NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems in vogue to criticize free, democratic states today as practicing "Apartheid", such as the US and especially Israel, while at the same time ignoring the multitude of states that have all of the hallmarks of classical, South African Apartheid. To start, here are some characteristics of what Apartheid actually is:

1. Apartheid was systematic, legally enforced ethnic or racial discrimination. It is distinct from countries with high rates of racism, because this is a state-sponsored racism that is enforced by government, law, and the full power that comes with it.

2. Apartheid could accurately translate to "apartness." Ethnic groups were forced to be separate from one another by law. Examples would be having different restrooms for 'whites' and 'colorured.' Again, this is legally enforced, as oppossed to the fact that people tend to live and congregate among ethnic lines in communities around the world.

3. Apartheid, again by law, prevented ethnic groups from having equal rights on the sole basis of 'race' alone.

If it doesn't have these hallmarks, then it isn't Apartheid in the classical (and only valid) sense it was used, i.e. that of South Africa. People using the word in a different way while attempting to allude to the old South African system are practicing historical revisionism.

Countries like the United States and Israel do not fit any of these criteria today, for the fact that there is no state-sponsored, systematic, legal discrimination against ethnic or racial groups. There is not a single law on the books in Israel that discriminates against any one group on the basis of ethnicity or race. Nor are there any laws on the books in either state that segregate races, the very core of 'apartness.'

Contrast this to Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq (under Saddam) which follow Sharia law, and thus systematically and legally discriminate against ethnic, racial, and religious groups. Jews have not been allowed, and still are not allowed, to settle in many parts of Jordan. They are completely exluded. This, by definition, is Apartheid. Non-Muslims are not allowed in the holy cities in Saudi Arabia, and non-Arabs are not allowed on many Arab-only roads. I think we all know about Apartheid in Iraq.

In fact, even South Africa, which still retains a few racial laws, is universally recognized as having abandoned Apartheid. Yet, states like the US and Israel are condemned as practicing "Apartheid" with border policies toward non-citizens (such as Mexicans and Palestinians). When South Africa still retains racial, Apartheid-era laws, but is recognized as not practicing Apartheid, whereas other democratic states have no racial laws at all, yet are condemned of Apartheid, it is clear evidence of an anti-Western bias from various fields. In fact, there are quite a few countries with discriminatory racial and ethnic laws that never get accused of Apartheid, while countries with no such laws at all get accused of Apartheid on a regular basis.

So, I'll make a poll with various state options, and everyone can vote on which ones practice apartheid. I'll try and make it an open poll too, because I'd love to hear some justifications from people on why states like the US or Israel are practicing Apartheid but Saudi Arabia and Jordan aren't. On that note, please let us know why you voted as you did.

bump

Contrast this to Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq (under Saddam) which follow Sharia law, and thus systematically and legally discriminate against ethnic, racial, and religious groups. (...) I think we all know about Apartheid in Iraq.
Actually I don't. Iraq under Saddam did not follow sharia law. It was corrupt, but mostly secular. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy and doesn't follow sharia law. There are humanitarian problems in these countries (some of which may resemble Apartheid), but it has little or nothing to do with sharia or islam. Now it looks like you're blaming things on islam as a fashion statement. Also, I'm not sure if the term Apartheid applies to the religious intolerance of sharia law; it's not about racial segregation, and it applies primarily to the islamic population itself.

China as they've taken the land of his holiness - Tibet. It is illegal to practise Buddhism there and those who do are either chucked outa the country or worse.

Being a Tibetan-Buddhist this thoroughly worries me.

Israel they seperate Arab and Israeli.

Actually I don't. Iraq under Saddam did not follow sharia law. It was corrupt, but mostly secular. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy and doesn't follow sharia law.


You are entirely correct. Saddams secular laws were in fact part of the reason the Fundamentalists loathed him. For somebody who has an interest in middle eastern affairs, you'd expect Tropical to know this.

Actually I don't. Iraq under Saddam did not follow sharia law. It was corrupt, but mostly secular. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy and doesn't follow sharia law. There are humanitarian problems in these countries (some of which may resemble Apartheid), but it has little or nothing to do with sharia or islam. Now it looks like you're blaming things on islam as a fashion statement. Also, I'm not sure if the term Apartheid applies to the religious intolerance of sharia law; it's not about racial segregation, and it applies primarily to the islamic population itself.

South Africa didn't follow Sharia law either, yet it was the source of classical Apartheid. However, just like South Africa, both Iraq and Jordan had laws that discriminated against ethnic or racial groups (Jews in Jordan, and various groups in Iraq, such as Kurds). Saudi Arabia would be the hallmark example of a country where Sharia law rolls over into Apartheid, as Saudi Arabia uses Sharia to justify direct discrimination against ethnic groups. Iran is also an example of a country with ethnic laws based on Islamic interpretation, as well as Sudan.

