our discussions. I’ve had a few debates with Americans about these issues, and I’ve also had debates with people who’ve grown up in the Middle East. I have to admit that your style of debate is definitely Arab. Did you grow up in the Middle East, or did you grow up in the states?
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary, I don’t think you read that linked article very closely. The point was that extremist Islamic thought is based in mythology, not that extremist Islam is a myth.
I think, too, that you need to take a closer look at what’s happening in Sudan. It is not a religiously based genocide as many–if not in fact a majority–of the victims are also Muslim. The Fur people–as in Dar-Fur–are predominantly Muslim. So what’s going on there is not a religious war (though I’m confident that there are religous overtones to it), but something else. From what I read, it looks mostly like a civil war for autonomy on the part of a region that has never been fully part of “Sudan” as a politicial entity; another instance where a line on a map does not match up with where people with shared identities actually live.
I grew up in Michigan, Massachusetts, and Virginia. I first traveled overseas, to Turkey, when I was 16. I lived in Turkey and Thailand until I was 20, then in Mass. & DC until I was in my early 30s.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
I’ve taken a very close look at what’s happening in the Sudan. I’ve taken part a rally to stop the Islamist-imposed slavery there, and I’ve talked to people who lived through that experience.
Wahhabis and those who share their extremist views are famous for their persecution of moderate Muslims. The situation in Dafur is the result of traditional Arab racism against blacks, combined with the government’s adherence to Shariah laws, which justify the current genocide. Again, these are facts that I learned from speaking to black Christian and Muslim Sudanese.
If you believe that these former slaves are ‘preaching from a soapbox of hatred’, well, that’s your opinion.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary, again you try to leap from the specific to the general in your condemnation.
First, I think you’d be hard put to document your allegation of “traditional Arab racism against blacks.” There is no such tradition that I’m aware of. I would appreciate citations to the contrary.
And as far as fundamentalist religious influences in Sudan, I suggest you look a little closer to Khartoum for sources. Try Egypt, just down the river, and home of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyed Qutb.
Saudi Arabia really isn’t the source of all evil in the world, even that committed in the name of Islam. This fact doesn’t suit your prejudice, but it’s a fact nevertheless.
UPDATE: You might be interested in taking a look at this post from the Mayflower Hill blog concering violence in Sudan. (Pointer from Winds of Change.)
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Radical Islam is not rooted in the so-called “mythic foundations” in the opinion piece you recommended, but in the Satanic Verses themselves. Saudi scholars and clerics who point to the centrality of Jihad in the holy texts while promoting hatred and genocide against “infidels” are essentially correct.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
I find that a very idiosyncratic reading of Islam. Unique, in fact. How do the Satanic Verses play into this?
November:28:2004 - 01:36
a pro-Arabist view of the long history of Arab racism against blacks
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001970382_slavery02.html
The strongest fundamentalist influece in the Sudan is probably the Saudi funded paramiltary group, al Qaeda. Another Winds of Change writer, Dan Darling, found this information in the court documents from the trial of the 1998 embassy bombers…
- For years, the Sudanese government, al Qaeda and the Iranians have been working together.
- Al-Qaeda runs a number of official government agencies for the NIF including the Islamic Security Agency (secret police), the al-Amn al-Sawri (counter-intelligence), and the People’s Defense Force (a paramilitary group along the lines of the SS). The first high-ranking al-Qaeda defector the US ever got ahold of back in 1994, Jamal al-Fadhl, was serving as the assistant director of the Revolutionary Security Service, the evolutionary predecessor of the Islamic Security Agency.
- The Sudanese military helped al-Qaeda to conduct (unsuccessful) chemical, biological, and radiological weapons experiments at the Hilat Koko military base with the help of government scientists.
- Al-Qaeda shipped $300,000,000 in gold from Afghanistan to Sudan in the wake of the US victory over the Taliban.
According to the Washington Post, Iran is still aiding al Qaeda. Iran, Sudan and al Qaeda have been working together for many years. It’s a myth that the Shi’ite Iranians and Saudi (Sunni) al Qaeda are enemies. They have been working together for a long time.
As d-rod said, the current genocidal jihad is based on what extreme Islam calls ‘God’s Laws’. Unlike Westerners, Islamic states use their holy book as an unchaged basis for their laws.
