NationStates Jolt Archive

Its yet ANOTHER of TLS polls! Oh JOY!

Seeing how there is so much violence in the middle east, I wondered what popular belief about the Muslim World was. The media paints a TOTALLY wrong portrait of Arabs and muslims in total. Whats your opinion? Please post it below, i want to see not only WHAT you think but WHY you think it.

I, for one, have lived in a Muslim nation for QUITE a few years. That country was Pakistan. Now i know what you are thinking, "Pakistan?!? Thats where, like, all the terrorists are! Its like, Everyone rides around on Camels and burns american flags and hates america! And Bin Ladens hiding there too!". That,for one, is TOTALLY wrong. Pakistan is NOT full of angry-america haters. having lived there my'self, i know it is only an EXTREMELY small minority. Most people there DREAM of living in America. They think america is nice. Pakistan is one of the more open Islamic Countries, with more civil rights, more freedoms, and more of the good stuff than most other Muslim nations. It was actually THE first Islamic country, and if the rest of the muslim world had followed Pakistans example, then The west would be safe, but not India(if you didn't know, India and Pakistan are constantly at each-others throats and both have a nuclear Armament thats in the top 10 list of nuclear armaments. if they go to war AGAIN, there will probably be nukes launched. And then China would come to the aid of Pakistan. And launched nukes in the most populated part of the world...)

Life in the muslim world is pretty free. The people are all kind, Islam is NOT a fire-breathing religion. The Qu'ran says things like "Do not commit suicide" (which most suicide bombers do. I guess they're going to Islamic hell.) and "Do not murder" or "All wars that are not holy curse those who participate in them". That PROVES that the terrorists are going against their OWN religion.

I have also been to the Arabian Peninsula. In the city of Dubai, there are beautiful skyscrapers. The city is actually MORE beautiful than most in America and Europe(although the only European city ive ever seen was London). Its well kept, and there isnt much of a poor area, Crime is relatively low, and Dubai Int'l Airport is (in my opinion) the best in the world. Where else can you have a Big Mac at 1:30 in the morning? (most U.S. and European Airports close downa t around 10:00-12:00.)

All in all, having lived and visited many parts of the Muslim world, iw ould have to say it is a very nice place. Nice people, nice food, nice religion, nice land, nice language, nice pretty-much everything!

I think there are many problems in the muslim world and much oppression, however it is made out to be a lot worse than it is.

people are too ready to call it wrong when they see a difference in culture

I think there are many problems in the muslim world and much oppression, however it is made out to be a lot worse than it is.

people are too ready to call it wrong when they see a difference in culture

What opression do you speak of(excluding Iran, Syria , and Palestine. Those are all fringe nations with almost no allies. And in Palestine, its the Isrealies, who are mostly Jewish, who are doing the persecution)

BTW- All of North AFrica, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh are part of the Muslim world too.

I believe that the fundamentalist extremist Muslims, like their fundamentalist Christian counterparts should be lined up and shot.

The moderates are all right.

I believe that the fundamentalist extremist Muslims, like their fundamentalist Christian counterparts should be lined up and shot.

The moderates are all right.

Agreed. Dont forget the Hindu extremists, the Jewish extremists, the Sikh extremists...(says an extremists for every religion.). Well, I guess all Extremists should be shot :D!

I spent just over 2 years in Muslim countries. I found the people I came in contact with to be very pleasant and hospitible. Turkey is my favorite followed by Bahrain. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait I found to be very much alike. Qatar, Oman and the UAE I really did not care for, but the people were nice.

What opression do you speak of(excluding Iran, Syria , and Palestine. Those are all fringe nations with almost no allies. And in Palestine, its the Isrealies, who are mostly Jewish, who are doing the persecution)

I mean mainly the oppression of women. About how little rights they have, for example, in regard to divorce and custody of chidren

Agreed. Dont forget the Hindu extremists, the Jewish extremists, the Sikh extremists...(says an extremists for every religion.). Well, I guess all Extremists should be shot :D!

That sounds a bit extremist...

That sounds a bit extremist...

lol. But its true!

I wouldn't want to live there. There seems to be little if any tolerance for other religions, oppression of women and religious minorities. It seems pretty backwards to me with the exception of a few regions. The muslim world needs more moderates and it needs to move into the 21st century.

I mean mainly the oppression of women. About how little rights they have, for example, in regard to divorce and custody of chidren

*sigh* once again, you talk about only one nation really. And im not even srue about it. In Syria maybe, but thats it. Iran actually has a few Women leaders, as does almost ALL of the other Islamic nations. Pakistan has quite a few Women Parlimentarians, and Bangladesh has had THREE women presidents.

I think you reffer to the secluded areas in the Afghani-Pakistan Border areas and the Afghanistan-PAkistan-Iran border area.

To me there are two big problems withthe moslem world, their views of women and feminism, and the sharia, I think the terrorismthreats are making us blind for the real issues, like how to adapt the economies of moslem countries that DOESN'T have oil, that will in the future probably hep al quida recruiting more than peoples' thoughts about the big satan.

I wouldn't want to live there. There seems to be little if any tolerance for other religions, oppression of women and religious minorities. It seems pretty backwards to me with the exception of a few regions. The muslim world needs more moderates and it needs to move into the 21st century.

See what i mean? Brainwashing, the evil Media did this to you! Every muslim nation(with the exeption of Iran and MAYBE Morocco) has religious tolerance. The Muslim world is REALLY around 98% moderate and 2% extremist. Its just like in most cases the media only covers the extremists.

*sigh* once again, you talk about only one nation really. And im not even srue about it. In Syria maybe, but thats it. Iran actually has a few Women leaders, as does almost ALL of the other Islamic nations. Pakistan has quite a few Women Parlimentarians, and Bangladesh has had THREE women presidents.

I think you reffer to the secluded areas in the Afghani-Pakistan Border areas and the Afghanistan-PAkistan-Iran border area.

What do you say? Iran is the most liberal moslem country, it is actually very secular, Pakistan have been influated by the English, but the rest of the Moslem nations, for example, how many women are driving cars in saudi Arabia?

To me there are two big problems withthe moslem world, their views of women and feminism, and the sharia, I think the terrorismthreats are making us blind for the real issues, like how to adapt the economies of moslem countries that DOESN'T have oil, that will in the future probably hep al quida recruiting more than peoples' thoughts about the big satan.

((i can see your not a good typer. I wont hold that against you, but others will.))

In regards to the women, go to the Post i said to Loveliness and hope.

The Muslim ACTUALLY has a large non-oil economy. Countries like Pakistan, Turkey, BAngladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia are pretty well off with their little or no oil-supplies. The only problem is that SOME of the governments(the saudis in particular. They have a nice government, they just forgot the poor people) arent giving money to the poor, even though they can afford it.

Oh, and BTW- i found another seclusive government. Somalia. It doesnt have ANY civil rights at all...

*sigh* once again, you talk about only one nation really. And im not even srue about it. In Syria maybe, but thats it. Iran actually has a few Women leaders, as does almost ALL of the other Islamic nations. Pakistan has quite a few Women Parlimentarians, and Bangladesh has had THREE women presidents.

I think you reffer to the secluded areas in the Afghani-Pakistan Border areas and the Afghanistan-PAkistan-Iran border area.

I hope you don't belive that? Iran is the most liberal moslem country, it is actually very secular, Pakistan have been influated by the English, no wonder they respect women. But the rest of the Moslem nations, for example, how many women are driving cars in Saudi Arabia? In what way are sharia feministic?

I don't think better or worse of Islam than the other religions. Some good morals, some nonsense, some good apples and bad.

What do you say? Iran is the most liberal moslem country, it is actually very secular, Pakistan have been influated by the English, but the rest of the Moslem nations, for example, how many women are driving cars in saudi Arabia?

IRAN?!!??! Person, where did you get that information? ANY insulting the Shah will get you in BIG trouble. That country is hated by ALL Nations baisically(expecially by many other muslims). The rest of the middle east was under British(or French) controll for around 30 years! So they were influenced by Europe too.

And in Aaudi Arabia, plenty of Women drive cars. As in Iraq, Kuwait, the U.A.E, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh...(says all the countries in the Muslim world) when they can afford it. And while they dont get as good jobs as men, neither do women in the west!

We are an international company so the ones I come across tend to be nice. However, they tend to be educated if that means anything.

I found the Palistineans to be nice people overall.

There were some that wanted to hurt me but the majority were polite people. Full of questions about why were are'nt ending things, etc. etc.

Overall the "true" Muslims are good people.

I hope you don't belive that? Iran is the most liberal moslem country, it is actually very secular, Pakistan have been influated by the English, no wonder they respect women. But the rest of the Moslem nations, for example, how many women are driving cars in Saudi Arabia? In what way are sharia feministic?

Heres an Exerpt from Wikipedia:

Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of caring for house and family for both parents. In theory, Islamic law allows each spouse to divorce at will, by saying "I divorce you" three times in public. In practice divorce is more involved than this and there may be separate state proceedings to follow as well. This practice is valid within most of the Muslim world today. Usually, the divorced wife keeps her dowry from when she was married, if there was one, and is given child support until the age of weaning at which point the child may be returned to its father if it is deemed to be best.

Islam does not prohibit women from working, but women are generally not allowed to be clergy or religious scholars. Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government. This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century, despite the example of Muhammad's wife Aisha, who both took part in politics and was a major authority on hadith. Nevertheless, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, and Bangladesh, all predominantly Muslim nations, have had female heads of government or state (e.g. Benazir Bhutto, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Tansu Ciller and Khaleda Zia respectively).

A Muslim may not marry or remain married to an unbeliever of either sex (2:221, 60:10). A Muslim man may marry a woman of the People of the Book (5:5); traditionally, however, Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man[1]

The Muslim ACTUALLY has a large non-oil economy. Countries like Pakistan, Turkey, BAngladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia are pretty well off with their little or no oil-supplies.

And what can you say of their BNP? Those countries aren't really first world countries, if there is any hope in the short run for a Moslem country it would be Iran, soon the last Mullahs are dead and then there will be noone to say against their president.

See what i mean? Brainwashing, the evil Media did this to you! Every muslim nation(with the exeption of Iran and MAYBE Morocco) has religious tolerance. The Muslim world is REALLY around 98% moderate and 2% extremist. Its just like in most cases the media only covers the extremists.
Nobody said every muslim nation is like this. There are many parts of the islamic world that are. Let's list a few
Nigeria, where muslims constantly try to enforce sharia on christians and violently riot when christians resist
Indonesia, where some backwoods muslim villages still attack christian ones and kill the men/rape the women
Southern Phillipines, where muslim "freedom fighters" kidnap western tourists and decapitate them
Saudi Arabia, where anyone praying to a different religion can be tortured and imprisoned by law
Sudan, where christians and animists in the south were being butchered and enslaved
Iran, where bahais still suffer severe discrimination and imprisonment for their faith
Palestinian territories, where honor killings are a fact of life
Egypt, where coptic christians risk death or rape and are often shaken down for money by their muslim neighbors
Just a short list to prove my point that some regions in the muslim world are pretty barbaric.

Nobody said every muslim nation is like this. There are many parts of the islamic world that are. Let's list a few
Nigeria, where muslims constantly try to enforce sharia on christians and violently riot when christians resist
Indonesia, where some backwoods muslim villages still attack christian ones and kill the men/rape the women
Southern Phillipines, where muslim "freedom fighters" kidnap western tourists and decapitate them
Saudi Arabia, where anyone praying to a different religion can be tortured and imprisoned by law
Sudan, where christians and animists in the south were being butchered and enslaved
Iran, where bahais still suffer severe discrimination and imprisonment for their faith
Palestinian territories, where honor killings are a fact of life
Egypt, where coptic christians risk death or rape and are often shaken down for money by their muslim neighbors
Just a short list to prove my point that some regions in the muslim world are pretty barbaric.


YOur findings on Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt are false. The rest are true, because #1, Everyone hates Iran, and #2 in all the ones that ARENT the false ones or ARENT Iran, thats because the people doing that are REBELS. ENEMIES OF THE STATE. THE UNPOPULARs!

IRAN?!!??! Person, where did you get that information? ANY insulting the Shah will get you in BIG trouble. That country is hated by ALL Nations baisically(expecially by many other muslims). The rest of the middle east was under British(or French) controll for around 30 years! So they were influenced by Europe too.

And in Aaudi Arabia, plenty of Women drive cars. As in Iraq, Kuwait, the U.A.E, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh...(says all the countries in the Muslim world) when they can afford it. And while they dont get as good jobs as men, neither do women in the west!

Shah? Where do YOU get your information from? personally I agree with the theories of Christopher Reuter, but I guess that not everone do. That a country is hated by doesn't mean that they are far from democracy, how much rock music is played in other Moslem countries?

As far as I know women were not allowed to drive cars in saudi Arabia two years ago, I have been to Egypt myself, sure you can advance as female, but to say that it is as simple as in the western world (now I am talking of the nonacademic world) is just false.

YOur findings on Saudi Arabia ... are false.

As far as I know you don't get punished for praying to other god in Saud Arabia, but one of my relatives had to sign a paper where he made it clear that he understood a use of drugs in saudi Arabia would lead to decapitivation, they seem be pretty hard to foreigners...

Shah? Where do YOU get your information from? personally I agree with the theories of Christopher Reuter, but I guess that not everone do. That a country is hated by doesn't mean that they are far from democracy, how much rock music is played in other Moslem countries?

As far as I know women were not allowed to drive cars in saudi Arabia two years ago, I have been to Egypt myself, sure you can advance as female, but to say that it is as simple as in the western world (now I am talking of the nonacademic world) is just false.

I agree, life is different there. Does that mean you should hate it? Despise it? Want to blow it up? If you look at Islam with such disgust(Adn yes, your posts make it look like you are disgusted by Islam),your no better than the terrorists. Just because they only have 90% of the rights that the West does, that doesnt mean that they are evil.

And where did you hear they werent allowed to drive cars? I wonder how all those Women government people, buisiness owners, and foreign diplomats got around. Ride a camel? (that was sarcastic)

In regard to rock music, Only Morocco has laws against it. The onyl reason it isnt heard in OTHER countries is because of taste reasons. We dont listen to arabic music in OUR cars, do we?

Oh, and PAkistan has its own kind of Soft-rock. How do i know? Im listening to it right now:D

YOur findings on Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt are false. The rest are true, because #1, Everyone hates Iran, and #2 in all the ones that ARENT the false ones or ARENT Iran, thats because the people doing that are REBELS. ENEMIES OF THE STATE. THE UNPOPULARs!
Bullshit. Saudi has laws stating that Islam is the only religion to be practiced on their soil. Anyone practicing another is liable to be arrested tortured or imprisoned. US military personell had to have services in secret.
I have read first hand accounts from palestinian women who were almost killed by their families for sexual indiscretions. I have also read first hand accounts of coptic christians being threatened with death and rape if they didn't hand over money to their muslim neighbors. The muslims claimed they were collecting zakat, the tax to be paid by dhimmis. These things happen in the muslim world.

As far as I know you don't get punished for praying to other god in Saud Arabia, but one of my relatives had to sign a paper where he made it clear that he understood a use of drugs in saudi Arabia would lead to decapitivation, they seem be pretty hard to foreigners...

Of course! Drugs are ILLEGAL. I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Just because they take what the U.S. does a step further makes them evil? It actually makes them safe. The only place in the Civilized world that ALLOWS drugs i believe is Canada... Im not sure though. And a few European nations.

Bullshit. Saudi has laws stating that Islam is the only religion to be practiced on their soil. Anyone practicing another is liable to be arrested tortured or imprisoned. US military personell had to have services in secret.
I have read first hand accounts from palestinian women who were almost killed by their families for sexual indiscretions. I have also read first hand accounts of coptic christians being threatened with death and rape if they didn't hand over money to their muslim neighbors. The muslims claimed they were collecting zakat, the tax to be paid by dhimmis. These things happen in the muslim world.

#1 Look whos talking "Bullshit". Where did you find that information? Because its false.

#2. Palestien is int he middle of ANARCHY. it isnt even a COUNTRY.

I take it that the only people who are saying nice things are people who have actually LIVED in the Muslim world and actually KNOW it...

#1 Look whos talking "Bullshit". Where did you find that information? Because its false.

#2. Palestien is int he middle of ANARCHY. it isnt even a COUNTRY.

I take it that the only people who are saying nice things are people who have actually LIVED in the Muslim world and actually KNOW it...
I got my info from people who once lived in the muslim world and would never go back.

Saudi was recently put on the list of nations that are serious violators of religious freedoms. Why do you think the US under the bush family would condemn their good friend and oil pusher? It's because the religious freedom situation there is totally fucked up.

I got my info from people who once lived in the muslim world and would never go back.

When did they live there? 20-30 years ago? And they must not have seen all of it. Dissing the ENTIRE muslim world on the basis of a country that isnt even the STRONGEST, most populated, or even RICHEST nation isn't right...

I agree, life is different there. Does that mean you should hate it? Despise it? Want to blow it up? If you look at Islam with such disgust(Adn yes, your posts make it look like you are disgusted by Islam),your no better than the terrorists. Just because they only have 90% of the rights that the West does, that doesnt mean that they are evil.

And where did you hear they werent allowed to drive cars? I wonder how all those Women government people, buisiness owners, and foreign diplomats got around. Ride a camel? (that was sarcastic)

In regard to rock music, Only Morocco has laws against it. The onyl reason it isnt heard in OTHER countries is because of taste reasons. We dont listen to arabic music in OUR cars, do we?