And, as Sharia law calls for ethnic discrimination (Such as in Saudi Arabia, where there are Arab-only roads, or the "one religion for one Arabia" law), it is identical to South African Apartheid laws in that respect. Sharia goes much further than just religious discrimination, and because it is enacted as state law, it is institutionalized.

Israel they seperate Arab and Israeli.

This is a either a (a) a lie, or (b) misunderstanding. Israel does not separate Arab and Israeli in any way. All Arab citizens of Israel have equal rights under the law as all non-Arab citizens.

You're confusing the fact that Israel separates non-citizen Arabs, like Palestinians, from Israelis. Of course, every country on earth separates citizens from non-citizens. This isn't based on race, however, but citizenship.

They are citizens of Israel, theyve lived there longer than most israelis, but they dont get the same rights

also, to highlight your ignorance, SADDAM NEVER FOLLOWED SHARIA LAW!!!! this was a reason why all those religious shias hated him, in fact, iraq has started to follow sharia AFTER saddam was toppled, with the religious Dawa party in power. only 2 countries in the world still practice sharia law, they are iran and saudi arabia.

South Africa didn't follow Sharia law either, yet it was the source of classical Apartheid. However, just like South Africa, both Iraq and Jordan had laws that discriminated against ethnic or racial groups (Jews in Jordan, and various groups in Iraq, such as Kurds). Saudi Arabia would be the hallmark example of a country where Sharia law rolls over into Apartheid, as Saudi Arabia uses Sharia to justify direct discrimination against ethnic groups. Iran is also an example of a country with ethnic laws based on Islamic interpretation, as well as Sudan.

And, as Sharia law calls for ethnic discrimination (Such as in Saudi Arabia, where there are Arab-only roads, or the "one religion for one Arabia" law), it is identical to South African Apartheid laws in that respect. Sharia goes much further than just religious discrimination, and because it is enacted as state law, it is institutionalized.

But Sharia has nothing to do with what happened in Jordan and Iraq. Why are you trying to link the two?

You are entirely correct. Saddams secular laws were in fact part of the reason the Fundamentalists loathed him. For somebody who has an interest in middle eastern affairs, you'd expect Tropical to know this.

You seem to be avoiding the issue. The fact is, Saddam enacted laws that discriminated on the sole basis of race or ethnicity. Let me know if you'd like to address the racist laws of the rest of the world instead of accusing Israel falsely of Apartheid when it doesn't have a single racist law on the books.

This is a either a (a) a lie, or (b) misunderstanding. Israel does not separate Arab and Israeli in any way. All Arab citizens of Israel have equal rights under the law as all non-Arab citizens.

You're confusing the fact that Israel separates non-citizen Arabs, like Palestinians, from Israelis. Of course, every country on earth separates citizens from non-citizens. This isn't based on race, however, but citizenship.

No they don't, in particular the Bedouin, as has been pointed out to you before.

They are citizens of Israel, theyve lived there longer than most israelis, but they dont get the same rights

No, they aren't. Palestinians are inhabitants of the Occupied Territories, and they are not citizens of Israel. Just because you *think* they have been there longer doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make them citizens. Arab-Israelis are citizens, and they have the same rights as all non-Arab Israelis. You wont find a single Israeli law to prove otherwise.

No they don't, in particular the Bedouin, as has been pointed out to you before.

There are no discriminatory laws against the Bedouin. You've attempted to point out that Bedouin, and Israeli-Arabs, are not required to enter complusatory military service. This isn't a form of racial discrimination, however, as they are allowed to join the military, they just aren't required. Thus, they aren't discriminated against, but actually required less of.

The fact that you'd sit here and spew something so vague like "the bedouin" demonstrates the lack of grounds for your claim. The fact is, as I've stated, no one can produce a single Israeli law on the books that discriminates on the basis of race.

You seem to be avoiding the issue. The fact is, Saddam enacted laws that discriminated on the sole basis of race or ethnicity. Let me know if you'd like to address the racist laws of the rest of the world instead of accusing Israel falsely of Apartheid when it doesn't have a single racist law on the books.

he did not enact any laws discriminating on race or ethnicity, deputy prime minister was christian, vice president krudish, many officials were shias.

sunnis held the power because the majority of them are better educated than the shias. the shias overpopulating the sunnis is also fairly recent, as most shias are very young and their parents have over 10 children on average. however this wasnt because of discrimination, it was, to put it frankly, because the sunnis were better than the shias.

Let me clarify what I wrote, since everyone seems to want to say "Iraq didn't follow Sharia law" rather than addressing the issue, the fact that Iraq enacted multiple racist laws.

"Contrast this to Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq (under Saddam) which follow Sharia law, and thus systematically and legally discriminate against ethnic, racial, and religious groups."