Saudi Arabia is not the center of all Islamist violence. Germany was not the only source of Fascism in Europe, either, but it did create the firestorm that resulted in over 20 million dead.
Saudi Arabia is financing the current jihad, the madrassas that provide the world with genocidal mujahideen. They are still spending millions to finance their al Qaeda paramilitaries. They are an important source of the problem. We destroyed the old fascist threat by destroying its source. We can’t stop the current fascist threat if we continue to be allied with it.
Our efforts to ‘pressure’ Saudi fascist to become more Westernized are a complete waste of time. They don’t want to be like us, they want to destroy us. Bin Laden is just a bit more direct (and impatient) than his Saudi/Wahhabi brothers.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary,
The article you cite is talking about North Africa, which has a very different history than Saudi Arabia. The two are not comparable in the way matters of race–or slavery, for that matter–were and are addressed.
You also cite (pretty accurately) a history of Al-Qaeda in Sudan. But it is also not germane to a discussion of Saudi Arabia.
I’ll ask that you stop with the name calling. There is nothing about the problems of Saudi Arabia that has to do with fascism. Your use of the term insults my intelligence as well as that of my readers.
I don’t quite understand why you bother to comment here, or even read this blog, actually. My point is to put Saudi Arabia into perspective for American readers. Yours is to demonize Saudis and Saudi Arabia. I suspect I’m not going to favorably influence your opinion; you’re certainly not going to change mine.
This isn’t really an attempt on your part at a discussion. It more an attempt to make noise. That’s not what these comments are for.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
“My point is to put Saudi Arabia into perspective for American readers.”
That’s my point also. My comments mostly consist of facts about Saudi involvement in terrorism.
Presenting facts that prove that crimes and atrocities are currently being committed is not ‘demonization’.
Aryan supremacists based their Nazi oppression on nationalism and racism. Saudi supremacists base their oppression on religion and tribalism. The two groups are directly comparable.
You say: “You also cite (pretty accurately) a history of Al-Qaeda in Sudan. But it is also not germane to a discussion of Saudi Arabia.”
Most terrorism experts acknowledge that al Qaeda is a Saudi operation. Al Qaeda is financed by Saudi Arabia, it’s inspired by Saudi Wahhabism and it’s staffed by Saudis. It has everything to do with Saudi Arabia. How can you put anything into ‘perspective’ if you won’t recognize facts that are accepted my most of the world.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
No, Mary, “most terrorism experts” do not acknowledge that Al Qaeda is a Saudi operation. Some self-proclaimed experts so assert, and they appear to be the only ones you’re reading. Again, I point to the FBI, CIA, Treasury, and the 9/11 Commission who do not, repeat not, even claim, never mind “acknowledge”, that Al-Qaeda is a “Saudi operation”.
Those are sources I consider authoritative and hence recognize their conclusions. What you offer is a collection of self-proclaimed “experts” like Steven Schwartz, and a few congressmen. Your comments do not consist of fact, they consist of supposition, supported by wishful–albeit hateful–thinking.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Hardly idiosyncratic, John. Salman Rusdie didn’t win any prizes in the KSA for literary courage when he wrote Of course this is ‘about Islam’ in the NY Times. Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005102“>wrote:
I strongly disagree with the “cherry-picking” argument about religious texts. When imams and clerics call for “holy wars”, the infidel and pagan must be killed. Whitewashing the truth about Islam is simply helping the other side against America.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
d-rod: I comletely agree with Manji’s point. Muslims do need to get out there and demand an interpretation that fulfills their religious needs. Hopefully, in doing so, that intepretation will also help them get out of the historical corner in which they’ve painted themselves.
No, Rushdie wasn’t a best seller in Saudi Arabia (although I was given my first copy of Satanic Verses in Saudi, by a Saudi). I’m not familiar with his piece Of Course This Is ‘About Islam’. Can you provide a cite (preferably a link) to it?
I continue to think it cherry-picking, both on the part of those imams and clerics as much as on the part of critics. There are certainly texts which are odious in terms of contemporary sensibilities. Some of these can be explained as refering to specific, historical events (e.g. the conflict between the Jews of Yathrib/Medina and the first Muslims); others are more general, dealing with Jews as enemies of Islam for a variety of reasons. But because the chronology of the Quran is problematic, it’s easy for some to say “This sura supercedes that sura therefore we must believe X about the Jews.” Trying to parse things through the various hadith doesn’t work partcularly well either.