Oh, and PAkistan has its own kind of Soft-rock. How do i know? Im listening to it right now:D

Nope, not at all. But I despise Sharia and many Moslems regards against women, I don't see how you can't. And to blow them up would not be such a very good idea, rather to stop blow them up I think...

There was a lot of things on TV and in newspapers two years ago, a female american diplomat (or soldier, I can't remember, anyway she was there on behalf of US) who wanted to drive, but she was told that front the sets were only reserved for men, she made quite a big business out of it according to what I remember, sure that you haven't heard about it?

To the rock music, true, I don't base it on much. So far I have read one fatwah (translated, as you might have noticed I don't speak arabic) condemning it, other from that I have heard nothing part from Christopher Reuter. I knew about Paki, but as it really isn't plain rock (which has made a hit ewerywhere else) I think they are trying to make substitue.

When did they live there? 20-30 years ago? And they must not have seen all of it. Dissing the ENTIRE muslim world on the basis of a country that isnt even the STRONGEST, most populated, or even RICHEST nation isn't right...
Will you fucking people stop putting words in my mouth? I said in my first post that REGIONS of the muslim world were backward. I also provided examples.

Nope, not at all. But I despise Sharia and many Moslems regards against women, I don't see how you can't. And to blow them up would not be such a very good idea, rather to stop blow them up I think...

There was a lot of things on TV and in newspapers two years ago, a female american diplomat (or soldier, I can't remember, anyway she was there on behalf of US) who wanted to drive, but she was told that front the sets were only reserved for men, she made quite a big business out of it according to what I remember, sure that you haven't heard about it?

To the rock music, true, I don't base it on much. So far I have read one fatwah (translated, as you might have noticed I don't speak arabic) condemning it, other from that I have heard nothing part from Christopher Reuter. I knew about Paki, but as it really isn't plain rock (which has made a hit ewerywhere else) I think they are trying to make substitue.


I dont despise Sharia! Thats like telling americans "You cannot practice what you and your ancestors have practised for the least 1,500 years". The only part i disagree with is the slight anti-feminansim, and even that has been dealt with in all the prosperous Muslim nations.

(And YES, it is MUSLIM. Even Muslims spell it Muslim!)

For the record....in my time in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait I NEVER once saw a woman driving a car. When walking they were always behind their husband/escourt too.

Will you fucking people stop putting words in my mouth? I said in my first post that REGIONS of the muslim world were backward. I also provided examples.

ahhh, but further on in the thread you started stereotyping the entire Muslim world.

For the record....in my time in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait I NEVER once saw a woman driving a car. When walking they were always behind their husband/escourt too.

Really? I saw women driving in the U.A.E...

When did they live there? 20-30 years ago? And they must not have seen all of it. Dissing the ENTIRE muslim world on the basis of a country that isnt even the STRONGEST, most populated, or even RICHEST nation isn't right...

Basing it on those things isn't right either, the Muslim (ok, I'll use your typing fro now:)) religion and culture isn't a sure road to medivial times, some states have just have a harder time than others and nearly all have been halted in absolutly every aspect they can be by the western world.

Agreed. Dont forget the Hindu extremists, the Jewish extremists, the Sikh extremists...(says an extremists for every religion.). Well, I guess all Extremists should be shot :D!

That's pretty extreme ... get against the wall!

ahhh, but further on in the thread you started stereotyping the entire Muslim world.
I did no such thing. I know most muslims are not evil barbarians. I just understand the FACT that some populations of muslims are stuck in the dark ages and need to move on. Appologists who paint too rosy a picture are actually standing in the way of progress for muslim people. Sometimes tough love is the best.

Really? I saw women driving in the U.A.E...
He said saudi and kuait. Not UAE. Do you even read the posts you respond to?

Basing it on those things isn't right either, the Muslim (ok, I'll use your typing fro now:)) religion and culture isn't a sure road to medivial times, some states have just have a harder time than others and nearly all have been halted in absolutly every aspect they can be by the western world.
Halted how by the western world? The western world pumps huge sums of money into much of the muslim world from oil and manufacturing. Western universities have been open to muslim students. Many muslims just won't admit that their ancient culture is holding them back.

I do not know how many muslim countries forbid women to drive. But it seems that in most places where the law exists it exists as a harassment tool. Many women drive, but they are only likely to be prosecuted if they cause other problems for authorities. Kind of like laws in the US on tinted windshields and having things hanging off your rear-view mirror.

I did no such thing. I know most muslims are not evil barbarians. I just understand the FACT that some populations of muslims are stuck in the dark ages and need to move on. Appologists who paint too rosy a picture are actually standing in the way of progress for muslim people. Sometimes tough love is the best.

I agree Appologists who paint to rosey a picture are bad, but im just stating the facts that I KNOW. You state YOUR facts.


Basing it on those things isn't right either, the Muslim (ok, I'll use your typing fro now) religion and culture isn't a sure road to medivial times, some states have just have a harder time than others and nearly all have been halted in absolutly every aspect they can be by the western world.

Thats true, but chosing a country just because it makes more oil is a poor choice... Chosing the most populated would make more sense, although Indonesian Islam is a WEE bit different than Arab.

I dont despise Sharia! Thats like telling americans "You cannot practice what you and your ancestors have practised for the least 1,500 years". The only part i disagree with is the slight anti-feminansim, and even that has been dealt with in all the prosperous Muslim nations.

(And YES, it is MUSLIM. Even Muslims spell it Muslim!)

There are good parts of it, of course, in some cases Muslim women have more rights than Christian. But as I despise my country's former way of punishing people, especially women, I see no reason to not despise that almost same tradition carried out by countries with sharia.

He said saudi and kuait. Not UAE. Do you even read the posts you respond to?

I do! its jsut that the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are all EXTREMELY similar.

I agree Appologists who paint to rosey a picture are bad, but im just stating the facts that I KNOW. You state YOUR facts.



Thats true, but chosing a country just because it makes more oil is a poor choice... Chosing the most populated would make more sense, although Indonesian Islam is a WEE bit different than Arab.
No shit. Nobody said it was. My only comment on Indonesia was that in some backwoods muslim villages still attack chrisian ones. I have known quite a few Indonesians. I study Pentjak Silat. I have studied with Indonesian teachers.

There are good parts of it, of course, in some cases Muslim women have more rights than Christian. But as I despise my country's former way of punishing people, especially women, I see no reason to not despise that almost same tradition carried out by countries with sharia.

True true, but when you said that ALL Muslim nations persecute women(besides Pakistan and Iran), you were kindof Sterotyping. Theres also Indonesia, Iraq, Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and a quite a few other nations that have extensive womens rights.

There are good parts of it, of course, in some cases Muslim women have more rights than Christian. But as I despise my country's former way of punishing people, especially women, I see no reason to not despise that almost same tradition carried out by countries with sharia.
What rights do muslim women under sharia have that christian women lack? The right to have their testimony valued at half that of a man?

We dont listen to arabic music in OUR cars, do we?


I do. :)

Halted how by the western world? The western world pumps huge sums of money into much of the muslim world from oil and manufacturing. Western universities have been open to muslim students. Many muslims just won't admit that their ancient culture is holding them back.

Now YES, but isn't it a little late you think? Muslims will never get their former pride for being Muslim back if they can't help themselves out, and in the meantime al Quida recruites young, desillusionated mobsters from slum areas (or college students whitout selfesteem) and train them to fight in Kaschmir and Kaukasia.

What rights do muslim women under sharia have that christian women lack? The right to have their testimony valued at half that of a man?

I recognise your right to opinion, but you really should look up your facts.

Did you know that women have been leading Islamic Armies and nations for over 1,500 years? They have. The West didnt make womens rights till at LEAST the 1800's

Now YES, but isn't it a little late you think? Muslims will never get their former pride for being Muslim back if they can't help themselves out, and in the meantime al Quida recruites young, desillusionated mobsters from slum areas (or college students whitout selfesteem) and train them to fight in Kaschmir and Kaukasia.

I think you mean Kashmir and Caucaisa :D

Now YES, but isn't it a little late you think? Muslims will never get their former pride for being Muslim back if they can't help themselves out, and in the meantime al Quida recruites young, desillusionated mobsters from slum areas (or college students whitout selfesteem) and train them to fight in Kaschmir and Kaukasia.
Late how? The world has been doing business with muslim nations since the dark ages. Muslims have been able to study in western universities ever since after the Renaissance. What late?

I recognise your right to opinion, but you really should look up your facts.

Did you know that women have been leading Islamic Armies and nations for over 1,500 years? They have. The West didnt make womens rights till at LEAST the 1800's
Let's talk about now. Women in western secular societies have more rights and more protection than women currently living under sharia. Remember the world's outrage at a nigerian sharia court sentancing a pregnant woman to be stoned to death? That wouldn't happen in the west.

Late how? The world has been doing business with muslim nations since the dark ages. Muslims have been able to study in western universities ever since after the Renaissance. What late?

I agree. Muslims have studied in the west since renaissance times and, until the Ottoman Empire came and destroyed most of their cetners of Knowledge, many Westerners studied in the Cities of Damascus, Cairo, and Timbuktu.

Let's talk about now. Women in western secular societies have more rights and more protection than women currently living under sharia. Remember the world's outrage at a nigerian sharia court sentancing a pregnant woman to be stoned to death? That wouldn't happen in the west.

Once again, we can blame our friends the Ottomans, the French, and the U.K. for this. Mostly the Ottomans, but the French and U.K. as well. None of these nations had human rights when they invaded(and each invaded during the 1800's with the exception of the Turks, who invaded long before).

And dont forget, in Quite a few CHRISTIAN countries women dont have rights at all.(these nations are mostly in AFrica and are really poor, but hey, they're still Christian).

Once again, we can blame our friends the Ottomans, the French, and the U.K. for this. Mostly the Ottomans, but the French and U.K. as well. None of these nations had human rights when they invaded(and each invaded during the 1800's with the exception of the Turks, who invaded long before).
Firstly, the Ottomans were Muslims. Secondly, Islamic society has no one to blame except for themselves for the backwardness of their culture. When France and the UK entered the Middle East, they didn't go into a liberal land and make it a more conservative, intolerant society. In fact England, which outlawed slavery in the 1820s, abolished slavery in all of the Muslim countries they colonized in the 1800s and 1900s. In Muslim north Nigeria Britain banned amputation, stoning, and crucifixion as forms of punishment during the colonial era, but the Muslims have recently reinstated these barbaric practices for "crimes" like getting raped and premarital sex. Muslims have always been a few steps behind Europe socially. Medieval Muslim historians were shocked at how much rights that European women were given, and how European women often scolded and bossed their husbands around.

And dont forget, in Quite a few CHRISTIAN countries women dont have rights at all.(these nations are mostly in AFrica and are really poor, but hey, they're still Christian).
Uh, I thought we were comparing the west with Islam. The west is definitely far more liberal than Muslim nations. But even if we look at Christianity as a whole and not at just the West, we will find that Christian-majority nations are more progressive than Islam.

True true, but when you said that ALL Muslim nations persecute women(besides Pakistan and Iran), you were kindof Sterotyping. Theres also Indonesia, Iraq, Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and a quite a few other nations that have extensive womens rights.
Even in the most liberal Muslim societies women are treated in an insulting and undignified way. In Malaysia a man can divorce his wife by typing "I divorce you" three times over text message or email. In Iraq (and other Muslim nations) there is the practice of honor killings in which men hunt down and kill female family members who dishonors the family by having premarital sex or were raped... it is barbaric that a woman who is a rape victim must die because she somehow "dishonored" the family! This is common practice throughout Islam and dozens of honor killings have occurred in Iraq this year. And there is no denying that examples of liberalism in Islam are rare EXCEPTIONS, far and few between. The vast majority of Islamic society is socially backward, much more backward than Western societies, other Christian societies, and most other non-Muslim societies.

Really? I saw women driving in the U.A.E...

My co-worker goes to Saudi whenever he can. He says women drive there....

Even in the most liberal Muslim societies women are treated in an insulting and undignified way. In Malaysia a man can divorce his wife by typing "I divorce you" three times over text message or email.

Gee, how horrifying: Efficient divorce systems! It's much more beneficial to women if we require months of paperwork, lawyers and "social workers" to sort out a marriage when it no longer works.

This is common practice throughout Islam and dozens of honor killings have occurred in Iraq this year.

Wow, dozens out of millions = common? Meanwhile, how many people have murdered others in the US this year? Hint: it's a whole heck of a lot more than DOZENS. I guess that means in the US, murder is common practice, and therefore Americans are barbaric eh?

The vast majority of Islamic society is socially backward, much more backward than Western societies, other Christian societies, and most other non-Muslim societies.

Yeah, the US with its children shooting each other in schools, massive drug use, obesity, eating disorders and the KKK is ever so much "socially progressive..."

Even in the most liberal Muslim societies women are treated in an insulting and undignified way. In Malaysia a man can divorce his wife by typing "I divorce you" three times over text message or email. In Iraq (and other Muslim nations) there is the practice of honor killings in which men hunt down and kill female family members who dishonors the family by having premarital sex or were raped... it is barbaric that a woman who is a rape victim must die because she somehow "dishonored" the family! This is common practice throughout Islam and dozens of honor killings have occurred in Iraq this year. And there is no denying that examples of liberalism in Islam are rare EXCEPTIONS, far and few between. The vast majority of Islamic society is socially backward, much more backward than Western societies, other Christian societies, and most other non-Muslim societies.

Ahem? What about the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the countries that lead the Muslim World in terms of rights? It is ONLY legal to kill others in "Honor Killings" In the tribal areas of Pakistan, and the government is trying to stomp this out. Pakistan and Bangladesh both have multi-religious and multi-sex governments. They both have extensive civil rights and the only probelm is they get ruled by Military dictators all too often. But so do nations like Panama and other Latin American nations.

Gee, how horrifying: Efficient divorce systems! It's much more beneficial to women if we require months of paperwork, lawyers and "social workers" to sort out a marriage when it no longer works.



Wow, dozens out of millions = common? Meanwhile, how many people have murdered others in the US this year? Hint: it's a whole heck of a lot more than DOZENS. I guess that means in the US, murder is common practice, and therefore Americans are barbaric eh?



Yeah, the US with its children shooting each other in schools, massive drug use, obesity, eating disorders and the KKK is ever so much "socially progressive..."

Its a godsend! A person whos actually good at arguing their points (im not exactly the best...)

The Muslim "world" is no better or worse than the West - we all have our problems; we both have fundamentalists, and hopefully our two "worlds" will soon unite to live in peace

not all muslims...bot some...I would say the majority of palestinians are at least supporters of terrorism...after all yassir arafat himself is a terrorist...he was the head of "Fatah" and "black september" was a group in the fatah that slaughtered the 11 israelis at the 72' olympics...

I dont despise Sharia! Thats like telling americans "You cannot practice what you and your ancestors have practised for the least 1,500 years".
I'm not saying that they can't practice Sharia. But Sharia is what is messing their society up, and if they want to hold on to these barbaric traditions then that is fine with me, but they shouldn't blame the West or anyone for their social troubles... Muslim societies only have themselves to blame.

The only part i disagree with is the slight anti-feminansim,
"Slight"?

and even that has been dealt with in all the prosperous Muslim nations.
Proof please?


(And YES, it is MUSLIM. Even Muslims spell it Muslim!)
Does spelling really matter? THere is no difference between what a Muslim and a Moslem. They are one and the same

Gee, how horrifying: Efficient divorce systems! It's much more beneficial to women if we require months of paperwork, lawyers and "social workers" to sort out a marriage when it no longer works.
And how is it better that a man can just cut off a woman whenever he chooses, suddenly abandoning a woman (who many times has no job because society frowns upon women getting education and occupations) in such a heartless way? And in the US, a woman can initiate a divorce, but Muslim women have a very difficult time initiating a divorce. even if their husband is a wife beater, as long as he doesn't want to get divorced, the courts will side with the man.

Wow, dozens out of millions = common? Meanwhile, how many people have murdered others in the US this year? Hint: it's a whole heck of a lot more than DOZENS. I guess that means in the US, murder is common practice, and therefore Americans are barbaric eh?
Honor killings are not common, but what makes it sick is that it is accepted and respectable. The only reason that the people will go kill their family members is because Muslim society expects them to. Female discrimination is accepted in Islam, while female discrimination, like murder, is not acceptable in the US. And another thing, how many people have murdered others in Iraq? Hint: Use your brain for a moment... murders don't have to be honor killings.

Yeah, the US with its children shooting each other in schools, massive drug use, obesity, eating disorders and the KKK is ever so much "socially progressive..."
The KKK's views are not in the mainstream here in the US. Western society stresses tolerance and openness and western people are uneasy about religious dogmatism. However, extreme reactionary views are in the mainstream in Muslim nations... an average Muslim person off the street will agree that woman are worth less than men. An average American does not think whites are racially superior to blacks, and average Americans think women should be treated with respect and dignity. Also, read up on some facts sometime... opium use is widely used in Southeast Asia, including Muslim nations. Muslim Afghanistan is the largest exporter of opium in the world and a lot of it ends up being smoked by Pakistanis in the slums of Karachi. For all the warts the USA has, look at it this way: most Americans would rather live here than in the Middle East, as would most Indonesians, Pakistanis, North Africans, and Turks.