Sharia law has been an aspect in all three states I mentioned, however only Saudi Arabia has enacted it as civil law itself. Jordan shares many civil laws that are identical to Sharia law, and Saddam allowed acts of Sharia law as well (such as beating your wife). Yes, the latter did not enact Sharia law as their sole civil law, but Sharia law was an aspect within their legal systems and culture.

Let me clarify what I wrote, since everyone seems to want to say "Iraq didn't follow Sharia law" rather than addressing the issue, the fact that Iraq enacted multiple racist laws.

"Contrast this to Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq (under Saddam) which follow Sharia law, and thus systematically and legally discriminate against ethnic, racial, and religious groups."

Sharia law has been an aspect in all three states I mentioned, however only Saudi Arabia has enacted it as civil law itself. Jordan shares many civil laws that are identical to Sharia law, and Saddam allowed acts of Sharia law as well (such as beating your wife). Yes, the latter did not enact Sharia law as their sole civil law, but Sharia law was an aspect within their legal systems and culture.

r u mad? saddam didnt allow people to beat their wives. beat their children yes, not beat their wife.
have you actually seen iraq in real life? not off israeli news? because u'll realise that it is in fact quite a western country, about 10% of women wear hijab, and it increased after the wars because religion was all they had. ur saying that in a country this secular they follow sharia law? please.

jordan is just as secular legally, and even more secular culturally, king abdullah has also made huge, some quite controversial, changes in order to make jordan more secular.

South Africa didn't follow Sharia law either, yet it was the source of classical Apartheid.
That's true of course. But you were equating Apartheid with sharia in your OP:
Contrast this to Muslim states (...) which follow Sharia law, and thus systematically and legally discriminate against ethnic, racial, and religious groups.

However, just like South Africa, both Iraq and Jordan had laws that discriminated against ethnic or racial groups (Jews in Jordan, and various groups in Iraq, such as Kurds).
The Iraqi regime against the Kurds was not religiously motivated. Its sentiments may have been, but the law wasn't.

Saudi Arabia would be the hallmark example of a country where Sharia law rolls over into Apartheid, as Saudi Arabia uses Sharia to justify direct discrimination against ethnic groups. Iran is also an example of a country with ethnic laws based on Islamic interpretation, as well as Sudan.
Do Saudi Arabia and Iran have an explicit segregationist policy? I think you're confusing segregationism with complete intolerance of other ethnic/religious groups.

And, as Sharia law calls for ethnic discrimination (Such as in Saudi Arabia, where there are Arab-only roads, or the "one religion for one Arabia" law), it is identical to South African Apartheid laws in that respect. Sharia goes much further than just religious discrimination, and because it is enacted as state law, it is institutionalized.
Sharia is an islamic law, it is not (primarily) a separatist law against non-muslims. Apartheid on the contrary is a separatist system. I do agree with you though, that both stem from similar intolerance and produce similar effects.

Let me clarify what I wrote, since everyone seems to want to say "Iraq didn't follow Sharia law" rather than addressing the issue, the fact that Iraq enacted multiple racist laws.
They may have, but you suggested that the origin of these laws was sharia and islam. Which in Iraq under Saddam, they most definitely were not. (I'm repeating myself, see top of this post).

You seem to be avoiding the issue. The fact is, Saddam enacted laws that discriminated on the sole basis of race or ethnicity.

Yeah, that's true. It's pretty natural. I'd have a bias too if I was the leader of a country.

he did not enact any laws discriminating on race or ethnicity, deputy prime minister was christian, vice president krudish, many officials were shias.

Oh? Well, like most Arab states, it should be pointed out that he discriminated against homosexuals. While not a race or ethnicity, it is worthy to note that homosexuals may be killed under section 111 of the Criminal Code.

The Iraqi Law of Personal Status of 1959 also denies both Jews and Christians equal citizenship rights as Muslims.

So much for "he did not enact any laws discriminating on race or ethnicity."

r u mad? saddam didnt allow people to beat their wives. beat their children yes, not beat their wife.
have you actually seen iraq in real life? not off israeli news? because u'll realise that it is in fact quite a western country, about 10% of women wear hijab, and it increased after the wars because religion was all they had. ur saying that in a country this secular they follow sharia law? please.

1. Not only did Saddam allow people to beat their wives, but wives caught in the midst of adultery could be executed by their husbands under the exact same clause that homosexuals could be executed, section 111 of the Criminal Code.

2. According to the law archive at Emory, yes, Sharia is a part of Iraqi law:

Legal system draws on Islamic law, constitutional law, legislation and statutory provisions, usage and custom, judicial precedent, and jurist’s opinions.

jordan is just as secular legally, and even more secular culturally, king abdullah has also made huge, some quite controversial, changes in order to make jordan more secular.