Muslims do need to find a way to open the doors of ijtihad once again. The current interpretation simply does not work in the contemporary world. I think we need to acknowledge that those challenges to that interpretation that are now going on, not to let ourselves also get stuck in historical interpretations and quotations and be blind to those challenges.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Salman Rushdie: “Yes, this -is- about Islam”
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Thanks. I’ll read it right away.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
John – you say “I point to the FBI, CIA, Treasury, and the 9/11 Commission who do not, repeat not, even claim, never mind “acknowledge”, that Al-Qaeda is a “Saudi operation”.
In your opinion, is the Saudi government involved in any way with financing or supporting al Qaeda?
How extensive is their involvement. Light, moderate, severe?
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary, I sincerely believe that the Saudi government is not/not involved in financing or supporting Al-Qaeda. I further believe that having been burned by illegitimate transfers of honorably donated monies to charities, it has cut its subsidies to any organization that cannot account properly for its funds.
I am joined in both beliefs, as noted, based on the conclusion of the US goverment, across the board.
If you’re asking, “Has any member of the Saudi government–from gardener to minister–never provided funds, knowingly, to Al-Qaeda,” I have to say, “I don’t know.” There is no evidence to directly support that conclusion, otherwise it would have been made public by more than an occasional opinion piece or individual congressional statement. Common sense, however, suggests that probably some government employees did, as individuals, intentionally give money to support UBL’s efforts. They did not do it as a matter of Saudi government policy.
The blush is off the rose of UBL as far as Saudis are concerned. That does not mean that there are no Saudis who continue to believe in UBL’s message. That message has adherents in practically every country on earth. But it does mean that UBL’s popularity–and consequently, all forms of support, moral or material, have all but ceased. Again I emphasize: support of UBL is not Saudi policy.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
But it does mean that UBL’s popularity–and consequently, all forms of support, moral or material, have all but ceased.
At what point did Saudi moral and material support of bin Laden ‘all but’ cease? Do you have any reliable sources that will confirm this information?
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Believe it or not, many Saudis lost their affection for bin Laden on 9/11. They realized that his philosophically attractive platform was not something they supported if it included violence like that. Immediately following the May 2003 bombing in Riyadh, his popularity plummeted, according to Saudis and Saudi media. With the Nov. 03 bombings and the constant gun-battles being fought on the streets of Saudi Arabia, his following has changed their minds. But yes, there are still some Saudis who feel oppresed enough by the West that they still believe in UBL. They’re the ones who are trying to go to Iraq, where they’re being killed.
My sources for the decline in support for UBL are USG officials reporting on Saudi Arabia, Saudi government statements, conversations with Saudis, and Saudi media reports. This October report from the Treasury Dept. offers some details. I’ve also been highlighting Saudi media statements that show how UBL’s goals and methods are being repudiated in the Saudi media.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Believe it or not? After 9/11, polls showed that a majority of Saudis sympathized with bin Laden. Of course I don’t believe it, because I have no reason to.
After 9/11, Saudi ‘charitable’ contributions to terrorism and jihad madrassas fell by less than 4%.
Actions speak louder than words. By their actions, the Saudis prove again and again that they approved of 9/11 and bin Laden. Their attitudes towards us are like the attitudes of the Germans towards America pre-WWII. They don’t hate us for our freedoms, and they don’t hate us for our policies. They hate us because we’re in their way.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary, you continue to commit the logical error of extrapolating to the whole behavior committed by the part.
When you see the word “charity” in a Saudi context, you assume that it equals “funding for terror.” It does not.
There is no question that money donated to ostensible charitable organizations has been diverted. That is not the same as saying that all money donated to charity was spent on funding terror, which the assertion you are trying to make.
Saudi funding of chartities certainly continues. But the Saudi government has now taken control over how money can be donated. No money, for instance, can be sent overseas for any “charitable” use without being channeled through the central bank. Again, I refer you to the piece from the US Treasury.