I recognise your right to opinion, but you really should look up your facts.

Did you know that women have been leading Islamic Armies and nations for over 1,500 years? They have.
Saying "they have" doesn't prove anything. Please name some women leaders of Muslim nations before the 20th century.

The West didnt make womens rights till at LEAST the 1800's
Women have been leading and Christian armies and nations for 2000 years. And most Islamic nations STILL haven't adopted womens rights.

Saying "they have" doesn't prove anything. Please name some women leaders of Muslim nations before the 20th century.


Women have been leading and Christian armies and nations for 2000 years. And most Islamic nations STILL haven't adopted womens rights.
Apply your first response to your second.

Saying "they have" doesn't prove anything. Please name some women leaders of Muslim nations before the 20th century.


Women have been leading and Christian armies and nations for 2000 years. And most Islamic nations STILL haven't adopted womens rights.

You still havent responded to what i said about Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Women havent been leading christian armies and nations for centuries! Ok, ill find one... AHA! One! JOAN OF ARC! Thats it! Thats the ONLY christian woman who actualy was brave and STOOD UP for something until the 20th century. Oh, there were those dictator "Queens" in Europe, but you know what? They didn't acomplish much.

The Muslim "world" is no better or worse than the West - we all have our problems; we both have fundamentalists, and hopefully our two "worlds" will soon unite to live in peace
However our social fundamentalists are not in the mainstream. Jerry Falwell and other wackos can yell all they want, but when the time comes, they really can't do anything when the gay marriage amendment gets defeated, or when feminists get more rights for women. But in the Islamic world, average, mainstream people hold fundamentalist opinions on social issues.

Gee, how horrifying: Efficient divorce systems! It's much more beneficial to women if we require months of paperwork, lawyers and "social workers" to sort out a marriage when it no longer works.



Wow, dozens out of millions = common? Meanwhile, how many people have murdered others in the US this year? Hint: it's a whole heck of a lot more than DOZENS. I guess that means in the US, murder is common practice, and therefore Americans are barbaric eh?



Yeah, the US with its children shooting each other in schools, massive drug use, obesity, eating disorders and the KKK is ever so much "socially progressive..."
Yeah, but the women don't get to initiate the process of divorce and there's no such thing as alimony. Plus the kids always stay with the father, even if he's abusive.

I

Proof please?



Pakistan, Bangladesh, and *shudders* Iran.

Each of them has EXTENSIVE womens rights. Each of them has had MANY women leaders. Bangladesh and Pakistan have both had at LEAST one Woman President, and many MANY Women Parlimentarians. Women can get any job they want in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Though only reason alot of women DONT have high-paying jobs is because htey cant afford to go to school, as is the case with alot of men. The ONLY place where sexism is regularly practised in these nations is in the Secluded mountain regions.

BTW- have you even BEEN to a Muslim Country, much less lived in one? Or at least EXTENSIVELY studdied using information from CREDIBLE sources that are preferably NOT from the media(they are always pessimistic)For at LEAST a month? Because if you havent, i am afraid to say you are not very qualified in this area.

However our social fundamentalists are not in the mainstream. Jerry Falwell and other wackos can yell all they want, but when the time comes, they really can't do anything when the gay marriage amendment gets defeated, or when feminists get more rights for women. But in the Islamic world, average, mainstream people hold fundamentalist opinions on social issues.

I have lived int hem and they are NOT, i repeat, NOT the majority!!! Seriously! Why wont you guys listen to the people who have ACTUALY LVIED THERE!

Ahem? What about the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the countries that lead the Muslim World in terms of rights? It is ONLY legal to kill others in "Honor Killings" In the tribal areas of Pakistan, and the government is trying to stomp this out. Pakistan and Bangladesh both have multi-religious and multi-sex governments. They both have extensive civil rights and the only probelm is they get ruled by Military dictators all too often. But so do nations like Panama and other Latin American nations.
Pakistan is does not have a multireligious government. Go learn something before you come here. Having multisex government's does not mean the society is pro-womens rights. Pakistani and Bangladeshi women have far less education than Pakistani/Bangladeshi men, and they've had a woman president. French women have comparable education and incomes to French men, yet France has never had a woman head of state or government. Doesn't matter that Pakistan's government is trying to stamp out honor killings. The fact that honor killings exists and is accepted automatically makes Pakistan less tolerant than Western nations. Even Latin AMerican dictatorships have more womens rights than most Muslim nations.

I have lived int hem and they are NOT, i repeat, NOT the majority!!! Seriously! Why wont you guys listen to the people who have ACTUALY LVIED THERE!
I don't doubt that most Muslims are peaceful people. But you can't doubt that Muslims are more conservative on average than Westerners, and more sympathetic to reactionary social policies like head scarves, etc.

See what i mean? Brainwashing, the evil Media did this to you! Every muslim nation(with the exeption of Iran and MAYBE Morocco) has religious tolerance. The Muslim world is REALLY around 98% moderate and 2% extremist. Its just like in most cases the media only covers the extremists.
And you have visited those 98% tolerant? What about Sudan? What about the Philipines? What about Saudi Arabia?
Do you know what is going on, or has been going on in those places?

Pakistan is does not have a multireligious government. Go learn something before you come here. Having multisex government's does not mean the society is pro-womens rights. Pakistani and Bangladeshi women have far less education than Pakistani/Bangladeshi men, and they've had a woman president. French women have comparable education and incomes to French men, yet France has never had a woman head of state or government. Doesn't matter that Pakistan's government is trying to stamp out honor killings. The fact that honor killings exists and is accepted automatically makes Pakistan less tolerant than Western nations. Even Latin AMerican dictatorships have more womens rights than most Muslim nations.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :D!

You didnt listen to a word i have said, did you? Ive spent YEARS! I repeat, YEARS living in Pakistan! I have spent even MORE time studying it! As i said before, honor killings only exist in the REBELLIOUS mountain regions! And that only around 0.3% of the population! And Pakistan has 5-10 million Christians and 10 million Hindus! Freedom of religion is in the Pakistani Constitution! If you havent noticed, Pakistan is on the verge of ALL OUT WAR on these regions.

Pakistan is more advanced than alot of Aarican, Latin american, or Western European Nations! Its richer, larger, more populous, more prosperous.

BTW- you never said anything about Bangladesh. Does that mean its the perfect Muslim society?

My reason for voting "Not a very nice place" was because of the jerks that manage to spoil it for all of the good people. I haven't been to a Muslim country myself. I have met some kind Arab-Americans and some who were jerks...so I am not stereotyping the entire group. My issue is simply that the extremists manage to ruin it for everybody else. I hope someday they will be disowned from Islam, because they are not living up to its principles at all (which I understand to be largely peaceful ones, as with any major religion).

And you have visited those 98% tolerant? What about Sudan? What about the Philipines? What about Saudi Arabia?
Do you know what is going on, or has been going on in those places?

It depends what you mean tolerant TOO? If its towards christians and the west, than yes. If its towards freedom of religion, then yes. If its towards freedom of speech, then yes. Hmm... i guess that means YES!

BTW- i have extensively studied these nations, as well as living in natiosn with very similar lifestyels.

And remember, out of around 700-800 million Muslims, 2% is 40 million people.

You still havent responded to what i said about Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Women havent been leading christian armies and nations for centuries! Ok, ill find one... AHA! One! JOAN OF ARC! Thats it! Thats the ONLY christian woman who actualy was brave and STOOD UP for something until the 20th century.

Irene, Empress of Byzantium c, 700s AD
Eleanor of Aquitaine, 1100s
Isabella of Castile, 1400s
Queen Elizabeth I of England, 1500s
Maria de Medicis 1500s
Anne d'Autriche 1500s
Maria THeresa 1700s
Catherine the Great of Russia 1700s

What did Joan of Arc stand up for, exactly? She was brave and stood up for her country. But all of these people I listed also stood up for their country and were extremely skilled at diplomacy and protected the interests of their nations.

Oh, there were those dictator "Queens" in Europe, but you know what? They didn't acomplish much.
Firstly, back then ALL of the queens and kings all over the world were dictators. Democracy as we know it hadn't existed yet. So can you really blame them for being dictators?

Secondly, you are completely ignorant if you think these women did not accomplish much... they patronized the greatest artists and thinkers of the times, stood up to foreign powers led by male kings, fought wars, and most increased the prosperity of their countries. And if you are saying they don't count as real women leaders, then Benazir Bhutto, Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the other Islamic women leaders don't count either, because they did jack shit. What good did Bhutto do for Pakistan?

Thirdly, the issue at hand isn't whether these people did much or not, but the fact that powerful women have been accepted by the West for thousands of years. Men accorded women respect in the West for ages, but in Islam women leading nations and armies was an UNTHINKABLE thing.

Oh yeah, for your comment about Islam having women leaders for 1500 years... Islam hasn't even been around for 1500 years!!

The Muslim World, is like Africa(Yeah I know North Africa is Islamic.) We see only the bad. We don't think of all the good there. If I had the chance, (and the safety) I would like to visit it. Too bad in about 10 to 30 years from now, it's all going to go to hell. Oil doesn't last forever, and with H cars well under development, they're economy is about to collaspe. We should be helping the Islamic World develope a tech industy, because without they're screwed. Where would Taiwan be without the tech industy?

I cant participate in da Poll..cos there is one option missing

Opint number 6 : Other.

What do I think about them: Nothing.

Why...Because Iknow nothing about them...or almost nothing...
half of the thing i know I learned at the beginning of Afghanistan Bombing...and it was from Bieased sources AKA CNN/AP/FOX...

so im still learning...

And how is it better that a man can just cut off a woman whenever he chooses, suddenly abandoning a woman (who many times has no job because society frowns upon women getting education and occupations) in such a heartless way?

I never said it was better. Straw man! Basically, each culture is and can be as bad as the other.

And in the US, a woman can initiate a divorce, but Muslim women have a very difficult time initiating a divorce. even if their husband is a wife beater, as long as he doesn't want to get divorced, the courts will side with the man.

Yeah sure. Women can initiate divorces, but do they? Who wants to bother when the laws make it such a hassle to do anything? And I'd bet there are ten american wives who stick with wife beater husbands for every one in these countries. And I'm sure... quite sure... that in the US, the courts are never biased either. They're perfect.

Honor killings are not common, but what makes it sick is that it is accepted and respectable.

Oh really? Funny, I never heard any Muslim I've known of accepting or respecting that practice.

The only reason that the people will go kill their family members is because Muslim society expects them to.

Hum. Well in the US, maybe it's not expected, but it just happens anyway. We put in that extra effort: killing unexpectedly! Which is, of course, 100% better on a moral basis.

Female discrimination is accepted in Islam, while female discrimination, like murder, is not acceptable in the US. And another thing, how many people have murdered others in Iraq? Hint: Use your brain for a moment... murders don't have to be honor killings.

My brain tells me the US murder per capita rates put to SHAME those of almost all other countries. Here's a fun fact, in the year of 9/11 who killed more Americans? a- Americans or b - terrorists? Think about it for a moment. Then realize that the terrorists killing us are exceptions, and us doing it is the RULE. It is the NORM. It is... shall we say... "acceptable."

The KKK's views are not in the mainstream here in the US. Western society stresses tolerance and openness and western people are uneasy about religious dogmatism. However, extreme reactionary views are in the mainstream in Muslim nations...

First, you're assuming once again what is and isn't the mainstream viewpoint. According to the author of this thread - who has LIVED in these countries you're talking about here - they aren't.

an average Muslim person off the street will agree that woman are worth less than men. An average American does not think whites are racially superior to blacks, and average Americans think women should be treated with respect and dignity.

LOL

Somehow, I am guessing when you say "the average Blah blah" you don't mean, you conducted surveys and analyzed them according to the mathematical mean but instead, are just making unfounded assertions since you really cannot possibly know what the "average" person of any culture thinks on broad ranges of issues. IN any case does the average matter when the extremists do all the damage? You know... Osama bin Laden... Timothy McVeigh... etc.

Also, read up on some facts sometime... opium use is widely used in Southeast Asia, including Muslim nations. Muslim Afghanistan is the largest exporter of opium in the world and a lot of it ends up being smoked by Pakistanis in the slums of Karachi.

No shit. Never claimed to the contrary. However, drug use in America is far more widespread and dangerous. Gang violence anyone? Opium, well we've got plenty of that... and crack, heroin, coke... being dealt at our public schools by and for our own children. This is the great consumer culture and we have lots of wealth - it follows that we consume masses of drugs, more, I'd say, than Pakistan.

For all the warts the USA has, look at it this way: most Americans would rather live here than in the Middle East, as would most Indonesians, Pakistanis, North Africans, and Turks.

That doesn't make the US morally superior.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :D!

You didnt listen to a word i have said, did you? Ive spent YEARS! I repeat, YEARS living in Pakistan! I have spent even MORE time studying it! As i said before, honor killings only exist in the REBELLIOUS mountain regions! And that only around 0.3% of the population! And Pakistan has 5-10 million Christians and 10 million Hindus! Freedom of religion is in the Pakistani Constitution! If you havent noticed, Pakistan is on the verge of ALL OUT WAR on these regions.
Your ignorance sickens me. If you have spent years studying Pakistan, then why did you say Pakistan has a multireligious government? All the top leaders in Pakistan are Muslim. Sure freedom of religion exists in Pakistan, but that doesnt change the fact that Pakistanis Muslims are not as progressive than Westerners.

Pakistan is more advanced than alot of Aarican, Latin american, or Western European Nations! Its richer, larger, more populous, more prosperous.

Each and every Western European nation is far richer than Pakistan. And all western nations, even the dictatorships in Latin America, are more liberal than Pakistan.

BTW- you never said anything about Bangladesh. Does that mean its the perfect Muslim society?
As I've said, their is rampant sexism there too... women are far less educated than men.

Everyone might want to think about calming down a little in this thread. Seriously.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Thirdly, the issue at hand isn't whether these people did much or not, but the fact that powerful women have been accepted by the West for thousands of years. Men accorded women respect in the West for ages, but in Islam women leading nations and armies was an UNTHINKABLE thing.

Oh yeah, for your comment about Islam having women leaders for 1500 years... Islam hasn't even been around for 1500 years!!

.... Whatever about the women. Im just saying thst the west didnt have powerful wome rulers because-frankly, you are a stupid-minded creature. Sure, you may know alot, yet your non-tolerance towards other cultures is just plain scary. You put Islam down so much, im going to put you just below being as bad as a fundamentalist on your views of other cultures. And i was ROUNDING. Jsut like how we round today when we say "Christ was born 2,000 years ago".

BTW- i am a WHITE CATCHOLIC MALE of Polish, russian, French, Irish, and Syrian decent. I do not have Muslims, even though they oppressed the christians of Syria. I do not hate muslims, even though they slaughtered thousands of Poles at the Battle of Vienna. And i do not hate muslims, even though fundamentalists blew up a church right down teh road from the U.S. embassy in Pakistan, killing 2 americans, who were both my friends.

So even though i have a PERFECTLY GOOD REASON to hate muslims, i dont. Because Christians have commited far worse, and becaus ei am tolerant to everyone. You should be too.

It depends what you mean tolerant TOO? If its towards christians and the west, than yes. If its towards freedom of religion, then yes. If its towards freedom of speech, then yes. Hmm... i guess that means YES!

BTW- i have extensively studied these nations, as well as living in natiosn with very similar lifestyels.

And remember, out of around 700-800 million Muslims, 2% is 40 million people.
You stated that 98% of the muslim world is tolerant in the first post I quoted. Now you are qualifying it with tolerant of Christians, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. I asked if you have visited those 98% of all muslim people.

In the Sudan, muslims are comitting genocide against the black Christians.
In the Philipines muslim terrorists are kidnapping and killing Christian and western people.
In Saudi Arabia there is rampant discrimination against women. Having family members who lived there for 5+ years, and my aunt witnessed it each and every day.

You are enamoured of the muslim world and obviously can't see what wrongs they do commit. It's true that the muslim world can have a lot to offer, and at one time did have much to offer. They are by no means the utopian paradises that you portray them to be.

Pakistan, Bangladesh, and *shudders* Iran.

Each of them has EXTENSIVE womens rights. Each of them has had MANY women leaders. Bangladesh and Pakistan have both had at LEAST one Woman President, and many MANY Women Parlimentarians.
But they do jack shit. ANd since you said the Christian "dictator" Queens are not real leaders, then I can say that the corrupt Benazir Bhutto or someone of her ilk are also not real leaders.

Women can get any job they want in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Though only reason alot of women DONT have high-paying jobs is because htey cant afford to go to school, as is the case with alot of men.
If the women and men were EQUALLY uneducated, then there wouldn't be sexism. But the fact is, men are more educated than women in Pakistan and the only explanation is that there is a favoritism toward men.

The ONLY place where sexism is regularly practised in these nations is in the Secluded mountain regions.
Islam-style sexism isn't practiced AT ALL in America or Europe, even in the secluded mountain regions of America or Europe.

BTW- have you even BEEN to a Muslim Country, much less lived in one? Or at least EXTENSIVELY studdied using information from CREDIBLE sources that are preferably NOT from the media(they are always pessimistic)For at LEAST a month? Because if you havent, i am afraid to say you are not very qualified in this area.
I have not spent time in a Muslim country but I know many Muslims, and I have lived in the Muslim quarter of Beijing, China. Ive studied much about Islam for years.