Yes, Jordan is quite secular, and quite friendly toward Israel today. It still has laws that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity alone, however. Laws that Israel has zero of. Making Jordan more "apartheid" than Israel, the US, etc.

That's true of course. But you were equating Apartheid with sharia in your OP

Sharia and apartheid are far more equivalent than apartheid and any democratic state that exists today, as Saudi Arabia demonstrates. Sharia calls for the segregation of ethnic groups, such as Jews.

Do Saudi Arabia and Iran have an explicit segregationist policy? I think you're confusing segregationism with complete intolerance of other ethnic/religious groups.

Saudi Arabia has probably the most explict segregationalist policy of any state that exists on Earth today. Many roads are closed to non-Arabs, and entire towns are closed to non-Muslims. The intolerance is enacted as segregation under Sharia law.

Sharia is an islamic law, it is not (primarily) a separatist law against non-muslims. Apartheid on the contrary is a separatist system. I do agree with you though, that both stem from similar intolerance and produce similar effects.

Well, I'm not going to sit here and say "Sharia is Apartheid!" because I don't believe that. However, people seem to love to use the term "apartheid" to demonize democratic states, and I wanted to point out that states like Saudi Arabia under Sharia fit the definiton of Apartheid far more than democratic states do.

They may have, but you suggested that the origin of these laws was sharia and islam. Which in Iraq under Saddam, they most definitely were not. (I'm repeating myself, see top of this post).

As secular as Saddam was, this isn't entirely the case. Like I cited in a previous post from Emory as well as a few of the laws under Saddam themselves. Saddam's secular laws were even based in part on Islamic law, such as killing homosexuals, killing adulterous wives, and making Christians and Jews lesser than equal citizens (much like the dhimmi status in Saudi Arabia).

Oh? Well, like most Arab states, it should be pointed out that he discriminated against homosexuals. While not a race or ethnicity, it is worthy to note that homosexuals may be killed under section 111 of the Criminal Code.
A very bad boy indeed. But this isn't an example of Apartheid. (And I'm not sure about 'most Arab states', I don't think most Arab states have a formal anti-gay policy. But I'm not sure there.)

The Iraqi Law of Personal Status of 1959 also denies both Jews and Christians equal citizenship rights as Muslims.
Saddam rose to power as a general in 1976, and as a ruler only in 1979. AFAIK this law wasn't effective under Saddam's rule.

Saudi Arabia has probably the most explict segregationalist policy of any state that exists on Earth today. Many roads are closed to non-Arabs, and entire towns are closed to non-Muslims. The intolerance is enacted as segregation under Sharia law.
Okay, that's a different story. Didn't know that. :)

I find it hysterical that the US, China, Israel and South Africa are on the list -- how the heck are these Islamic nations?

For that matter, where is Germany?

There are 4th generation Turkish families there that STILL aren't citizens!
Germany is 3.7% Muslim, the US is only 1%!

Oh, that's right. Europeans aren't racist. :rolleyes:

Saddam rose to power as a general in 1976, and as a ruler only in 1979. AFAIK this law wasn't effective under Saddam's rule.

I think this discriminatory law against Jews and Muslims remained effective under Saddam's rule. I just pulled this up on Wikipedia to check, and it concured:

Wikipedia - Law of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Iraq)

Paul Bremer does not appear to have amended the 1959 Iraqi Law of Personal Status as he did with the Criminal and Civil Law, hence the law and its amendments that existed under Saddam Hessian would appear to be valid.

I find it hysterical that the US, China, Israel and South Africa are on the list -- how the heck are these Islamic nations?

For that matter, where is Germany?

There are 4th generation Turkish families there that STILL aren't citizens!
Germany is 3.7% Muslim, the US is only 1%!

Oh, that's right. Europeans aren't racist. :rolleyes:

I never said in the OP that I would only be polling Islamic countries, I just used Islamic countries as my prime example.

I didn't put any European nations up there because the accusation of Apartheid is hardly leveled against European nations, not that there aren't European nations guilty of racially discriminatory laws (hint hint, France).

I wanted to poll countries with asounding human rights violations and obvious discriminatory laws. India has the caste system, even if not legally enforced (thought, contrary to popular belief, we can find the caste system in law in some instances), South Africa retains racist laws, the US and Israel are up there because people constantly accuse the US and especially Israel of Apartheid.

So, to clarify, I picked the polling options in a number of ways, but not strictly on the basis of what actually practice apartheid, nor what are Muslim nations.

There are no discriminatory laws against the Bedouin. You've attempted to point out that Bedouin, and Israeli-Arabs, are not required to enter complusatory military service. This isn't a form of racial discrimination, however, as they are allowed to join the military, they just aren't required. Thus, they aren't discriminated against, but actually required less of.

The fact that you'd sit here and spew something so vague like "the bedouin" demonstrates the lack of grounds for your claim. The fact is, as I've stated, no one can produce a single Israeli law on the books that discriminates on the basis of race.