I never claimed that post-9/11 all Saudis, or even a majority of Saudis, dropped support for UBL. I said that many did. Even more continue to do so as more terrorist events take place in the country.
I’d like to see a new poll.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
All of you have made interesting points about the nature of our relationship with Saudis. Aside from all of the hyperlinks to articles of this and that nature, I will be forthcoming about this point. There are many forces in the world, seen and unseen. Most prevelant of these forces are unification and division. Muslims have their ‘true’ prophet, as Christians have their ’savior’ while Jews make their claim of ‘the chosen ones’. These claims are forces of division and serve just that purpose. The fact of the matter is you have a choice. You can choose to focus on what divides us or what unites us. What can be achieved by division? Just that: Strife and never ending conflict. Within every community or belief these elements are present. No two people that support or condemn Bin Laden do so for the exact same reason, but are nevertheless united by that theme. Its a bit dichotic in nature, but it is a choice. If we are to move forward as a society it is advantagious to focus only on that which unites us. I believe our commonality far outweights these oftentimes subtle differences in opinion, culture, religion, etc. This is why I believe it is not enough to understand others point of view, but to embrace that of which we find common thought with. When we can relate to others, we see ourselves in them. Once this is achieved, everything else falls into place.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Michael: I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for your comment.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Michael, while your embracing common thought with terrorists, take into consideration the estimated 5-15% of Muslims who believe that it is their duty to “jihad” against the “West.” Even if it was 1%, out of ~1.3 billion Muslims that is a sizeable army. Pull your appeasing pacifist head out and join the real world, the world of jihad. The peaceful Muslims I keep hearing about arent vocal against this so-called minority, they either sympathize or are afraid to speak out against them. Not all muslims are like “John” and certainly most Muslims hate Jews and the U.S. I dont think that is up for debate. It is easy for us here in the States to try to take a logical point of attack, a dialogue as you proposed, concerning the issue of terrorism. There in lies the mistake of taking western technique to analyze what I believe is a perverted religion from the dark ages (no offense John) My country was attacked and while I can say it was unprovoked we could argue about that all day, so please lets not. I like your approach in initiating dialogue like this John, but after 9/11/2001, it all changed. And wasn’t that the point?
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Tone: I’d like to see your sources for 5-15%. US terrorism experts, both in and out of government, put the number in the tens of thousands, not the tens of millions. We err severely by judging the 99% of Muslims who are not interested in terrorism as identical to the 0.625% who are. By treating them all alike, we ensure that the problem is worse than it need be and that it continues to grow.
The peaceful Muslims who speak out aren’t being heard; apparently you can’t find their voices and assume they’re not present. Look around more broadly–like in this blog–and you’ll hear voices aplenty. You can even go to MEMRI to find examples of Muslims speaking out. That they’re not being reported in the US mainstream media is the fault of the media, not the speakers.
I do take offense at your characterization of Islam, because it cannot be anything other than insulting. I can forgive that because it’s clear that you know very little about it.
I was as affected by 9/11 as much as anyone who did not actually have a family member killed in the attacks. I only had a nephew almost killed in the Pentagon. But I’ve also had a dozen friends and colleague killed by terrorists in Beirut, over Lockerbie, in the African embassies, in Jeddah. And when I was reassigned to Riyadh on 9/12, you can bet I understood what was at stake.
The terrorists have to be taken care of. In many instances, that will mean “taken out”. What needs to be done is to make sure that the numbers do not keep growing through inaction or stupid action on our part. We need, too, to encourage (or insist) that those who helped create the problems in the first place help clean them up.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Mary: I’ve noticed something in our discussions. I’ve had a few debates with Americans about these issues, and I’ve also had debates with people who’ve grown up in the Middle East.Did you grow up in the Middle East, or did you grow up in the states?
Bingo. After reading all the comments, and the obvious dislike for anyone, or anything Saudi, this was the sum total. I’ve endured these comments myself. Anyone who becomes enlightened on international politics, or a culture other than their own, are automatically questioned on their roots.
Mary, love your utopia. What part of the U.S. would you reside in? No racism, slavery obviously never practiced, no terrorism, except by Arabs, and no brutality. Rodney King would declare otherwise. Oops, I implied the “racism” word.