... Pakistanis Muslims are not as progressive than Westerners.Translation: Pakistanis Muslims are not as Christian as Westerners

Yeah, the US with its children shooting each other in schools, massive drug use, obesity, eating disorders and the KKK is ever so much "socially progressive..."
Gee and here I thought that revoking of all drug laws was the "progressive" thing to do :rolleyes:

Everyone might want to think about calming down a little in this thread. Seriously.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

I agree... But its hard, y'know? When someone will only look at the bad side and act all morally superior...

ITs times like this i hate living in a free society :(. But then again, i wouldnt be able to do this post...

Islam-style sexism isn't practiced AT ALL in America or Europe.what "style" is favored in America?

You stated that 98% of the muslim world is tolerant in the first post I quoted. Now you are qualifying it with tolerant of Christians, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. I asked if you have visited those 98% of all muslim people.

In the Sudan, muslims are comitting genocide against the black Christians.
In the Philipines muslim terrorists are kidnapping and killing Christian and western people.
In Saudi Arabia there is rampant discrimination against women. Having family members who lived there for 5+ years, and my aunt witnessed it each and every day.

You are enamoured of the muslim world and obviously can't see what wrongs they do commit. It's true that the muslim world can have a lot to offer, and at one time did have much to offer. They are by no means the utopian paradises that you portray them to be.


Hey listen, we are having a debate. I have chosen to portray the vastly hated muslim world and you guys have chosen to support the overly-supported west. I am just doing my job.

BTW- for all those things 1, 2% is 40,000,000 people. Thats alot...

2. WHEN did your family live there?

3. Is that any worse than the West? In the west, many people are MURDERED each day. Vast Drug empires rule south america. Africa is in the middle of an economic crisis. Europe is falling apart(yet oddly enough coming together at the same time). All of Latin America is suffereing economically as well.

4. It seems the only non-screwed up western country is, oddly enough, in the east. Lets all move to Australia, guys!

Translation: Pakistanis Muslims are not as Christian as Westerners
I'm not even Christian. Muslim society is on a whole less progressive than ALL the non-Muslim societies of East Asia, Africa, America, Europe, etc. etc.

what "style" is favored in America?
Very mild, almost unnoticeable. Sure there is sex harrassment and a little prejudice but American women on average are just as educated as American men, if not more so. Womens rights has made great leaps and bounds and we are continuing to correct any problems. In Islam women lag behind men in all the vital signs of society - income, education, etc.

I'm not even Christian. Muslim society is on a whole less progressive than ALL the non-Muslim societies of East Asia, Africa, America, Europe, etc. etc.

Your non-religous? How interesting... I dont practice my religion that much, but whoopy.

If you lived in China... Are oyu by any chance communist? Just asking! Please! Dont throw me into the den of the killer rabbit! AH! The point fangs... *gurgles*

.... Whatever about the women. Im just saying thst the west didnt have powerful wome rulers because-frankly, you are a stupid-minded creature.
You can't refute my argument so you resort to childish name calling. Well done.

Sure, you may know alot, yet your non-tolerance towards other cultures is just plain scary. You put Islam down so much, im going to put you just below being as bad as a fundamentalist on your views of other cultures. And i was ROUNDING. Jsut like how we round today when we say "Christ was born 2,000 years ago".

BTW- i am a WHITE CATCHOLIC MALE of Polish, russian, French, Irish, and Syrian decent. I do not have Muslims, even though they oppressed the christians of Syria. I do not hate muslims, even though they slaughtered thousands of Poles at the Battle of Vienna. And i do not hate muslims, even though fundamentalists blew up a church right down teh road from the U.S. embassy in Pakistan, killing 2 americans, who were both my friends.

So even though i have a PERFECTLY GOOD REASON to hate muslims, i dont. Because Christians have commited far worse, and becaus ei am tolerant to everyone. You should be too.
I don't hate muslims. I know many Muslims who are even more liberal than I am, and I am friends with many Muslims. I am just making an honest observation that Islamic society as a whole is more conservative than the US, and I think that their conservatism has hurt their society. 1000 years ago the great Middle Eastern philosopher Maimonides had a chance to reform Islam and make it the most liberal, scientific society on earth but unfortunately things have not turned out right and Islam is still caught up by dogmatism... I can easily picture a liberal, prosperous Islam and I have no reason to expect that Islam will be backwards like this forever.

Your non-religous? How interesting... I dont practice my religion that much, but whoopy.

If you lived in China... Are oyu by any chance communist? Just asking! Please! Dont throw me into the den of the killer rabbit! AH! The point fangs... *gurgles*
No I'm not communist. And China isn't communist - it's fascist. China's government is currently severely fucked up.

You can't refute my argument so you resort to childish name calling. Well done.

Actually, a "stupid-minded creature" is not a childish name. It is a name given to certain beings that may or may not be intelligent, yet their braisn for some strange reasona rent working very well.


I don't hate muslims. I know many Muslims who are even more liberal than I am, and I am friends with many Muslims. I am just making an honest observation that Islamic society as a whole is more conservative than the US, and I think that their conservatism has hurt their society. 1000 years ago the great Middle Eastern philosopher Maimonides had a chance to reform Islam and make it the most liberal, scientific society on earth but unfortunately things have not turned out right and Islam is still caught up by dogmatism... I can easily picture a liberal, prosperous Islam and I have no reason to expect that Islam will be backwards like this forever.

Your posts beg to differ...

No I'm not communist. And China isn't communist - it's fascist. China's government is currently severely fucked up.

REally? i did not know that. Everyone says it is, but i guess since you lived there you are the one who actually knows. Just like i lived in Pakistan and that is my territory to defend(that may sound crude but i defend PAkistan in most debates), i guess when it comes to china your the authority here.

No I'm not communist. And China isn't communist - it's fascist.huh?

Actually, a "stupid-minded creature" is not a childish name. It is a name given to certain beings that may or may not be intelligent, yet their braisn for some strange reasona rent working very well.

No, it was a childish outburst you had when you realized your argument made absolutely no sense.

Your posts beg to differ...

Where did I ever say Islam was inherently bad? I have been making observations that the way Islam has been practiced in history and modern times have not had very good results, but that doesn't mean Islam can't change. Christianity has been responsible for many atrocities in the past but for purposes of evaluating the present it is useless to talk about 500-year old Christian witch hunts or 1300-year old Islamic Jihads... regardless of their past, when comparing modern Christian-majority societies and modern Muslim societies, Muslims are more socially backward.

I never said it was better. Straw man! Basically, each culture is and can be as bad as the other.
Actually you called Muslim divorce "efficient." It doesn't take advanced abstract thought to realize that "efficient" was meant as praise... in my opinion, both Western and Muslim divorce have their problems but Western divorce is much better, because women here have more or less an equal chance as men to get a divorce. For all your rambling about "paperwork" and other bs, divorce is sure common here in the USA.

Yeah sure. Women can initiate divorces, but do they?
Yes
Who wants to bother when the laws make it such a hassle to do anything?
A lot of men and women. About 50% of all marriages in fact.

And I'd bet there are ten american wives who stick with wife beater husbands for every one in these countries. And I'm sure... quite sure... that in the US, the courts are never biased either. They're perfect.
American law courts are far more respectful of womens rights here than in a sharia court.


Oh really? Funny, I never heard any Muslim I've known of accepting or respecting that practice.
Sharia law courts obviously do, and for a lot of people this is by choice and custom the law of the land.

Hum. Well in the US, maybe it's not expected, but it just happens anyway. We put in that extra effort: killing unexpectedly! Which is, of course, 100% better on a moral basis.
Uh, killing and violence happens everywhere. And yes, if an AMerican killed a person and American society and courts condemns him, that is better than if an Iraqi killed a person and Iraqi society and sharia courts applaud him.


My brain tells me the US murder per capita rates put to SHAME those of almost all other countries. Here's a fun fact, in the year of 9/11 who killed more Americans? a- Americans or b - terrorists? Think about it for a moment. Then realize that the terrorists killing us are exceptions, and us doing it is the RULE. It is the NORM. It is... shall we say... "acceptable."
When did I ever say all Muslims were terrorists? I've only argued that Muslim society is more backward, socially, than western society.


First, you're assuming once again what is and isn't the mainstream viewpoint. According to the author of this thread - who has LIVED in these countries you're talking about here - they aren't.

I have also lived in a Muslim society... I've lived for a few months among Chinese Muslims, who are among the most liberal of all Muslims. I got to know these people very well and they are good folk, but I also noticed that their mindset is more traditionalist and conservative than other Chinese. As a general rule Muslims in America are more socially conservative than non-AMerican muslims, and if you simply look at the laws and practices of Muslim governments, it will be plain and clear to you that muslim COUNTRIES are more conservative than Western countries.

Somehow, I am guessing when you say "the average Blah blah" you don't mean, you conducted surveys and analyzed them according to the mathematical mean but instead, are just making unfounded assertions since you really cannot possibly know what the "average" person of any culture thinks on broad ranges of issues. IN any case does the average matter when the extremists do all the damage? You know... Osama bin Laden... Timothy McVeigh... etc.
How many American women do you see conforming to a society-prescribed dress code? The fact is, Muslims are more devoted to traditions and any deviation is frowned upon while here in the US anyone can basically live however they want. I won't be bothered if theres some American Muslim wearing a veil. She can live as she wants as long as society doesn't demand every woman to wear a veil.


No shit. Never claimed to the contrary. However, drug use in America is far more widespread and dangerous. Gang violence anyone? Opium, well we've got plenty of that... and crack, heroin, coke... being dealt at our public schools by and for our own children. This is the great consumer culture and we have lots of wealth - it follows that we consume masses of drugs, more, I'd say, than Pakistan.
Drug trafficking, drug related crimes, drug related terrorism, and drug related corruption is a huge problem in Pakistan. I suggest you read up on the matter. And drugs are mostly used by poor people, not rich consumerists - the poor need an escape, and drugs are an easy vector. Opium use is widespread among the underclass of Pakistan.


That doesn't make the US morally superior.
I don't believe in universal morality. Morality is merely a consensus opinion by a bunch of people on how best to run society. And the consensus is that America is a decent place to live and has a more moral way to run society.

Since we've ALL lost track of each others views, i ask that each of us is to write a paragraph or two describing their posistion. It will help with the arguing in the sense that we'll actually know what to accuse the other party with...

REally? i did not know that. Everyone says it is, but i guess since you lived there you are the one who actually knows. Just like i lived in Pakistan and that is my territory to defend(that may sound crude but i defend PAkistan in most debates), i guess when it comes to china your the authority here.
You don't have to have lived somewhere to be knowledgeable about that place's government, economics, and to a large extent society... everything about everywhere is laid out for you in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals and books.

As for China, it is quite obvious that it is as far removed from communism as you could get, you will realize that just by reading an article from USA Today or some other nonspecialist publication. China is one of the most ultra capitalist countries in the world, and much more capitalistic than the United States. China calls itself "communist" and "Marxist" but the collectivization is long gone... the free market was introduced in the 1970s and today the government is just a tiny clique of fascist dictators who are bribed by wealthy businessmen and robber barons to abuse ordinary citizens and waste public money. China's welfare system (which used to be widespread) is nearly nonexistent, taxes hover around 0%, the law has been bought by corporations and rich people.

My Posistion:

The Muslim world isnt as bad as the media portrays it to be. Sure, many of its nations have economical, cultural, or militaristic problems, but as a whole, Muslims are good. Pakistan, for example, is one of the most free in the muslim world, contested only by Indonesia and Bangladesh, and those are followed by, surprisingly, Iran. Pakistan has the largest and most powerful militaries in the Muslim world, and its army is(or at least its nuclear arsenal) on the top ten in terms of how good it is and how many men it has. Its economy is also surprisingly good for a nation thats major export is either textiles or rare Missile launchers. On the civil front, it is leagues ahead of its counterparts, yet still behind most western nations. The only MAJOR bad thing is the fact that it is ruled by a Military Dictatorship that,while it COULD be totalarian, still maintains the importance of democracy and, unlike the U.S. OTHER allied dictatorships, doesnt violate human rights.

You don't have to have lived somewhere to be knowledgeable about that place's government, economics, and to a large extent society... everything about everywhere is laid out for you in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals and books.

As for China, it is quite obvious that it is as far removed from communism as you could get, you will realize that just by reading an article from USA Today or some other nonspecialist publication. China is one of the most ultra capitalist countries in the world, and much more capitalistic than the United States. China calls itself "communist" and "Marxist" but the collectivization is long gone... the free market was introduced in the 1970s and today the government is just a tiny clique of fascist dictators who are bribed by wealthy businessmen and robber barons to abuse ordinary citizens and waste public money. China's welfare system (which used to be widespread) is nearly nonexistent, taxes hover around 0%, the law has been bought by corporations and rich people.


So THAT explains why the CEO's of companies in Hong Kong support the government, they run it! My my my, if only Mao's policies were still being followed. Then we'd have an actual communist enemy to face...

this is OT but...

In China, did they have calls to prayer from the Mosques(if there were any). And were they in Arabic or Mandarian Chinese?

this is OT but...

In China, did they have calls to prayer from the Mosques(if there were any). And were they in Arabic or Mandarian Chinese?
Yes they have calls to prayer, in Arabic, although most Chinese Muslims do not know Arabic. The main mosque in the Muslim quarter of Beijing is the 1200 year old Ox Avenue Mosque, built with the floor layout of a normal Muslim mosque/madrasa but designed and decorated in the style of far eastern Chinese pagoda architecture.

Yes they have calls to prayer, in Arabic, although most Chinese Muslims do not know Arabic. The main mosque in the Muslim quarter of Beijing is the 1200 year old Ox Avenue Mosque, built with the floor layout of a normal Muslim mosque/madrasa but designed and decorated in the style of far eastern Chinese pagoda architecture.

Ahhh, interesting. Just dont compare a mosque with a madrasa. I know they're very similar, but Madrasas are where young, innocent children are sent to learn to hate america...

Come on everybody! give a One to 2 parapgraph summary of your posistion so we can understand WHAT we are arguing for!

Ahhh, interesting. Just dont compare a mosque with a madrasa. I know they're very similar, but Madrasas are where young, innocent children are sent to learn to hate america...

I know they're different things but I was just pointing out that the Ox Avenue Mosque compound was combination mosque/madrasa which is typical for a lot of old mosques... they have a mosque for regular people and a school and dormitories for Koran students. Chinese Muslims are moderate so they don't do fanatical indoctrination there... it looked to me half the time the students were playing basketball, and the other half they were just hanging out around town.

I know they're different things but I was just pointing out that the Ox Avenue Mosque compound was combination mosque/madrasa which is typical for a lot of old mosques... they have a mosque for regular people and a school and dormitories for Koran students. Chinese Muslims are moderate so they don't do fanatical indoctrination there... it looked to me half the time the students were playing basketball, and the other half they were just hanging out around town.

lol. Thats what it was like in Pakistan, except for there they spent half the time studying and the other half either playing cricket or saying how Pakistan would whoop India if they ever played(this was before the India-Pakistan Cricket games).

My Posistion:

The Muslim world isnt as bad as the media portrays it to be. Sure, many of its nations have economical, cultural, or militaristic problems, but as a whole, Muslims are good. Pakistan, for example, is one of the most free in the muslim world, contested only by Indonesia and Bangladesh, and those are followed by, surprisingly, Iran. Pakistan has the largest and most powerful militaries in the Muslim world, and its army is(or at least its nuclear arsenal) on the top ten in terms of how good it is and how many men it has. Its economy is also surprisingly good for a nation thats major export is either textiles or rare Missile launchers. On the civil front, it is leagues ahead of its counterparts, yet still behind most western nations. The only MAJOR bad thing is the fact that it is ruled by a Military Dictatorship that,while it COULD be totalarian, still maintains the importance of democracy and, unlike the U.S. OTHER allied dictatorships, doesnt violate human rights.
No one is saying that the muslim world is as bad as the media portrays. Yet previously in this thread you disputed the fact that muslim culture is oppressive to women, and other religions.

Now you are saying that the most "advanced" muslim country, Pakistan, while leagues ahead of it's counterparts, is yet still behind most western nations.

I know you dont like to hear bad things about the muslim world. You and I both know that muslim extremists are in the minority. However, facts and history show that nearly all muslim cultures, all over the world, have practiced severe human right violations.

No one is saying that the muslim world is as bad as the media portrays. Yet previously in this thread you disputed the fact that muslim culture is oppressive to women, and other religions.

Now you are saying that the most "advanced" muslim country, Pakistan, while leagues ahead of it's counterparts, is yet still behind most western nations.

I know you dont like to hear bad things about the muslim world. You and I both know that muslim extremists are in the minority. However, facts and history show that nearly all muslim cultures, all over the world, have practiced severe human right violations.

You are totally correct. Seeing over 115 posts from different ideas changes how one thinks. I have changed my ideas. HOWEVER, notice how i said "most" of the western world. Theres still the Balkans, for example. And Columbia.

.... Theres still the Balkans, for example. And Columbia.What about Columbia?

What about Columbia?

Well, the FARC arent exactly the nicest and most humane rebel group in the world...

Actually you called Muslim divorce "efficient." It doesn't take advanced abstract thought to realize that "efficient" was meant as praise...