"At year's end, the Government had still not implemented the 2000 High Court of Justice ruling that the Government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the distribution of State resources, including land."

"In addition, Israeli law does not recognize many long-established Israeli-Arab and Bedouin communities. All buildings constructed in these unrecognized villages are considered illegal and it is impossible to obtain building permits for construction to accommodate the natural growth of communities. The COI report stated that the Government "must allocate land to this sector according to the same egalitarian principles it uses with other sectors." The COI also found that "suitable planning should be carried out as soon as possible to prevent illegal construction caused by lack of existing town planning that make it difficult to obtain building permits." (my bold and underline).

Why do you think the US state department would "spew something so vague like "the bedouin". by the way?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

. India has the caste system, even if not legally enforced .

But you restrict criticism of Israel to law and law only, as you constantly ask to be shown them, not what goes on in practice. Double standard, I'm afraid.

.
South Africa retains racist laws, the US and Israel are up there because people constantly accuse the US and especially Israel of Apartheid..

I'm unaware of the US being accussed of Apartheid in relation to the present.

"At year's end, the Government had still not implemented the 2000 High Court of Justice ruling that the Government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the distribution of State resources, including land."

I know, you keep trying to twist the US State Dept's report on discrimination to make the case that it is institutionalized. The fact is, nowhere in this report does it claim that Israel has any racist laws. This was a remark on the fact that Israel refused to enact, in this specific incidence, a law specifically denying racism.

The fact remains, you have yet to demonstrate a single racist law on the Israeli books. Let me know if you find one.

"In addition, Israeli law does not recognize many long-established Israeli-Arab and Bedouin communities. All buildings constructed in these unrecognized villages are considered illegal and it is impossible to obtain building permits for construction to accommodate the natural growth of communities. The COI report stated that the Government "must allocate land to this sector according to the same egalitarian principles it uses with other sectors." The COI also found that "suitable planning should be carried out as soon as possible to prevent illegal construction caused by lack of existing town planning that make it difficult to obtain building permits." (my bold and underline).

And where is the Israeli law that discriminates distinctly against Israeli-Arab or Bedouin communities here? You havn't shown one yet.

Once again, Israeli law doesn't recognize many long-established Jewish communities either. However, there is no Israeli law on the books that discriminates more toward a Bedouin, Jewish-Israeli, or Arab-Israeli in regards to this issue. This is why you can't show me a single law that does so.

So, let me know if you find that Israeli has any discriminatory laws, because the report you linked to (and the quotes you listed) don't list any discriminatory laws in Israel.

. India has the caste system, even if not legally enforced .

But you restrict criticism of Israel to law and law only, as you constantly ask to be shown them, not what goes on in practice. Double standard, I'm afraid.

.
South Africa retains racist laws, the US and Israel are up there because people constantly accuse the US and especially Israel of Apartheid..

I'm unaware of the US being accused of Apartheid in relation to the present.

I know, you keep trying to twist the US State Dept's report on discrimination to make the case that it is institutionalized. The fact is, nowhere in this report does it claim that Israel has any racist laws. This was a remark on the fact that Israel refused to enact, in this specific incidence, a law specifically denying racism.

The fact remains, you have yet to demonstrate a single racist law on the Israeli books. Let me know if you find one.



And where is the Israeli law that discriminates distinctly against Israeli-Arab or Bedouin communities here? You havn't shown one yet.

Once again, Israeli law doesn't recognize many long-established Jewish communities either. However, there is no Israeli law on the books that discriminates more toward a Bedouin, Jewish-Israeli, or Arab-Israeli in regards to this issue. This is why you can't show me a single law that does so.

So, let me know if you find that Israeli has any discriminatory laws, because the report you linked to (and the quotes you listed) don't list any discriminatory laws in Israel.

Truly, disengenuity has a new poster-boy.....

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

Oh, and I almost forgot, this is the exact same group within the US State Dept that does the Report on Global Anti-Semitism. The same report that you have categorically rejected when it stated, clearly, that comparing Israeli policy to Apartheid is anti-Semitic.

So tell me, why do you hold that the US State Dept's analysis of human rights on this issue is valid (when you think it enhances your argument) and then reject it in the next breath? Its that amazing anti-Israeli double-standard!

But you restrict criticism of Israel to law and law only, as you constantly ask to be shown them, not what goes on in practice. Double standard, I'm afraid.

You cut my sentence in half to alter the context. Academic dishonesty. Why don't you go back, repost the entire thing (where I stated that it does occur in law), and then attempt to respond in the same way? You can't, because you can't respond in such a way without dishonest altering of the context.

I'm unaware of the US being accused of Apartheid in relation to the present.