Oh, and no, I am not an African American. Just a realist. It’s a shame your bitterness does not allow you the frame of mind to be objective, or absorb some new facts.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Please, I said even if it was ~1%, it is a staggering figure.
I meant “perverted religion” to include the jihad mindset, not the entire religion, I should have revised before I submitted my comments the parantheses () weren’t enough. And your right, I know as much of Islam as I do Saudi Arabia (little). I know what I have read in a comparative religion course and articles here and there various politcal books, which I know is a joke to you people since you believe that Islam should not even be translated into another language, obviously. I must be totally ignorant of your peaceful way of life. I know few muslims, I know more Christian Arabs and Iranians since I attend a Christian University there are many there. They are decent people, ashamed of muslims, understandably so. The muslims I do know are non practicing and very liberal, it is safe to say they are “Americanized.” So I am not a racist nor do I blanket all Arabs/muslims. Its very hard though to watch Saudi TV, (translated ofcourse) and come to any other conclusion other then they are not our friends, in the least, and at most our enemies.
Dos: Im sick of the “Im enlightened, you Americans and your view of the world is archaic and self serving” elitist rhetoric that comes from “intellectuals” and haters of the US, mostly europeans. Come out of your guise and admit it.
This country is great and it is noble and it is definately NOT perfect. Utopia will not be found on this Earth, Mary knows this. Rodney King? Lord help us…
I have a general question for anyone, do you think Iraq should be split into 3 countries with shared oil revenues, afterall its always about money, that transcends all religions…backsheesh anyone?
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Tone: I’m not Muslim. I do know a lot of Muslims, from around the Islamic world. I’ve lived and worked in Turkey, South and South East Asia, as well as all the Arab countries, excepting Mauritania. As a consequence, I know that’s it’s very dangerous to assume that there’s a unitary Islam, no matter how much some Muslims like to pretend.
If you’re watching translated Saudi TV, you’re probably watching MEMRI, as I can’t think of anyone else doing it. That’s fine, but do realize that MEMRI has its own agenda, which is not telling people how great Arabs and their religion are.
Splitting Iraq would be a complete disaster, not only for the Iraqis, but also every country in the region and particularly for the US. And no, it isn’t all about oil.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Tone, welcome to a state of confusion. I’m sorry I obviously forgot to use the parenthesis when quoting Mary. Her words, not mine.
I am American (not native) but my family immigrated to the U.S. in the 1850’s from Norway. My point with Rodney King was not of his character, but the fact that racism still exists in the U.S. and pointing out flaws in a country does not indicate hateful rhetoric. Patriotism does not render us lemmings, and should include constructive criticism.
As for translating Islamic material, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, however the original Quran was written in Arabic. Many converts to Islam cannot read Arabic, yet practice Islam. I have never heard anyone say they were not Muslim.
The point is keeping the original language, such as preserving the language of Aramaic, which is now used completely only in a small village in Syria, though I know a few who speak it. I’m sure you’re aware that while the essence of the Bible is intact, simple word translations can make a difference, for the better, or worse.
I’m hardly a theology student, just wanted to address your comments on translations.
Oh, and MEMRI is about as negative as you can get.
As for dividing Iraq. I think it’s complicated enough as it is, wouldn’t work. Hope I cleared up some confusion.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Racism is alive and well, only fools deny that, but the government is overwhelmingly pro minorities (affirmative action) and even anti white. Political correctness stifles honest debate here, and comments like the Rodney King one are disengenous, and that criticism is not constructive. You could have made a legitimate point by referring to James Byrd. Why the “(not native)”? Interesting why you put it like that. My grand parents came from Mexico and Spain, in the 1900’s and I wouldnt have put it like that…
Patriotism does not mean “My country right or wrong” but it does mean “My country not perfect but noble and righteous.” Thats the USA, millions try to get here and you should be proud you are (not saying your not).
As for the Koran, a professor of mine (muslim) made the comment to me about translations and anytime I hear someone criticizing the Koran who is not muslim, I always hear the “scholars” point out that the person cannot read arabic so anything they have to say about the translated version is irrelevant. Thats a double standard, its good enough when you convert to Islam but not when trying to critique it. Touches on what John said about questioning authority.
Isn’t MEMRI state run?