That doesn't mean I hold it to be better. Efficiency is better. But there are plenty of other factors to consider.

in my opinion, both Western and Muslim divorce have their problems but Western divorce is much better, because women here have more or less an equal chance as men to get a divorce. For all your rambling about "paperwork" and other bs, divorce is sure common here in the USA.

BS? Yeah, there's no paperwork involved in divorces. No legal issues. Way to go.


A lot of men and women. About 50% of all marriages in fact.

And the rest stay with their wife beating husbands - out of love. No laws force them to be together here, unlike your depiction of the male-dominated legal structures in other countries...


Uh, killing and violence happens everywhere.

Way to dismiss the brutality of american society. Others do it, we should too, only more so? You'll note the murder per capita rate is higher in the US than Iraq, Iran, Syria and most other countries. I suppose that's part of being superior.


When did I ever say all Muslims were terrorists? I've only argued that Muslim society is more backward, socially, than western society.

So would you say higher crime rates, the increasing dissolution of the nuclear family and the rise of widespread psychological disorders are hallmarks of a 'forward' society?


I have also lived in a Muslim society... I've lived for a few months among Chinese Muslims, who are among the most liberal of all Muslims. I got to know these people very well and they are good folk, but I also noticed that their mindset is more traditionalist and conservative than other Chinese. As a general rule Muslims in America are more socially conservative than non-AMerican muslims, and if you simply look at the laws and practices of Muslim governments, it will be plain and clear to you that muslim COUNTRIES are more conservative than Western countries.

Ah. So, conservative=backward. Does that mean the US, lead by GW 'Conservative' Bush, is also a backward society?


How many American women do you see conforming to a society-prescribed dress code?

Every... single... one.

The fact is, Muslims are more devoted to traditions and any deviation is frowned upon while here in the US anyone can basically live however they want.

"Basically" is a nice way to hedge your bet. We all know groups of people, areas, situations and times when deviation is frowned upon. But you're right, they're more devoted to tradition - I guess, a love of deviance is part of that forward-superior-better society we have.


Drug trafficking, drug related crimes, drug related terrorism, and drug related corruption is a huge problem in Pakistan. I suggest you read up on the matter. And drugs are mostly used by poor people, not rich consumerists - the poor need an escape, and drugs are an easy vector. Opium use is widespread among the underclass of Pakistan.

While crack use is much better. Thank God for our socially progressive chemical dependencies in the US. Or is crack not a major problem in the US? How about all the other drugs consumed here?

I don't believe in universal morality. Morality is merely a consensus opinion by a bunch of people on how best to run society. And the consensus is that America is a decent place to live and has a more moral way to run society.

No. That's your opinion. I think it would be presumptious of you to consider it "The Consensus" until you ask 6 billion people if they agree with you. Otherwise where is it a consensus? In your neighborhood? State? Country? Social crowd? Either way thats gonna be some massive shocker there! People always think their own way is best. You do. The Muslims do. Everyone does. Even me.








Of course, my way is best. ;)

Well, for one thing, Maimonides was a Jewish scholar, so he really couldn't have much to do with reforming Islam. Also, Iran is not a secular democracy, it is a theocracy. While it ostensibly has a democratic system, any decision that the legislature makes can be overruled by the top council which is staffed by clerics appointed by the top cleric/dictator of Iran. Those points aside, I'll get to my main idea:

Lightning Star, you say you have lived in Pakistan, and I believe you. But that doesn't necessarily make you an authority on Pakistan. Some areas in Pakistan are so Western that you could hardly imagine that you were in a country that has provided extensive funding and support for terrorist groups that are committed to overthrowing secular governments and replacing them with religious ones. As nice as the area that you lived in was, you would only have to visit one of the slums to see that what you are familiar with is not the norm for many of the people of Pakistan. The reason why there is a military dictatorship in Pakistan right now is because the modern, progressive Pakistanis know that the extremist elements in society possess a large enough support in the general population to allow them to win power in any fully democratic election.

I know quite a few Pakistanis, and i have studied the Arab world extensively. One of my good friends here in college is a Pakistani studying abroad. But even he will admit that Pakistan's situation is very precarious. You casually dismiss comments about backwardness by saying that this only occurs in "tribal areas". But what you fail to note is exactly how large these tribal areas are, and how their existence alone is evidence that Pakistan still has very far to go before it can compare itself to Western society. Furthermore, social backwardness is not confined to these areas, and its poison is growing. One of the reasons that Musharraf's has been so willing to coopoerate in subduing these groups is that he knows that it is what is best for his own country in the end.

Well, the FARC arent exactly the nicest and most humane rebel group in the world...You mean they are not as nice'n'humane as: Galtieri, Melgar Castro,Montt,Noriega, Paz García, Rodriguez, Banzer, etc

...Also, Iran is not a....democracy. says who?

says who?

I can't tell if you are being stubborn or ignorant. Do you know what a democracy is? It certainly doesn't involve giving religious authorities veto power over the desires of the rest of the people.

Also, if you were following the news several months ago you would know that there has been a serious problem recently with people being disenfranchised and properly elected representatives not being allowed to continue being legislators. The Iranian Governing Council (the council of clerics) has the power to decide which candidates it will allow to run for office. This has meant, especially a few months ago, that they only allowed people to run who reflected their views.

The Muslim world has its share of problems, to deny that is to do an injustice to the people that live there.

I found your poll choices to be trivial and without substance.

Agreed. Dont forget the Hindu extremists, the Jewish extremists, the Sikh extremists...(says an extremists for every religion.). Well, I guess all Extremists should be shot :D!
Well, they don't act as stupid, so, they don't need to be shot; just instititionalized.

Christianity had the dark ages, Islam is having its.

Do you know what a democracy is?I do...do you?

Also, if you were following the news several months ago you would know that there has been a serious problem recently with people being disenfranchised..... news? From Whom?
CNN? AP? ABC? FOX? NBC?

Also, if you were following the same "news" several months ago you would know that there has been a serious problem recently with people being disenfranchised....in Venezuela.

news? From Whom?
CNN? AP? ABC? FOX? NBC?

Also, if you were following the same "news" several months ago you would know that there has been a serious problem recently with people being disenfranchised....in Venezuela.

I guess the answer was ignorant then. This was reported in the New York Times, Time magazine, as well as in countless newspapers around the world. Get over your obsession with TV, and read something for a change. This wasn't just something that was reported by foreign media, but Iranians themselves knew this was happening. Many of the reforming members of Iran's "legislature" (which has no real power) resigned in protest over it. If you are going to try to criticize me for being biased, at least figure out what I'm talking about before you jump to conclusions.

I guess the answer was ignorant then. This was reported in the New York Times, Time magazine, as well as in countless newspapers around the world. Get over your obsession with TV, and read something for a change.NewYork times and Time magazine sing the same songs...over and over again....

And most of those printed articles are from AP.

You are calling me ignorant?
Let me ask you a Question....
What are the 2 most democratic countries...From the Third World Oil contries(OPEC)?

NewYork times and Time magazine sing the same songs...over and over again....

And most of those printed articles are from AP.

You are calling me ignorant?
Let me ask you a Question....
What are the 2 most democratic countries...From the Third World Oil contries(OPEC)?


Kuwait ?
Qatar ?
Saudi Arabia ?
United Arab Emirates ?
Indonesia?
Algeria?
Libia?

What exactly is your point? The only reason I even mentioned Iran at all is because someone called it a democracy, which it most certainly is not. I don't know why you've fixated on this aspect of what I said.

Also, rather than claiming that every source is unreliable, why don't you say where you get your information? I can guarantee that you don't spend 100% of your time travelling around the world investigating every possible story, so you either get your information about the world from somewhere or you are completely ignorant about the world. More than that, almost any source you name I will have read at some point; I spend 2 hours or more a day sifting through various newspapers and periodicals, regardless of ideology. Come on, surprise me.

Also, rather than claiming that every source is unreliable.I did not say that every source is unreliable...

Yes I do travel a lot...Airports have free Newspapers en-masse from several differnt places....while at the airport you do have a lot of time to kill...and yes I am multilingual...so I can compare Worldwide media...
Here is my conclusions:
Most Major US media is 95%reliable...exept in the following cases...

1#When "Patriotism" kicks in(its the case for all countries)
1.2#When its about War....(related to number #1)
1.3#when its about "comunism" (this is fading out)
2# When its about Israel (Probably had to do with media Ownership)

all the other media distortions....are minor....

....you are completely ignorant about the world.
Reading your posts...i dont see how you can say that about me...

....I spend 2 hours or more a day sifting through various newspapers and periodicals, regardless of ideology. Come on, surprise me.So..what Newspapers did you read this week?

Actually, a "stupid-minded creature" is not a childish name. It is a name given to certain beings that may or may not be intelligent, yet their braisn for some strange reasona rent working very well.




Your posts beg to differ...
That made about as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.

...More than that, almost any source you name I will have read at some point....I spend 2 hours or more a day sifting through various newspapers and periodicals, regardless of ideology. Come on, surprise me.since we are talking about Iran...When was the last time you read a Newspaper from an OPEC country?

I do...do you?
Yeah, democracy is when a group of mullahs can disqualify the popular candidates for public office before the people can get a chance to vote. I know this is true because you said that Iran is a democracy, the above happened in the most recent Iranian election, therefore theocratic rule by the mullahs=democracy

Even in the most liberal Muslim societies women are treated in an insulting and undignified way. In Malaysia a man can divorce his wife by typing "I divorce you" three times over text message or email. In Iraq (and other Muslim nations) there is the practice of honor killings in which men hunt down and kill female family members who dishonors the family by having premarital sex or were raped... it is barbaric that a woman who is a rape victim must die because she somehow "dishonored" the family! This is common practice throughout Islam and dozens of honor killings have occurred in Iraq this year. And there is no denying that examples of liberalism in Islam are rare EXCEPTIONS, far and few between. The vast majority of Islamic society is socially backward, much more backward than Western societies, other Christian societies, and most other non-Muslim societies.

Honor killings are NOT Muslim, they are Arabic tradition. Look at Malaysia and Indonesia, do they have honor killings?

That people can break marriages by typing that trice is what give women rights from sharia, when marriage is nothing but an economical transaction then the woman may divorce if she thinks that her hospent can't support her financially.

I have lived int hem and they are NOT, i repeat, NOT the majority!!! Seriously! Why wont you guys listen to the people who have ACTUALY LVIED THERE!

But you only mention Pakistan, Indonesia and sometimes Iran, if you now have lived in and studied the Muslim countries you ought to know that there are quite more countries with Islam as official religion.

You didnt listen to a word i have said, did you? Ive spent YEARS! I repeat, YEARS living in Pakistan! I have spent even MORE time studying it! As i said before, honor killings only exist in the REBELLIOUS mountain regions! And that only around 0.3% of the population! And Pakistan has 5-10 million Christians and 10 million Hindus! Freedom of religion is in the Pakistani Constitution! If you havent noticed, Pakistan is on the verge of ALL OUT WAR on these regions.

Pakistan is more advanced than alot of Aarican, Latin american, or Western European Nations! Its richer, larger, more populous, more prosperous.


I hold no doubt that Pakistan is a liberal country relativly free from oppression of women, BUT I seriously doubt that Pakistan is richer and more prosperous than western nations (I can't see ow the number of inhabitants or sheer size of the country would affect anything). For example. the GNP of my country, Sweden (which many people here on NS has described as a socialist dictatorship) during the years 90-00 grew by 1.6%. The Pakistan GNP grew at the same time by 1.2%. Now Sweden is the country with the world's highest taxes (altough since 2002 some small changes has made Sween pass Cayman Islands as taxparadise) and is really not known for a strong economy. Can you explain to me how your beloved Pakistan can b so much richer and more prosperous than the western world (I have never been to the country but I can't possibly imagine that welfare is greater there than here), have you ever been to Europe?

My Posistion:

The Muslim world isnt as bad as the media portrays it to be. Sure, many of its nations have economical, cultural, or militaristic problems, but as a whole, Muslims are good. Pakistan, for example, is one of the most free in the muslim world, contested only by Indonesia and Bangladesh, and those are followed by, surprisingly, Iran. Pakistan has the largest and most powerful militaries in the Muslim world, and its army is(or at least its nuclear arsenal) on the top ten in terms of how good it is and how many men it has. Its economy is also surprisingly good for a nation thats major export is either textiles or rare Missile launchers. On the civil front, it is leagues ahead of its counterparts, yet still behind most western nations. The only MAJOR bad thing is the fact that it is ruled by a Military Dictatorship that,while it COULD be totalarian, still maintains the importance of democracy and, unlike the U.S. OTHER allied dictatorships, doesnt violate human rights.

So then we pracitically do share our views about the Muslim world, but I still can't understand your views of Muslim oppression of women, I admire Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Iran for violating these traditions and moving forward to secular societies.

Edit: Forgot to put Turkey to the list, any more countries I should know about?

Yeah, democracy is when a group of mullahs can disqualify the popular candidates for public office before the people can get a chance to vote. Thats a Drag...

here too a bunch of (unelected)old "sages" can Qualify or disqualify a very popular man...I want him to be Prez....but its all in the hands of the (unelected) old men...

http://www.arnoldforpresident.us.tc/

But our system is by definition a Democracy...sure it has a few flaws...but it sure is way better than a dictatorship...

....Sweden (which many people here on NS has described as a socialist dictatorship)LOL are you kidding me?

Honor killings are NOT Muslim, they are Arabic tradition. Look at Malaysia and Indonesia, do they have honor killings?
Malaysia and Indonesia are the more modern Muslim nations whose societies have not been radicalized (although the Wahhabis are working on it). Honor killings occurs in many non-Arab nations, including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria.

That people can break marriages by typing that trice is what give women rights from sharia, when marriage is nothing but an economical transaction then the woman may divorce if she thinks that her hospent can't support her financially.
The woman may not initiate that divorce. Only the man can divorce by that method. A woman can't do a thing if her husband doesn't want to get divorced, even if the husband can't support her financially, or is cheating on her, or is beating her every night.

It is a nice place, but in the past few decades, it has been hijacked by those that want to return it to the eight century.

That doesn't mean I hold it to be better. Efficiency is better. But there are plenty of other factors to consider.
Why is efficiency better? Dictatorships operate extremely efficiently but a lot of people get hurt in the process. In the American divorce process, the divorce itself is slow and painful but more often than not, the two people can live productive happy lives after the fact. A woman denied her basic dignity will suffer forever, all for the sake of society's efficiency.

BS? Yeah, there's no paperwork involved in divorces. No legal issues. Way to go.
The existence of paperwork is not BS. Your attempt to make divorce in the US sound impossible due to paperwork and legal issues is BS.

And the rest stay with their wife beating husbands - out of love.
Not all men beat their wives :rolleyes:

No laws force them to be together here, unlike your depiction of the male-dominated legal structures in other countries...
Your point being...? That Americans have choice and control over their lives, while in Muslim societies women often are strictly restrained.

Way to dismiss the brutality of american society. Others do it, we should too, only more so? You'll note the murder per capita rate is higher in the US than Iraq, Iran, Syria and most other countries. I suppose that's part of being superior.
I'll give you that the US is a uniquely violent society, due in large part to its long history of ethnic strife. This is a problem we have to work on. However comparably multicultural non-Western societies are also filled with brutality and tension. On the whole, western or westernized societies such as England, Japan, Chile, the USA, are much more decent places to live than Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, or the such.

So would you say higher crime rates, the increasing dissolution of the nuclear family and the rise of widespread psychological disorders are hallmarks of a 'forward' society?
Western nations are very safe, much more desirable and free places to live. American society has many problems, but I don't know where you are getting the psychological disorders statistic. I suspect most societies have the same occurance of psychological disorders, but the fact is that in Muslim nations a lot of psychoses do not get reported because it would dishonor the patient's family. Whereas in the West, which is all about openness and transparency, our shrinks are handing out diagnoses of mental disorders nonstop.Also, I am ambivalent about the nuclear family... I myself was happily raised in a two parent home but I am not sure if the traditional nuclear family is absolutely necessary, or whether it is definitely good or bad. The Scandinavian nations, which have the highest divorce rates in the world, also have the happiest people in the world, and some of the most prosperous and tolerant.

Ah. So, conservative=backward. Does that mean the US, lead by GW 'Conservative' Bush, is also a backward society?
Our president is a conservative but when the time comes to decide important social matters, the conservative movement can't do as much as they'd make you think they can... the right is very very loud and drowns out other peoples, but when the actual policy is getting made, they can't do much. For example, regarding the anti-gay marriage bill, the conservatives vowed to stop it and promised to rain hellfire on their enemies but when the vote came along, they couldn't even get a majority in the Senate.

Every... single... one.
Proof please?
I see headdressed Muslims, headdressed Amish, Christians, skullcapped Jews, people of every preference or lack thereof. In many Islamic nations all women, whether Muslim or not, are required by law to cover their heads.


"Basically" is a nice way to hedge your bet. We all know groups of people, areas, situations and times when deviation is frowned upon. But you're right, they're more devoted to tradition - I guess, a love of deviance is part of that forward-superior-better society we have.
You are trying to make "deviation" sound perverse. There is nothing perverse about wearing a Muslim scarf and there is nothing perverse about not wearing a Muslim scarf. People should choose how to run their lives, and there is nothing perverse about it.


While crack use is much better. Thank God for our socially progressive chemical dependencies in the US. Or is crack not a major problem in the US? How about all the other drugs consumed here?
WTF?! Of course drugs are a problem in the US... did you think I meant that crack doesn't exist in the USA because opium exists in Pakistan?