You're unaware of a lot. Including the fact that books have been written about it, like Doug Massey's "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass"

Oh, and I almost forgot, this is the exact same group within the US State Dept that does the Report on Global Anti-Semitism. The same report that you have categorically rejected when it stated, clearly, that comparing Israeli policy to Apartheid is anti-Semitic.

So tell me, why do you hold that the US State Dept's analysis of human rights on this issue is valid (when you think it enhances your argument) and then reject it in the next breath? Its that amazing anti-Israeli double-standard!

Not really, as many others reject it too. Its an opinion and I think a wrong and positively harmful one.

However discrimination and incidents of it happen regardless of what opinion one has. Now I've answered your question.....

Please explain why you have a different standard for observations about india and then Israel

You cut my sentence in half to alter the context. Academic dishonesty. Why don't you go back, repost the entire thing (where I stated that it does occur in law), and then attempt to respond in the same way? You can't, because you can't respond in such a way without dishonest altering of the context.

So you say that it occurs in practice where not enforced in law? Same difference. And when it comes to dishonesty----don't you owe me an apology and a retraction for claiming I rejected a source on the grounds it was written by a "jew" as you put it?

Sharia and apartheid are far more equivalent than apartheid and any democratic state that exists today, as Saudi Arabia demonstrates. Sharia calls for the segregation of ethnic groups, such as Jews.



Saudi Arabia has probably the most explict segregationalist policy of any state that exists on Earth today. Many roads are closed to non-Arabs, and entire towns are closed to non-Muslims. The intolerance is enacted as segregation under Sharia law.



Well, I'm not going to sit here and say "Sharia is Apartheid!" because I don't believe that. However, people seem to love to use the term "apartheid" to demonize democratic states, and I wanted to point out that states like Saudi Arabia under Sharia fit the definiton of Apartheid far more than democratic states do.



As secular as Saddam was, this isn't entirely the case. Like I cited in a previous post from Emory as well as a few of the laws under Saddam themselves. Saddam's secular laws were even based in part on Islamic law, such as killing homosexuals, killing adulterous wives, and making Christians and Jews lesser than equal citizens (much like the dhimmi status in Saudi Arabia).

ok, here we go again

first, you are stupid enough to give us a link to post-saddam iraqi law, even though i already explained that it was after saddam that iraqi law became more religious. read the first line

The Republic of Iraq legal system is in a period of transition in light of the 2003 regime change that led to the fall of the Baath Party, and the current state of civil war and unrest. However, Iraq does have a written constitutional, civil, criminal and personal status law.
retard.

killing homosexuals, killing adulterous wives, and making Christians and Jews lesser than equal citizens
lies, lies, lies. homosexuals were treated worse, however all of society in iraq would agree with that, they arent tolerated by either state or culture, and just because western culture tolerates them, doesnt mean its correct. adulterous wives were not killed, they were divorced. christians and jews were not less than equal, tariq aziz, fromer deputy prime minister, was christian.


Paragraph 111 - He who discovers his wife, one of his female relatives committing adultery or a male relative engaged in sodomy and kills, wounds or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty

that is paragraph 111 of iraqi criminal code. it shows that saddam didnt kill them, but did not penalise relatives who did, thats a difference. do not expect iraq to implement western laws in a different society, as many people would riot in the streets (remember there are many religious shias in iraq) unless they allowed it. if they do penalise the person, they mite symbolically improve iraq, but really make it more unstable. Look at whats happening now due to people comparing apples with oranges when it comes to system of government, civil war is the result.

Oh? Well, like most Arab states, it should be pointed out that he discriminated against homosexuals. While not a race or ethnicity, it is worthy to note that homosexuals may be killed under section 111 of the Criminal Code.

The Iraqi Law of Personal Status of 1959 also denies both Jews and Christians equal citizenship rights as Muslims.

So much for "he did not enact any laws discriminating on race or ethnicity."

ive already spoken about this

Not really, as many others reject it too. Its an opinion and I think a wrong and positively harmful one.

The double-standard occurs because you accept the same group within the US State Dept's opinions on Israeli policy, then reject their opinions on anti-Semitism. And, quite by coincidence (I'm so sure), you are anti-Semitic according to the report you reject, but you accept the report that you think helps your argument.

However discrimination and incidents of it happen regardless of what opinion one has. Now I've answered your question.....

I didn't ask a question that you answered. However, I did ask for someone to show me an Israeli law that is discriminatory or racist. You havn't shown me any Israeli laws that are such, instead, you showed me a US State Dept report that said nothing about Israeli law being discriminatory or racist in any way. It did refer to Bedouins and Israeli-Arabs, but as it was a report on minority human rights, it didn't say anything about the majority Jewish population. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the report that there is any form of legal discrimination against a minority population. Nor did the report claim that there was any legal discrimination against a minority population.