Still think Iraq should be separated. No one can give me a good reason why not. So SE Iraq will go to Iran, wont change anything. We can establish a HEAVY millitary presence in “Kurdistan” full arsenal and logistical support.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
No, MEMRI is registered as a non-profit organization. Questions are raised about its links with the Israeli gov’t as at least one of MEMRI’s directors is a former Israeli Army Intelligence officer.
Breaking up Iraq is a surefire way to ensure a long and bloody regional war, dragging in Iraq’s neighbors. Turkey does not want an independent ‘Kurdistan’ on its borders, foment unrest among Turkey’s own Kurdish population (neither do Syria or Iran, for that matter). Iran will take try to take advantage of a weakly organized ‘Shi’a region’, though success on that front is not a given. Syria will try to protect its interests with the Iraqi Sunnis and the remnants of the Ba’ath Party. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan will be very unhappy about unstable countries (the Sunni and Shi’i states) on their borders. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other Gulf Arabs will be extremely nervous about a more powerful Iran–they’re already nervous about non-nuclear Iran.
Breaking up Iraq–or allowing it to break up–would be a major disaster, with worldwide ramifications.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
so pros: Arab nations might actually help with the Iran problem, creates problems for Syria.
cons: Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan suffer.
I dont think a bloody regional war is that bad of an idea, they will be killing themselves instead of our troops.
What is the answer, will they ever stand up and take care of themselves or is this civil war inevitable, and our presence prolongs the wait, not ends the threat? Is the hate between these people a lost cause? Judging on how the elections went these people need to get their act together or they are headed to this bloody future. I guess that will be our fault to right? Liberate them and they find something to kill eachother over. Private timelines must be made for the Iraq government. Emphasis on the private…
November:28:2004 - 01:36
It won’t be restricted to the region; that’s only where the main part of the fighting goes on. Americans overseas will be very tempting (and easy) targets. Unless you’re suggesting that all Americans retreat to within their borders, I don’t think this is a good idea. And I don’t think this is a good idea under any circumstances.
Iraq does need to pull itself together. Hatreds can be overcome, but we’ve plenty of historic examples of it taking an inordinately long time… N. Ireland only took 400 years, after all, and it’s not entirely settled yet.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Tone, perhaps some historical research on Iraq would help regarding the different opinions.
These people endured years of war with Iran, only to have Saddam invade Kuwait. What followed was the Gulf War, another bombardment of their country. Many men were killed. The icing on the cake was sanctions that left their children dying of malnutrition, and disease.
They caught their breath just in time for another war in their country. The Iraq ”liberation” in the eyes of many Arabs was an ”invasion” which leaves us with thousands more dead, not to mention thier country being torn apart. Abu Gharaib should have been handled differently from the beginning, as an outrage with immediate courts martial for those involved, as this was a major turning point on Arab opinion.
Saddam Hussein ”invaded” Kuwait, and informed his troops that they were to “liberate” Kuwait from their rulers. Imagine their shock upon learning it wasn’t true. No human wants their country taken over by foreigners, it goes against human nature, regardless of the reason.
And, yes I am proud to be an American, and uphold the human rights of all, including humans in foreign countries, as well as my own.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
I’d only add that it wasn’t the sanctions that caused the death of Iraqi children, but the way in which Saddam chose to spend the money he earned through the legal oil-for-food program. While children were dying, Saddam was building magnificent palaces, keeping his WMD programs ticking, and buying off everyone necessary to keep himself in power.
That money could have been spent on its intended purpose: humanitarian aid.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
John Said:
November:09:2006 – 16:57
I’d only add that it wasn’t the sanctions that caused the death of Iraqi children, but the way in which Saddam chose to spend the money he earned through the legal oil-for-food program. While children were dying, Saddam was building magnificent palaces, keeping his WMD programs ticking, and buying off everyone necessary to keep himself in power.
That money could have been spent on its intended purpose: humanitarian aid.
END
I do not have to add anything to that obvious truth. DOS, I don’t know if you just have a problem communicating in the Enlgish language, or if your just an imbecile.
November:28:2004 - 01:36
Tone: You might want to back off a bit… DOS, California born and bred, was in Kuwait when Saddam invaded. She’s got a very well-informed point of view on the matter and very clear feelings about Saddam, whose forces chased her and her family around Kuwait.