No. That's your opinion. I think it would be presumptious of you to consider it "The Consensus" until you ask 6 billion people if they agree with you. Otherwise where is it a consensus? In your neighborhood? State? Country? Social crowd? Either way thats gonna be some massive shocker there! People always think their own way is best. You do. The Muslims do. Everyone does. Even me.
I don't think there is a way to prove this matter one way or the other with a poll or anything, but my bet (which is supported by all circumstantial evidence) is that most people prefer the modern liberalized way of life... the vast majority of people in the world who live in oppressive socities would be quite happy here, or if they can't move here then they'll try to reform their own societies into transparent, open, modern societies. The only people who stand in their way are fundamentalists, dogmatists, and apologists for the archaic way of life, like you.

It's fine. Lets leave it at that.

Its interesting to look at the poll and see the law of the bell curve at work.

Well, for one thing, Maimonides was a Jewish scholar, so he really couldn't have much to do with reforming Islam.
You have no idea of what Maimonides' teachings are about. Maimonides was one of the first secular, rationalist philosophers of the monotheist religions. In the medieval times, most people - Christians, Jews, Muslims alike - believed that religion should play a central part in government and society. In Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed" he rejected dogma, interpreted the Torah allegorically, and dismissed the existence of miracles. He also believed that people can and should have religion, but that religion is a private matter and is not absolutely necessary to run a sound government and society.

Maimonides' writings were meant for all people, not just Jews, even though the examples and illustrative stories he used were from the Hebrew Bible. Maimonides wrote in Arabic and his works were very popular among educated Muslims of the time. However, both fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Muslims denounced his rationalist approach to religion and society. Maimonides, together with his contemporary Muslim philosophers Averroes and Avicenna, represented the golden age of Arabic philosophy and rationalism in the Middle East - they wanted their society to be based on reason and logic, not on blind faith. Averroes' and Maimonides' theories about logic, reason, and the separation of church and state never took hold in their homelands but instead influenced a Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe. Today's Muslim world wants little to do with the separation of mosque and state but if the philosophies of Maimonides and Averroes had been adopted by Islam 900 years ago, Islam would become a highly scientific, dynamic and progressive society unlike the dogma-ridden mess it finds itself in today.

You have no idea of what Maimonides' teachings are about. Maimonides was one of the first secular, rationalist philosophers of the monotheist religions. In the medieval times, most people - Christians, Jews, Muslims alike - believed that religion should play a central part in government and society. In Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed" he rejected dogma, interpreted the Torah allegorically, and dismissed the existence of miracles. He also believed that people can and should have religion, but that religion is a private matter and is not absolutely necessary to run a sound government and society.

Maimonides' writings were meant for all people, not just Jews, even though the examples and illustrative stories he used were from the Hebrew Bible. Maimonides wrote in Arabic and his works were very popular among educated Muslims of the time. However, both fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Muslims denounced his rationalist approach to religion and society. Maimonides, together with his contemporary Muslim philosophers Averroes and Avicenna, represented the golden age of Arabic philosophy and rationalism in the Middle East - they wanted their society to be based on reason and logic, not on blind faith. Averroes' and Maimonides' theories about logic, reason, and the separation of church and state never took hold in their homelands but instead influenced a Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe. Today's Muslim world wants little to do with the separation of mosque and state but if the philosophies of Maimonides and Averroes had been adopted by Islam 900 years ago, Islam would become a highly scientific, dynamic and progressive society unlike the dogma-ridden mess it finds itself in today.

::sigh:: You completely misunderstood the point I was making about Maimonides. In fact, I have read some work by him, and i was very impressed by it, especially considering when it was written. However, my point in calling him a Jewish scholar was that Muslims would be unlikely to view him as an authority on their religion. Most people are unwilling to hear criticism from outsiders, so it is likely that the only way Islam could be reformed is internally through the work of a Muslin scholar.

Thats a Drag...

here too a bunch of (unelected)old "sages" can Qualify or disqualify a very popular man...I want him to be Prez....but its all in the hands of the (unelected) old men...

http://www.arnoldforpresident.us.tc/

But our system is by definition a Democracy...sure it has a few flaws...but it sure is way better than a dictatorship...

Wait a second, are you trying to equate laws which preclude foreign-born people from becoming the leader of an entire country with policies that disenfranchise thousands of people who have lived in a country their entire life? Not only that, but legal immigrants to the US possess almost exactly the same rights as native-born people. Furthermore, the law which prohibits foreign-born President's can be changed, and in fact there is a movement afoot to do so. Honestly, I have no clue what kind of moral calculus you are trying to apply to the world, it seems to have no sense of proportion.

I did not say that every source is unreliable...

Yes I do travel a lot...Airports have free Newspapers en-masse from several differnt places....while at the airport you do have a lot of time to kill...and yes I am multilingual...so I can compare Worldwide media...
Here is my conclusions:
Most Major US media is 95%reliable...exept in the following cases...

1#When "Patriotism" kicks in(its the case for all countries)
1.2#When its about War....(related to number #1)
1.3#when its about "comunism" (this is fading out)
2# When its about Israel (Probably had to do with media Ownership)

all the other media distortions....are minor....

Once again, what is your point? You have never attempted to seriously dispute my statement as to Iran's status as a theocracy, so I am forced to assume that you are arguing for arguments sake. If you care to explain why you think that Iran is a democracy, then perhaps we will have something to talk about. Your vague ad hominem attacks on me and on the US media lack evidence and substance, and furthermore have little to do with the debate at hand. If the US media is wrong about Iran, then PROVE it.

Wait a second, are you trying to equate laws which preclude foreign-born people from becoming the leader of an entire country with policies that disenfranchise thousands of people who have lived in a country their entire life?the policy does disenfranchise thousands of people who would love Arnold as a President

Once again, what is your point? You have never attempted to seriously dispute my statement as to Iran's status as a theocracy.Actually... You have never attempted to seriously dispute my statement as to Iran's status as a Democracy...

....as a theocracy, so I am forced to assume that you are arguing for arguments sake. You are free to assume whatever you want...

BTW:
http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theocracy&x=20&y=10

Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

the policy does disenfranchise thousands of people who would love Arnold as a President

Proportion, please. Americans cannot vote for one person to become a candidate for President, but there are many other possible candidates who would reflect their views just as well. Iranians can vote, but it doesn't matter who they want to vote for since only one type of person will be allowed to be elected.

Actually... You have never attempted to seriously dispute my statement as to Iran's status as a Democracy...

Sure I have. Once again you aren't even trying to argue. Iran is dominated by a council of clerics (read unelected religious authorities). That is a THEOCRACY, by your own definition. If you disagree, then *debate* it! I am tired of your one sentence responses that don't even attempt to explain why you feel the way you do.

... Iranians can vote, but it doesn't matter who they want to vote for since only one type of person will be allowed to be elected.says whom? NewYorktimes or Time magazine :D

Iran is dominated by a council of clerics (read unelected religious authorities).so...why do they hold elections?

so...why do they hold elections?

Elections are not proof of democracy. Meaningful elections are. Dictators hold elections all the time, but the results are completely irrelevant. Likewise, Iran has a legislature which they elect (although they lack a choice as to the candidates for election), but the legislature has no real power. It can pass laws, and these laws have authority, but they can only pass laws that do not conflict with the council of clerics. The legislature is window dressing on a ictatorship, to make it look democratic and allow Iran to call itself an Islamic "Republic".

says whom? NewYorktimes or Time magazine :D

The BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3512985.stm. I could dig up alot more sources if you want. Honestly, if you read the newspaper, any newspaper, as much as you claim you should know about this already.

::sigh:: You completely misunderstood the point I was making about Maimonides. In fact, I have read some work by him, and i was very impressed by it, especially considering when it was written. However, my point in calling him a Jewish scholar was that Muslims would be unlikely to view him as an authority on their religion.
Even though readers realized that his philosophy could apply for people of all faiths and backgrounds, Maimonides never specifically analyzed Islam - his works were ostensibly to teach Jews how to live a spiritual yet secular lifestyle. So his views, disguised as a critique of classical Judaism, would be very palatable for Muslims.

Most people are unwilling to hear criticism from outsiders, so it is likely that the only way Islam could be reformed is internally through the work of a Muslin scholar.

At first glance it may be illogical someone would welcome criticism from outsiders but the fact is, many educated Muslims were followers of Maimonides. In fact, all of 12th century Islam was quite enlightened and there was free and open discourse among all people (even though this rationalist era in Islamic history never developed into its full potential and instead regressed). In such an open, tolerant environment, it is not unreasonable that even an outsider could influence the majority. For example, the Jew Baruch Spinoza influenced the development of Christian rationalism and European philosophy during the Enlightenment in Europe. The fact is that Maimonides had many supporters in the Muslim Egyptian government and many followers among ordinary Muslims. Unfortunately, Islam's brush with modernity ended with the coming of 11th century Crusades, 12th century Jihad, and 13th century Mongol Invasions, all of which seriously disrupted the progress of liberal Islam.

The BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3512985.stm. the bottom line is they rejected 2500 candidates...thats what 10%?...its not enough to stop the majorty from expressing their political views...
At the end they was thousands of opposition candidates left...so People could have voted for those...

Even though readers realized that his philosophy could apply for people of all faiths and backgrounds, Maimonides never specifically analyzed Islam - his works were ostensibly to teach Jews how to live a spiritual yet secular lifestyle. So his views, disguised as a critique of classical Judaism, would be very palatable for Muslims.



At first glance it may be illogical someone would welcome criticism from outsiders but the fact is, many educated Muslims were followers of Maimonides. In fact, all of 12th century Islam was quite enlightened and there was free and open discourse among all people (even though this rationalist era in Islamic history never developed into its full potential and instead regressed). In such an open, tolerant environment, it is not unreasonable that even an outsider could influence the majority. For example, the Jew Baruch Spinoza influenced the development of Christian rationalism and European philosophy during the Enlightenment in Europe. The fact is that Maimonides had many supporters in the Muslim Egyptian government and many followers among ordinary Muslims. Unfortunately, Islam's brush with modernity ended with the coming of 11th century Crusades, 12th century Jihad, and 13th century Mongol Invasions, all of which seriously disrupted the progress of liberal Islam.

Free and open discourse is all well and good, but you need only look at the situation in NationStates to see that only goes so far. You can talk all you like, but very few people will change their opinions if it comes from a person they see as coming from outside their own group, be it racial, religious, or political, no matter how rational their argument is.

So..what Newspapers did you read this week?BTW im still waiting your answer about that one...

The most important result of last Friday’s parliamentary elections in Iran was the complete failure of the so-called reformers around President Mohammed Khatami. Seven years ago, Khatami was elected with a great majority, because large sections of the Iranian people rejected the reactionary regime of the mullahs, the religious rulers of Iran. However, at no point has his government been prepared to seriously confront the conservatives in the Council of Guardians, the unelected institution controlling all institutions of state power, and to defend democratic rights.

On the other hand, the religious hard-liners—who have little credibility among the population but control large parts of the economy, the state apparatus, the judiciary and national television—have energetically expanded their regime of oppression. More than a dozen newspapers were banned in the course of the past few years, and political opponents were thrown into prison. Strikes or protests were terrorised by paramilitary militias, and show trials were being used to foment anti-Semitism.

Khatami and his faction, the reformers, constantly backed down in the face of this pressure. They saw their main task in calling on the population to preserve “peace and order,” while social conditions continued to deteriorate and unemployment steadily rose. Thus, the initial hopes that people had placed in this faction were systematically frustrated.

Based on this role of the reformers, the conservative faction of the clergy was able to win last Friday’s elections with a large majority. The reformers, who previously had the largest parliamentary faction, are now down to 25 of 290 seats.

In a pompous speech on election night, religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed that “the people” had won the elections. Nothing could be further from the truth. During the past weeks, the expression of any opinion different from those of the religious rulers was brutally suppressed. Two days before the elections, the two most influential opposition newspapers were banned. Even before, the Council of Guardians had banned more than 2,300 candidates of the reformers, which prompted nearly 1,000 further reformers to withdraw their candidacy in protest.

In the region of the capital Tehran, only 2 million of 8 million eligible voters went to the polls. On a national average, participation reached its lowest level since the founding of the Islamic republic in 1979. From 67.4 percent four years ago, it dropped to 50.5 percent.

Immediately after the polls had closed, Khamenei announced further measures of state repression. He said the Council of Guardians had resolved that, given the elimination of most reform-minded MPs, the newly elected parliament would “concentrate on the strengthening of Islam” and the “reinforcement of faith and morality in public life.”

Angry about the undemocratic and arrogant behaviour of the religious rulers, and disappointed with the cowardly retreat of the reformers, people took to spontaneous protests in several Iranian cities last weekend. Police and paramilitary troops brutally attacked the demonstrators in order to stifle the emergence of any broader movement. At least four people were killed in street clashes in the constituency of Izeh in the southwestern province of Khuzestan during protests against the local election result, which was seen as a fraud.

I'm tired of providing all of the evidence. If you have something to say, back it up with you own.

BTW im still waiting your answer about that one...

I read:

New York Times
USA Today
Time Magazine
National Review
Economist
NNI (Pakistan Independent News Service nni-news.com)
The Senate Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (although I only read about half of its 529 pages, too much to do)
Also bits of odds and ends from other sources

Free and open discourse is all well and good, but you need only look at the situation in NationStates to see that only goes so far. You can talk all you like, but very few people will change their opinions if it comes from a person they see as coming from outside their own group, be it racial, religious, or political, no matter how rational their argument is.
So how do you explain the fact that Maimonides had a large Muslim following and the fact that many other significant events in history have been brought along by people you wouldn't expect? Communism - a foreign, Western concept - was introduced in China very rapidly and overthrew 2,000 years of Confucian tradition within 30 years.

Very few people may change their opinions initially, but these people could make the minority view seem more acceptable and mainstream and often times this results in a society-wide paradigm shift. Debating for an hour or two on Nationstates will not change people's opinions much but I think most people here would have had their beliefs systems affected by the opinions of others over the course of months. In Maimonides' case he had years to build a large following among Muslims.

So how do you explain the fact that Maimonides had a large Muslim following and the fact that many other significant events in history have been brought along by people you wouldn't expect? Communism - a foreign, Western concept - was introduced in China very rapidly and overthrew 2,000 years of Confucian tradition within 30 years.

Very few people may change their opinions initially, but these people could make the minority view seem more acceptable and mainstream and often times this results in a society-wide paradigm shift. Debating for an hour or two on Nationstates will not change people's opinions much but I think most people here would have had their beliefs systems affected by the opinions of others over the course of months. In Maimonides' case he had years to build a large following among Muslims.

Well, how do you explain the fact that Maimonides failed? If his following was really that powerful, it would have either sparked a civil war or resulted in some meaningful change from the inside. But since his followers weren't willing to go anywhere near that far to advocate their ideals, they were doomed to failure when they came into conflict against those who were. In the end most of them owed more allegiance to their tribe than they did to their own ideals.

Sometimes exterior ideas work, and sometimes they don't. All I was saying was that exterior ideas have a lower chance of working than ideas that come within.

I'm tired of providing all of the evidence. If you have something to say, back it up with you own.Here this from the web site you are using
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/sep2004/lett-s18.shtml

I'm tired of providing all of the evidence. If you have something to say, back it up with you own.Your news source say Amercan latest presidential elections were rigged http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/semi-d09.shtml

Well, how do you explain the fact that Maimonides failed? If his following was really that powerful, it would have either sparked a civil war or resulted in some meaningful change from the inside. But since his followers weren't willing to go anywhere near that far to advocate their ideals, they were doomed to failure when they came into conflict against those who were.
The reason that progressive Islam perished was because of the Crusades and the Mongol invasions - these two military threats overwhelmed all other issues in Islamic life, from science to philosophy. The easiest way to fight off these military invasions was to adopt fundamentalist Jihad - promises of paradise would inspire Muslim soldiers to blindly fight to the death. Jihad was practiced throughout the 12th and 13th centuries, most notably by Saladin and the barbaric Mamelukes. However, once the threats subsided, the Muslims have not abandoned the dogmatism that was so useful in war but completely harmful to the construction of a prosperous peace time society. Indeed, in the past 200 years the dogmatism has intensified.

In the end most of them owed more allegiance to their tribe than they did to their own ideals.
These ideals were not seen as completely non-Muslim though. Maimonides was not the only person who held these liberal views... the greatest Muslim philosopher of all time, Averroes, and the mathematician-philosopher Avicenna both reached the same conclusions as Maimonides. Maimonides lived in Cairo and that was where his base of support was, while Averroes' philosophical community was in Muslim Spain, and Avicenna taught in Persia. The beginning of the 12th century in Islam was an era of unprecedented innovation, and freethinkers sprung up everywhere. Unfortunately they were quickly cut down by the series of military crises that threatened Islam.

Sometimes exterior ideas work, and sometimes they don't. All I was saying was that exterior ideas have a lower chance of working than ideas that come within.
You originally wrote "Maimonides was a Jewish scholar, so he really couldn't have much to do with reforming Islam." Any minority viewpoint could have potential to make changes. It is incorrect to ignore the possibilities that Maimonides generated. And in the spirit of tolerance of 12th century Islam, Maimonides was not an "outsider" - he was just as Egyptian as a Muslim Egyptian.