But really, the easy thing to do (for an honest person) would be to show me a racist Israeli law. I've shown racist Saudi laws, racist Iraqi laws, etc. But no one can show me a racist Israeli law, because they don't exist.

Please explain why you have a different standard for observations about india and then Israel

I didn't. You cut a sentence of mine, literally, in half to attempt to alter the context. That is a form of academic dishonesty. As I stated quite clearly, we can find the caste system of India occuring in Indian law as well. But you left that part out as you committed academic dishonesty and cut my sentence in half.

So you say that it occurs in practice where not enforced in law? Same difference. And when it comes to dishonesty----don't you owe me an apology and a retraction for claiming I rejected a source on the grounds it was written by a "jew" as you put it?

No, it isn't the same difference, and that isn't what I said. I'll post it again, since you have a hard time reading it for some reason:

(...I stated that it does occur in law)

We can find racist laws in India based on the caste system. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

And you did reject a source based on the fact it was written by a Jew. I used the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict, and you rejected it out of hand due to its Jewish authorship. And its not surprising, as you are categorized as an anti-Semite by at least one group (US State Dept).

I never said in the OP that I would only be polling Islamic countries, I just used Islamic countries as my prime example.

The name of the thread is "Islamic Aparteid"! :headbang:

I didn't put any European nations up there because the accusation of Apartheid is hardly leveled against European nations, not that there aren't European nations guilty of racially discriminatory laws (hint hint, France).

ROTFLMAO! What world do YOU live in?
I just got back from Prague. Heard all kinds of remarks (I speak Slovak, which is quite close) from Czechs about the "British niggers" and the "fucking Krauts" coming in for holiday before the Cup.

Heck, just go to google and one can find THOUSANDS of racism issues in Europe! Look at just within the last few weeks:
Russian racism killings out of control: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/25/cybercrime.treaty/index.html
Clashes mark Romanian Gay Pride: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5045352.stm
Player Silences German Racists With Hitler Salute:http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,409517,00.html

...never mind the whole Jugoslavian situation. :rolleyes:

I wanted to poll countries with asounding human rights violations and obvious discriminatory laws. India has the caste system, even if not legally enforced (thought, contrary to popular belief, we can find the caste system in law in some instances), South Africa retains racist laws, the US and Israel are up there because people constantly accuse the US and especially Israel of Apartheid.

India abolished the caste system in the 60's.
Which South African laws?
Show me an example of US apartheid. Just one, please.
Show me an example of Israeli apartheid. Just one, please.

So, to clarify, I picked the polling options in a number of ways, but not strictly on the basis of what actually practice apartheid, nor what are Muslim nations.

You chose them on your own prejudices. Thanks for the clarification.

The double-standard occurs because you accept the same group within the US State Dept's opinions on Israeli policy, then reject their opinions on anti-Semitism. And, quite by coincidence (I'm so sure), you are anti-Semitic according to the report you reject, .

Two different things. And that opinion renders left wing Jewish thought a bunch of anti-semites too. Which is nonsensical.



I didn't ask a question that you (snip) that there was any legal discrimination against a minority population..

"Disengenuity II - deny till death"


I didn't. You cut a sentence of mine, literally, in half to attempt to alter the context. That is a form of academic dishonesty. As I stated quite clearly, we can find the caste system of India occuring in Indian law as well. But you left that part out as you committed academic dishonesty and cut my sentence in half.

I could paste the lot and it would make no difference as far as I see it. But you won't address the issue of your double standard if I put it in flashing lights....

India has the caste system, even if not legally enforced (thought, contrary to popular belief, we can find the caste system in law in some instances),

No difference there, bucko.....I'm beginning to see why the rest despise you....

ok, here we go again

first, you are stupid enough to give us a link to post-saddam iraqi law, even though i already explained that it was after saddam that iraqi law became more religious. read the first line


retard.


The law wasn't post-Saddam. It was pre-Saddam, and continued to exist throughout Saddam's regime.

lies, lies, lies. homosexuals were treated worse, however all of society in iraq would agree with that, they arent tolerated by either state or culture, and just because western culture tolerates them, doesnt mean its correct. adulterous wives were not killed, they were divorced. christians and jews were not less than equal, tariq aziz, fromer deputy prime minister, was christian.

Lets see, I've already cited the actual Iraqi law itself. Are you saying article 111 of the Criminal Code doesn't exist? Its a big myth? It states, quite clearly, that homosexuals may be executed.

Contrast this to Israel, where homosexuals are guaranteed equal rights (including marriage in some cases).

that is paragraph 111 of iraqi criminal code. it shows that saddam didnt kill them, but did not penalise relatives who did, thats a difference. do not expect iraq to implement western laws in a different society, as many people would riot in the streets (remember there are many religious shias in iraq) unless they allowed it. if they do penalise the person, they mite symbolically improve iraq, but really make it more unstable. Look at whats happening now due to people comparing apples with oranges when it comes to system of government, civil war is the result.