Many historical trends, in fact most historical trends, are generally discovered only once; it would spread too fast for it to be discovered simultaneously somewhere else... the only way for another nation to share in this new idea would be for the new idea to affect the nation from the outside. Capitalism was formulated in England, Confucianism was established in China and spread to other countries, and all the major religions have specific regions where they developed and totally foreign regions to which they spread.

Pakistan's capital of Islamabad and Bangladash's capital of Dhaka are the only two fully modernized ctities in those two countries.

Malaysia is pretty moderate and its govenment lies that way as if it wasn't, Singapore would screw it.

Indonesia is pretty moderate as well. Islam was a good thing for it because 80-100 different languages are spoken there so Arabic made trade and etc a lot easier.

Saudi Arabia's official religion is Wahabi Islam. Therefore, it is the root of the problem.

Turkey is the most modernized of the Islamic countries thanks to Ataturk, although I heard women are somewhat lower than the men. Speaking of Ataturk, he overthrew the Ottoman Turks to become leader of Turkey. It would have interesting to see what would have happen if the British had left the Ottoman Empire alone. It covered almost the entire Middle East and one could just imagine the greatness if Ataturk had that whole area to work with. No Saddam, no Palestinian/Israeli stupidity, and the list goes on and on.

Somalia is dead in the water. In West Africa, it is only Sunni muslim. I have no idea what Tunisia and Libya are up to, I know Morrocco is busy trying to lock up its extremists though.

And yet, the largest population of Muslims exists in China. China has its problems with terror as well. Ever heard of the place called East Turkestan???
But most of the muslims are nomadic herder types I think. Also, the story of Aladdin originally came from China.

And yet, the largest population of Muslims exists in China.
The largest Muslim population is in Indonesia.

Your news source say Amercan latest presidential elections were rigged http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/semi-d09.shtml
Regardless on one's opinion of the 2000 Presidential Election or the majoritarian governmental system in America, there is no doubt that America is more democratic than Iran. Americans have more control of their government on all levels - local, state, and federal - than the Iranians have of theirs.

Anyways you are changing the subject... even if America is a dictatorship, the fact that Iran is a theocracy stands.

The reason that progressive Islam perished was because of the Crusades and the Mongol invasions - these two military threats overwhelmed all other issues in Islamic life, from science to philosophy. The easiest way to fight off these military invasions was to adopt fundamentalist Jihad - promises of paradise would inspire Muslim soldiers to blindly fight to the death. Jihad was practiced throughout the 12th and 13th centuries, most notably by Saladin and the barbaric Mamelukes. However, once the threats subsided, the Muslims have not abandoned the dogmatism that was so useful in war but completely harmful to the construction of a prosperous peace time society. Indeed, in the past 200 years the dogmatism has intensified.


These ideals were not seen as completely non-Muslim though. Maimonides was not the only person who held these liberal views... the greatest Muslim philosopher of all time, Averroes, and the mathematician-philosopher Avicenna both reached the same conclusions as Maimonides. Maimonides lived in Cairo and that was where his base of support was, while Averroes' philosophical community was in Muslim Spain, and Avicenna taught in Persia. The beginning of the 12th century in Islam was an era of unprecedented innovation, and freethinkers sprung up everywhere. Unfortunately they were quickly cut down by the series of military crises that threatened Islam.


You originally wrote "Maimonides was a Jewish scholar, so he really couldn't have much to do with reforming Islam." Any minority viewpoint could have potential to make changes. It is incorrect to ignore the possibilities that Maimonides generated. And in the spirit of tolerance of 12th century Islam, Maimonides was not an "outsider" - he was just as Egyptian as a Muslim Egyptian.

Many historical trends, in fact most historical trends, are generally discovered only once; it would spread too fast for it to be discovered simultaneously somewhere else... the only way for another nation to share in this new idea would be for the new idea to affect the nation from the outside. Capitalism was formulated in England, Confucianism was established in China and spread to other countries, and all the major religions have specific regions where they developed and totally foreign regions to which they spread.

Look, we really don't have a point of contention here. I agree with everything you've said. However, your argument concerns what *might* have happened. Mine deals with what *did* happen. And part of the reason why it didn't work was because it wasn't an internal development. Can you at least concede that was part of the reason?

Look, we really don't have a point of contention here. I agree with everything you've said. However, your argument concerns what *might* have happened. Mine deals with what *did* happen.
My argument does not revolve around what "might" have happened. My hypothesizing of alternate history does not change the fact that my central point is that Maimonides' writings were popular even among Muslims, and that the entire secularist movement was gaining momentum, not just through the work of Maimonides but also other Muslim thinkers. Your point that Maimonides, being a Jew, could not and did not affect Islam is incorrect because history shows he had many followers and admirers, including the Caliph of Cairo. Islam did in fact liberalize under the philosophy of Maimonides and Averroes, however, their efforts were turned back by the military crises of the 12th-15th centuries.

And part of the reason why it didn't work was because it wasn't an internal development. Can you at least concede that was part of the reason?
I would, if the only person in all of the Middle East advocating secularism was Maimonides. But the fact stands that Averroes and Avicenna, two faithful Muslims, also had secularist, progressive philosophies. Secularism was popular throughout the Muslim world, until Muslim leaders adopted fundamentalism as an effective tool to fight foreign invasion.

I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you Trilateral, although I must first admit my ignorance on the matter. I have read quite a bit about Maimonides, but most of it did not concern his contributions to Islam. If you could provide me with some sources, I would be very interested in reading up on the subject (Note: I am not trying to imply you are making this up, as many people on NS would intend to do, I am genuinely interested).

"The Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimonides himself is a good place to start... it reads like it's straight from the New Age section of the bookstore with the combination of scriptural citations and unorthodox interpretations. "Jews, God, and History" by Max I. Dimont is about Jewish thinkers and trends in Jewish thought. Interestingly enough it says that the most important Jewish thinkers are the assimilated ones (like Maimonides or Baruch Spinoza) who reject classical Judaism and whose philosophies reflect the majority-dominated societies they live in. It has a section about Maimonides and his philosophies.

I've actually read Dimont's book... but I didn't notice it refering to Maimonides Islamic influence, although it has been several years.... Since the subject at hand is the effect of Maimonides' ideas, not their actual content, I'm not sure how my reading the other book would be of any use.

Malaysia and Indonesia are the more modern Muslim nations whose societies have not been radicalized (although the Wahhabis are working on it). Honor killings occurs in many non-Arab nations, including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria.


The woman may not initiate that divorce. Only the man can divorce by that method. A woman can't do a thing if her husband doesn't want to get divorced, even if the husband can't support her financially, or is cheating on her, or is beating her every night.

Iran is an Arab nation, Nigeria is ruled by fundamentalists and those honor kilings éxecuted in Pakistan are made by small minority of people, not all christians are KKK.

It may be like you say, I heard from a Muslim guy I know that women as well as men may initate a divorce, but he is quite secular, I doubt that he would know much more about Islam than I do.:)

As always I think you mustn't generalise. Some islamic countries use that ancient islamic law, with the stoning and chopping of hands and all. And women can't show a bit of cleavage and are kept indoors all their lives. But then you have islamic countries where people can chose in how far they go when following the Islam... More freedom and such.

All I know for sure is, each time one of my female friends, especially the blond ones visit Egypt or Marocco or Syria or Turkey, they or their boyfriend or family is offered loads of camels :D thats some sort of marriage arangment they're trying to pull :D Sweet.

I'm tired of providing all of the evidence. If you have something to say, back it up with you own.

I think you have said it yourself. Iran is for the moment an oligarchy ruled by mullahs. BUT, people are protesting, people are playing rock music, people are voting for Khatami (right spelling?), wasn't there some students occupying an university a few years ago? Things are working out and if we just let Iranians fight for themselves and not attack them we may have a smooth revolution leading to the first Arabian republic in 2 or 3 decades.

Since the subject at hand is the effect of Maimonides' ideas, not their actual content, I'm not sure how my reading the other book would be of any use.
Oh, I got the impression you were also interested in finding more about Maimonides' ideas themselves.

Iran is an Arab nation,
Iran is Persian, not Arab

Nigeria is ruled by fundamentalists
The fact that a fundamentalist Sharia government controls Nigeria's northern provinces proves that honor killings is alive and well, and is accepted by many Muslim societies, even if they are not Arab.

and those honor kilings éxecuted in Pakistan are made by small minority of people, not all christians are KKK.
Actually the honor killings are mandated by the government of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province. The KKK does not control the government of any American state.

Iran is an Arab nation,
Nope Iran isnt arab, they are not ethnically arab,The bulk of Irans populace are speakers of Farsi, not arabic etc etc etc
http://www.farsinet.com

Regardless on one's opinion of the 2000 Presidential Election or the majoritarian governmental system in America, there is no doubt that America is more democratic than Iran. Americans have more control of their government on all levels - local, state, and federal - than the Iranians have of theirs.
Yes America is more democratic than Iran...But Iran is more Democratic than All the Muslim countries...Iran is more Democratic than all the (3rdWorld)Oil Countries...and Iran is more Democratic than Afganistan and Iraq

And Iran would not be more democratic if we have our way with them...

What opression do you speak of(excluding Iran, Syria , and Palestine. Those are all fringe nations with almost no allies. And in Palestine, its the Isrealies, who are mostly Jewish, who are doing the persecution)

Dont remember who it was that said, a civilzation can be measured by how it treats the weakest in society.

Since most Muslim countries treat women very badly (i.e. in Kuwait they cannot even vote), on this reasoning Muslims would be considered barbaric thugs.

But as far as Architecture, clothing, arts and crafts, language etc. goes, I think the Muslim culture is one of the coolest. And all those desert landscapes are pretty cool too. I wish they would just realize that they have to modernize their culture like we did in the West.

By the way does anybody know who said that thing about Civilization? Was it some ancient Greek or something?

Yes America is more democratic than Iran...But Iran is more Democratic than all the Arab Contries...Iran is more Democratic than All the Muslim countries...and Iran is more Democratic than Afganistan and Iraq

Albania, Turkey, Indonesia, and Bangladesh are far more democratic than Iran. And it's not saying much that Iran is more democratic than the Arab despotisms... Iran having slightly fairer and more democratic institutions does not change the fact that the country is a theocracy, and all the real power lies with a small group of self-perpetuating strongmen.

And Iran would not be more democratic if we have our way with them...
I agree, though that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Albania, Turkey, Indonesia, and Bangladesh are far more democratic than Iran.The only situation i know is Indonesia...I have friends who live there...and they say the Generals elected themselves...

If that is what you call a Democracy...then I rather have Iran's "Dictatorship" :D

(i.e. in Kuwait they cannot even vote...vote? as far as i know....Kuwait is a dictatorship

The only situation i know is Indonesia...I have friends who live there...and they say the Generals elected themselves...
Sure there is a bit of corruption, but generally there are fair elections on every level of government in Indonesia, and your information is outdated... military rule was overthrown in 1998 and today all the high offices are held by civilians.

If that is what you call a Democracy...then I rather have Iran's "Dictatorship" :D
Why? Even if Indonesia were a military dictatorship, what would be the difference between mullahs who rig the Iranian election process and generals who rig the Indonesian election process? At least Indonesia doesn't have the fascistic lifestyle laws the Iranian government forces its people to follow... Indonesia is one of the most moderate Muslim nations and is a freer society than Iran... it has freedom of religion and far better womens rights.

vote? as far as i know....Kuwait is a dictatorship

There is a very limited amount of demoracy which is being developed in Kuwait. The Kuwaiti parliament is elected by Kuwaiti citizens (excluding women, as Carthage pointed out). I would not of course call Kuwait a democracy, but Kuwaiti citizens do vote. Dictatorship doesn't mean no democracy at all, it just means that the most important aspects of the society are not controlled by its citizens.

Yes, Kuwait is "democratic" in the same sense that Iran is... there are some token elections and there is much rhetoric about democracy, but unelected oligarchies make all the meaningful decisions, and both the ayatollahs of Iran and the king of Kuwait can purge the legislature any time they want.

There is a very limited amount of demoracy which is being developed in Kuwait. The Kuwaiti parliament is elected by Kuwaiti citizens (excluding women, as Carthage pointed out). I would not of course call Kuwait a democracy, but Kuwaiti citizens do vote. Dictatorship doesn't mean no democracy at all, it just means that the most important aspects of the society are not controlled by its citizens.
wow...that is a lot of smoke screens...Can you answer a simple question:

Kuwait is a Dictatorship Yes or No ?

wow...that is a lot of smoke screens...Can you answer a simple question:

Kuwait is a Dictatorship Yes or No ?
Does Kuwait have some democratic institutions? Yes
Does Iran have some democratic institutions? Yes
Is Kuwait a Dictatorship? Yes
Is Iran a Dictatorship? Yes

wow...that is a lot of smoke screens...Can you answer a simple question:

Kuwait is a Dictatorship Yes or No ?
And since TriComs wants to compare Iran to Kuwait....I give you all My answers in advance:

Kuwait is a Dictatorship Yes or No ? YES!

Iran is a Dictatorship Yes or No ? NO!

And since TriComs wants to compare Iran to Kuwait....I give you all My answers in advance:

Kuwait is a Dictatorship Yes or No ? YES!

Iran is a Dictatorship Yes or No ? NO!
Why don't you think that Iran is a dictatorship? Lenbonia has posted evidence showing Iran is a theocratic dictatorship, and all you have done is changing the subject and repeating "Iran is not a dictatorship" over and over again hoping that the repitition somehow constitutes a convincing argument... you yourself have not offered any evidence whatsoever indicating that Iran is not ruled by dictators.

here are the pictures of the last 2 elected presidents of Iran

http://www.peoples.ru/state/king/iran/rafsandjani/mandela_rafsanjani.jpg http://image.pathfinder.com/time/europe/webonly/mideast/2001/02/khatami.jpg

.

...now...show me the pictures ot the elected presidents of Kuwait....

or whatever highest elected candidate the Kuwaity people elected for those "democratic" institutions of yours....

here are the pictures of the last 2 elected presidents of Iran

http://www.peoples.ru/state/king/iran/rafsandjani/mandela_rafsanjani.jpg http://image.pathfinder.com/time/europe/webonly/mideast/2001/02/khatami.jpg

.

...now...show me the pictures ot the elected presidents of Kuwait....

or whatever highest elected candidate the Kuwaity people elected for those "democratic" institutions of yours....

Electing a president does not a democracy make. Electing a President who can actually DO things on his own. Kuwaiti members of Parliament have about as much power as the President of Iran: only as much as their dictators will give them.

Here is democratically elected President Mohammed Khatami of Iran

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/europe/webonly/mideast/2001/02/khatami.jpg

Here is the democratically elected legislature of Kuwait

http://www.middle-east-online.com/pictures/big/_9002_kuwait-parliament-23-2-2004.jpg

Here are some bricks

http://freespace.virgin.net/charles.whyte/4/brick.jpg











Here is the REAL power of Kuwait: the Emir, a dictator

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1555000/images/_1556249_kuwait-ap-300.jpg

Here is the REAL power of Iran: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, a dictator

http://www.islamische-akademie.de/frieden/galerie/images/khamenei.jpg

That pile of bricks bears a certain resemblance to a few politicians I know of...

Here is democratically elected President Mohammed Khatami of Iran
.........
Here is the REAL power of Iran: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, a dictator
So Iran has all at the same time an democratically elected President and a Dictator...[/sarcasm]

WOW....that amazing....how do they manage? :confused:

So Iran has all at the same time an democratically elected President and a Dictator...[/sarcasm]

WOW....that amazing....how do they manage? :confused:

You confuse a name with the concept that it represents. Many dictators call themselves Presidents, so I guess according to your logic that makes them democratic too. Likewise, just because someone is elected doesn't make it a democratic system. Elected positions have to have REAL power in order to qualify the system as democratic. The Iranian "President" lacks all of the powers that a democratically elected President needs, so he can call himself a President as much as he wants, but he is not a President in the democratic sense of the word.

Here is the REAL power of Kuwait: the Emir...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1555000/images/_1556249_kuwait-ap-300.jpgThe bottom line is that The people of Kuwait has never voted for that man...

As far as I'm concerned, Iran is the only part of the Muslim world that I have any like for... And that is because Iranians were originally Zoroastrian and I hope that one day, it shall be the way it was then.

i'm not sure i correctly understand the question
i'm not sure there is a correct understanding of the question

there's a bit of ambiguity to this phrase "moslem world"

do you mean the arabic speaking nations of the middle east?
or do you mean all nations with a majority islamic population?
or do you mean all fallowers of islamic beliefs in all nations?

there is no more of an exclusively islamic geography then
there is a christian one, or a baha'i or buddhist.

certainly there are nations more dominated by one belief or
another, but these are by no means the extent of the homes
of their fallowers or their sphere of influence.

my best approximation of an answer is that i think neither
more nor of the influence of islam then i do that of
christerism. neither of which are entirely natural nor to
my perspective the will of any divinity.

as for cogeographic 'worlds' there is the world of nature's
cycles of renewal upon which life as we immagine we know it
on this planet including our own is utterly dependent, the
'world' of human society with all its self destructive coerciveness
whatever flavor of perfume is used to hide the stench of that,
the 'world' of tecnology, the world of creativity, the world
of this website, the world of the internet ...

there are many countries and parts of countries in parts of
the world not often thought of in connection with islam
where its influence is or at least its name is the largest
as there is also of christianity.

personaly i have less use for either influence then i have
for taoism, shintoism, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, so called
neo paganism, or the keeping of indiginous traditions, or
in other words just about anything else immaginable.

don't get me wrong, both have redeaming qualities, but
chauvanism is fanatacism is harmful is evil whatever name
it lurkes behind. whereas on the other hand neither christ
nor mahammid ever promoted anything of the sort.

nor do christians, moslems, and jews pray other then to the same god.

so give us a break with trying to create some mythilogical
geographic entity such as islamic or christion (or even
buddist) 'worlds'

=^^=
.../\...

The bottom line is that The people of Kuwait has never voted for that man...

For the love of god... that is our POINT. Iran is not a democracy, and neither is Kuwait.

So Iran has all at the same time an democratically elected President and a Dictator...[/sarcasm]

WOW....that amazing....how do they manage? :confused:

Holy shit... are you really that dense Revolutionsz? The President of Iran is a largely ceremonial office with no real power... he is like the Queen of England or the President of Germany... their main purpose is to sit around and look pretty. The ultimate political power in Iran lies with the Supreme Leader and his associates, and the Council of Guardians. Just like how the real authority in England is Parliament and Prime Minister, while in Germany power is exercised by the Reichstag and Chancellor. You have been completely duped into thinking that something lawful is going on in Iran, while the truth of the matter is, behind the ballot boxes a small group of unelected and undemocratic mullahs is in full control.

The Muslim world is a bit too conservative for me.

Being in the position of not knowing one way or the other about the progressiveness of muslim and western states until i started reading this thread it seems to me that:
1) The postings arguing that the muslim world is genrally more backward than the western world are full of examples, clear arguments and the product of investigation
2)The postings arguing that the muslim world is progressive lack evidence, are full of passionate outpourings, with muddled arguments and contradiction, as well as straying from the point.

I know who I believe now

For the love of god... that is our POINT. Iran is not a democracy, and neither is Kuwait.
The man you present as the Dictator of Kuwait was never ever elected by the people of Kuwait....
the man you present as the dictator of Iran was elected by the people of Iran...

The man you present as the Dictator of Kuwait was never ever elected by the people of Kuwait....
the man you present as the dictator of Iran was elected by the people of Iran...
are you saying that Ayatollah Khamenei was elected by the people of Iran?

Holy shit... are you really that dense Revolutionsz? The President of Iran is a largely ceremonial office with no real power... he is like the Queen of England or the President of Germany... their main purpose is to sit around and look pretty.I dont know who told you that....but that is not the way it is.

The man you present as the Dictator of Kuwait was never ever elected by the people of Kuwait....
the man you present as the dictator of Iran was elected by the people of Iran...
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was never elected by the people of Iran... he was appointed to the position by the previous dictator, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. And the next Supreme Leader will be appointed by the current Supreme Leader.

I dont know who told you that....but that is not the way it is.
Proof please?

are you saying that Ayatollah Khamenei was elected by the people of Iran?exactamente....The people of Iran Trusted him to take Charge of the Country....

The same cannot be said about the King of Kuwait...or any of the other American-Friendly Arab dictators...

Proof please?Proof that the President of Iran has far..far..far more Governing power than the Queen of England?
are you kidding me?
.
Dude ...im not even going to bother...

exactamente....The people of Iran Trusted him to take Charge of the Country....

Unfortunately your ignorance of basic facts makes it hard for you to be taken seriously... an election or popular mandate NEVER took place for the appointment of Khamenei.

Proof that the President of Iran has far..far..far more Governing power than the Queen of England?
are you kidding me?
.
Dude ...im not even going to bother...
The current President, Khatami has *tried* to influence government but he is irrelevant... the Council of Guardians arbitrarily disqualified his political supporters from running from office and has stopped most of his policies.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was never elected by the people of Iran....never elected...are you sure?

Hey you know what...Maybe the time i expent over there...and being in touch with americans who still live there...Maybe all of that does not help my knoledge....You and your 2 hours a day newspapers...know more than me...

never elected...are you sure?

Hey you know what...Maybe the time i expent over there...and being in touch with americans who still live there...Maybe all of that does not help my knoledge....You and your 2 hours a day newspapers...know more than me...
rather than just post whatever... perhaps you could provide some sort of backing to your assertion that Khamenei was elected.
My 4 years spent living there, and keeping in touch with Iranians who still live there help my knowledge.





(I never lived there, know no one who lives there. But anyone can type that)

dp

All this bickering is pointless. What do I think of the Muslim world is no more relevant than what anyone else thinks. However, I have been to several countries within the Muslim world (Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Oman) and I have seen differences in each. Yes, the people speak the same language and they have a common religion (even though there are different factions within that religion).

I have met good and bad people in each of these countries. I have seen many differences in each. Alcohol flows freely in Bahrain and Turkey, but only behind closed doors in the others. There is a hospital on almost every corner in Saudi Arabia due to the various members of the royal family and their fun outside the kingdom followed by their attempts to "atone" for that fun. :rolleyes:

One thing I did find quite striking. Nothing is manufactured in the oil rich countries. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are lands of leisure for their citizens. I went into the Fuddruckers in Kuwait City and thought I was in Manila. Everyone working there was from the Phillippines. Everywhere I looked there were foreign workers doing everything while the Kuwaitis waited to be served.

I watched a Kuwaiti tear into the desert to round up his sheep. What was he driving? A BMW 8 series car....about $70,000 here in the US. I saw so many wrecked cars on the side of the road, they just leave them there.

I would not say that the Muslim countries are progressive. I think they are stuck in the 6th century. Don't go there and try to rush anything. It will be done if and when Allah wishes it to be. Thats the one thing that struck me. A car accident? It was Allah's will. There is such a pervasive attitude that Allah is in control of everything and there is nothing that the individual can do. It really is an attitude that I found to be very strange.

Have you ever seen the government try to pass a reformist law?
The Ayatollah has the final say on everything. If they don't like it (which they never do) it won't happen. Believe me, I've seen this in action. I have family in Iran.

Why is efficiency better? Dictatorships operate extremely efficiently but a lot of people get hurt in the process. In the American divorce process, the divorce itself is slow and painful but more often than not, the two people can live productive happy lives after the fact.

Proof? Know anyone who prefers "slow and painful" to "efficient" as far as breakups and divorce?


The existence of paperwork is not BS. Your attempt to make divorce in the US sound impossible due to paperwork and legal issues is BS.

The mention of paperwork is just one reason. It's not impossible, but it's amazing how enthusiasm dampens when one has to deal with government bureacracy blocking the way of one's personal decisions. Efficiency is better. Though of course, I admit it should work the other way around as well (the woman should be able to type "i divorce you" three times and get divorced too.)


Not all men beat their wives :rolleyes:


Of course not. But it's relevant because...


Your point being...? That Americans have choice and control over their lives, while in Muslim societies women often are strictly restrained.

Either that or what is perceived as choice and control are really just variety. Instead of laws keeping them chained to their abusive husbands, in America they do it just because our culture has produced people who accept and prefer personal tyrannies, instead of public ones.


I'll give you that the US is a uniquely violent society, due in large part to its long history of ethnic strife. This is a problem we have to work on. However comparably multicultural non-Western societies are also filled with brutality and tension. On the whole, western or westernized societies such as England, Japan, Chile, the USA, are much more decent places to live than Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, or the such.

Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" for a good reason why. It has less to do with the superiority of culture, as you've been implying this whole time, and more to do with the distribution of resources. Even if Iran had more freedoms, would people still want to live there over Japan? People go where the work and the bright lights are first and foremost. The work opportunities. Westernized, technological and rich societies are of course preferable to poor ones, and of course preferable to politically hostile environments - but is that because the West is just plain superior? That Muslims and Islam are just inferior?


Western nations are very safe, much more desirable and free places to live. American society has many problems, but I don't know where you are getting the psychological disorders statistic. I suspect most societies have the same occurance of psychological disorders, but the fact is that in Muslim nations a lot of psychoses do not get reported because it would dishonor the patient's family. Whereas in the West, which is all about openness and transparency, our shrinks are handing out diagnoses of mental disorders nonstop.

Our high stress, fast paced way of life might also have something to do with it too. I contend that we have a higher rate of psychosis, per capita, even adjusting for the rate of reports. And here in the US we have prevalences of disorders like bulimia and anorexia, especially in our kids, and why is all that? Superior Western culture again? Bulimia we didn't invent, it's just a good Western tradition dating from at least imperial Roman decadence. All in the vain pursuit of the increasingly impossible idealisms of our media-driven society.


Also, I am ambivalent about the nuclear family... I myself was happily raised in a two parent home but I am not sure if the traditional nuclear family is absolutely necessary, or whether it is definitely good or bad.

I guess we'll find out.

I see headdressed Muslims, headdressed Amish, Christians, skullcapped Jews, people of every preference or lack thereof. In many Islamic nations all women, whether Muslim or not, are required by law to cover their heads.

I see people who all shop at the same stores, watch the same TV channels, have the same programmed ideals of success and beauty. Just because there's a lot of variety doesn't mean we aren't unified by a strict consumerist society in a similar fashion. Sure there aren't laws requiring any conformity of preferences... or is there? It's not like you can walk into most business or restaraunts or public areas without a shirt or shoes, is it? Go out and buy a shirt and shoes NOW! ;)


I don't think there is a way to prove this matter one way or the other with a poll or anything, but my bet (which is supported by all circumstantial evidence) is that most people prefer the modern liberalized way of life... the vast majority of people in the world who live in oppressive socities would be quite happy here, or if they can't move here then they'll try to reform their own societies into transparent, open, modern societies. The only people who stand in their way are fundamentalists, dogmatists, and apologists for the archaic way of life, like you.

Japan was earlier mentioned as one of the happy, preferable to live in Western nations. Am I an apologist when I point out Japanese, or American for that matter, suicide rates? Or is it just because we have more CHOICE, so more people get to CHOOSE to off themselves whereas they are NOT ALLOWED elsewhere? Maybe I don't think it's as open and 'liberalized' as you think, or maybe I don't think thats automatically a better thing.

And obviously your opinion of the consensus is still not a consensus. It's still just one more person part of a society who thinks it's superior to all the others, no different at all from the intolerant nations of which you speak.

rather than just post whatever... perhaps you could provide some sort of backing to your assertion that Khamenei was elected.
My 4 years spent living there, and keeping in touch with Iranians who still live there help my knowledge.
ask your Iranian friends if they voted for or against Khamenei....

and ask them if they think the Presidential or the Congressional elections are meaningless....

and tell them about somdude here comparing their President with the Queen of England....see what they say....I cant wait for your feedback :D

ask your Iranian friends if they voted for or against Khamenei....

and ask them if they think the Presidential elections are meaningless....

and tell the about your Queen of England thing....see what they say....I cant wait for your feedback :D

I guess you missed the bottom of his post.

I can ask my brother-in-law about politics in Iran. He has quite an insight into it and an opinion that is quite strong. You see....he is on a death list in Iran and cannot return home because of that. There are quite a few iranians here in Florida who cannot return home because of the gracious government there. How many thousands were executed after the fall of the Shah? My brother-in-law worked for the agriculture dept. in Iran when the Shah fell. He escaped and made his way to the US. He would like to go home someday, but knows he would be killed if he did. Thats some place....

.... Believe me, I've seen this in action. I have family in Iran.

same thing:

ask your Iranian family if they voted for or against Khamenei....

and ask them if they think the Presidential or the Congressional elections are meaningless....

and tell them about somdude here comparing their President with the Queen of England....see what they say....I cant wait for your feedback

I guess you missed the bottom of his post.

I can ask my brother-in-law about politics in Iran....for the 3rd time....ask him...what are you waiting for...you know the questions...

ask your Iranian friends if they voted for or against Khamenei....

and ask them if they think the Presidential or the Congressional elections are meaningless....

and tell them about somdude here comparing their President with the Queen of England....see what they say....I cant wait for your feedback :D
:rolleyes:
read my ENTIRE post.

well because ever1 seems to associat muslims with the middle east id like to say the middle east is a war zone thanks to isreal i mean you cant just take land because you say its holy :sniper:

this is a small point but why do people keep saying 'moslem'? it's MUSLIM, dammit!

o.k., about the oppression of women: that's culture, not religion. it may surprise you to hear this but islam gives women loads of rights (go on, challenge me!)

it's the pakistani mentality i hate: the first question (almost all) pakistani's ask when a baby is born is 'is it a boy???', closely followed by 'how fair is it???'.

well because ever1 seems to associat muslims with the middle east id like to say the middle east is a war zone thanks to isreal i mean you cant just take land because you say its holy :sniper:

:rolleyes:

Yeah...the idea that "land" can be holy is the real joke on both sides. Jerusalem is no more "holy" than my back yard is. The whole middle east is a mess because of religion.

for the 3rd time....ask him...what are you waiting for...you know the questions...


I already know the answer.....the hardline clerics are the real power in Iran, but there is a popular backlash that is slowly eroding this power and moderate politicians are working to further back the clerics out of politics. In time it might happen, but I will not hold my breath.

Revolutionsz, you have not ONCE substantiated any of your claims. Ayatollah Khamenei is NOT the same person as President KHATAMI. One is an unelected dictator, and the other is elected but powerless. When you begin to give some kind of evidence to indicate otherwise, I will begin to respond again. Until then, you are ignored. There is only some many times you can respond to a childlike argument like "No it isn't because I say so".

Santa Barbara: Judging from your name, you live in California. I will state this politely but firmly: California is *$&@ed up, and you shouldn't use it as an example of what the rest of the US is like. Divorce has never been a problem in most states, and wife-beating especially is overwhelmingly discouraged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Maybe you have had bad personal experiences with both of these ideas, but anecdotal evidence is not proof of a larger trend. Also, if you think that the US is the only country in which there is a single predominant culture, you have ALOT to learn about the world. The US is actually much better than most countries at allowing its citizens to live however they like. If you find peer pressure that hard to resist, that is more of a personal flaw on your part than a societal one, since nothing prevents you from living however makes you happy.

Revolutionsz, you have not ONCE substantiated any of your claims. Ayatollah Khamenei is NOT the same person as President KHATAMI.When did I say they were the same person?

Santa Barbara: Judging from your name, you live in California.

Brilliant deduction, and 100% true.. but is that relevant?

I will state this politely but firmly: California is *$&@ed up, and you shouldn't use it as an example of what the rest of the US is like.

And what state do you live in? I bet California's has the bigger economy and larger population. Its stereotyped as being "fruits and nuts" by idiots like you who don't live here, but all the same - California IS in the US.

But the point is, I don't say what I say ONLY BECAUSE I LIVE HERE. It's not like the only state I've ever seen or lived in is California, either.

Divorce has never been a problem in most states, and wife-beating especially is overwhelmingly discouraged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Support? Evidence?

Maybe you have had bad personal experiences with both of these ideas,

Not personally, but I would think any experience with wife beating and divorce is pretty bad. Would you disagree?

but anecdotal evidence is not proof of a larger trend.

I didn't offer anecdotal evidence. You're assuming everything I say is now an Anecdote From California.

Also, if you think that the US is the only country in which there is a single predominant culture, you have ALOT to learn about the world.

I never said or thought that.

The US is actually much better than most countries at allowing its citizens to live however they like.

Such vague statements here are pointless.

If you find peer pressure that hard to resist, that is more of a personal flaw on your part than a societal one, since nothing prevents you from living however makes you happy.

WTF? Peer pressure? I was talking about the fact that this country is ripe with MASS MEDIA used, specifically, to INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION. Are you saying anyone who has ever been influenced by this mass media just has a personal flaw?

And quit it with the damn ad hominems already. Sheesh, your whole post was basically, "I deduce that you're from California. Thus, everything you say is wrong." What an argument. :rolleyes:

ask your Iranian Family if they voted for or against Khamenei....
and ask them if they think the Presidential or the Congressional elections are meaningless....
and tell them about somedude here comparing their President with the Queen of England....see what they say....I cant wait for your feedback

I can ask my brother-in-law about politics in Iran. He has quite an insight into it and an opinion that is quite strong.....
for the 3rd time....ask him...what are you waiting for...its just 3 easy questions...I already know the answer.....the hardline clerics are the real power in Iran, but there is a popular backlash that is slowly eroding this power and moderate politicians are working to further back the clerics out of politics. In time it might happen, but I will not hold my breath.
Thats pathetic Biff, You talk about about having An Iranian Brother in law ...who has "quite an insigth into Iranian politics"...

and now what?.... you are not going to back it up?
cos you already knew the answer? that sux dude :gundge:

wow...that is a lot of smoke screens...Can you answer a simple question:

Kuwait is a Dictatorship Yes or No ?

Have you ever considered smoke screens in the US "democracy"?

Have you ever considered smoke screens in the US "democracy"?
exactamente

I have asked an Iranian and several other Muslims. Khamenei was NOT elected to be Supreme Leader by the people of Iran.

Here is some information revealing that Parliament has no real authority, and is completely at the whim of the Supreme Leader.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/Jan/12%20n/Iran%20Plunged%20Into%20Major%20Political%20Crisis.htm

Have you ever considered smoke screens in the US "democracy"?
What does this have to do with whether Iran is a democracy or not?

Agh! Ive missed SOOO much! SInce for now im hopelessly lost, ill just say this. Congrats on your excelent arguments, and go Pro- muslim world ppl!"

Now if you excuse me, i have around 10 pages to read...