I never said Saddam killed them. Article 111 of the Criminal Code states that they may be executed. But hey, executing homosexuals is okay with you I suppose. I wouldn't dare expect anyone to enforce those pesky Western laws on Iraq, like not murdering innocent gay men and women.

And you did reject a source based on the fact it was written by a Jew. I used the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict, and you rejected it out of hand due to its Jewish authorship. And its not surprising, as you are categorized as an anti-Semite by at least one group (US State Dept).

Where did I do this? copy and paste please. And don't refer to me as an anti-semite either directly or indirectly. I realise being unsure of your own identity it helps you feel more secure, but you only make yourself look stupid.

The name of the thread is "Islamic Aparteid"! :headbang:

Because, as I wrote in the OP, Islamic nations are the most similiar today (and the most numerous) that practice anything we can compare to classical South African Apartheid. What part of that is unclear?

ROTFLMAO! What world do YOU live in?
I just got back from Prague. Heard all kinds of remarks (I speak Slovak, which is quite close) from Czechs about the "British niggers" and the "fucking Krauts" coming in for holiday before the Cup.

Heck, just go to google and one can find THOUSANDS of racism issues in Europe! Look at just within the last few weeks:
Russian racism killings out of control: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/25/cybercrime.treaty/index.html
Clashes mark Romanian Gay Pride: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5045352.stm
Player Silences German Racists With Hitler Salute:http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,409517,00.html

...never mind the whole Jugoslavian situation. :rolleyes:

Strange that you would say "what kind of world do you live in" when your assessment is based on your own personal, subjective experience in Prague. I based my assessments on popular opinion. If you google the term "Apartheid" you will get more that relates to the US, Israel, the Middle East, and Africa than any European countries. That much is an objective fact, while European racism is your own subjective experience.

India abolished the caste system in the 60's.
Which South African laws?
Show me an example of US apartheid. Just one, please.
Show me an example of Israeli apartheid. Just one, please.

Alright, I wrote this in the last response, maybe you didn't read it. I never stated that I believed all of the nations I listed practice Apartheid. I said that they are nations commonly accused of practicing Apartheid. If you want to see which nations I think are even remotely similiar to Apartheid, you can check the public poll and see which ones I voted for.

But, just to humor you:

1. In regards to India, the government still keeps official records and recognizes the official status of the Scheduled Castes. See Wikipedia (Indian Caste Sytem) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Caste_System#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system). While most of the racially discriminatory laws regarding the caste system are gone, its a myth that the caste system has been abolished. It is still legally recognized.

2. South African laws against Racism and Xenophobia are attempting to prohibit people from private racial discrimination that they are currently legally entitled to, for example.

3. I don't believe that the US or Israel are engaged in Apartheid. However, the US and Israel are constantly accused of Apartheid, and that is why they are on the poll. This is why I think you didn't pay much attention to what I wrote in the OP or my first response to you. You just seem to have a knee-jerk response.

Where did I do this? copy and paste please. And don't refer to me as an anti-semite either directly or indirectly. I realise being unsure of your own identity it helps you feel more secure, but you only make yourself look stupid.

I can't copy and paste something from a thread that is gone. But I'll start logging stuff like this, since you seem to have a habit of academic dishonesty (like denying it, in this case).

And, according to the US State Dept, you do practice anti-Semitism. We've gone over this in depth. You can deny being an anti-Semite all you want, but it is a fact that your opinions and statements fit the criteria listed by the ADL, the US State Dept, the EUMC, and the Israeli govt for anti-Semitism.

Two different things. And that opinion renders left wing Jewish thought a bunch of anti-semites too. Which is nonsensical.

Actually, there is no logical basis to say a Jew can't be anti-Semitic. That is just a common defense for self-hating Jews when they engage in anti-Semitism. And "left wing Jewish thought" doesn't espouse anything that you do. You're confusing left wing Jewish thought, with left wing thought by people who happen to be Jews. There is a difference.

"Disengenuity II - deny till death"

This is how you respond to a lot of things when you can't make an argument. You post a US State Dept report that doesn't actually say what you're claiming, and then when that gets pointed out to you and you're challenged on your attempted deception, this is how you respond. Classic.

I could paste the lot and it would make no difference as far as I see it. But you won't address the issue of your double standard if I put it in flashing lights....

You havn't demonstrated a double standard. You cut a sentence in half to attempt to make it look like I was evaluating India's non-legal caste system against that of legally enforced racial discrimination. I wasnt, and I never said such a thing. You only attempted to make it seem that way via academic dishonesty, the altering of my sentence.

Now, what I did say is that we can find the caste system in Indian law. And I gave a clear example of how the caste system still exists in Indian law as well. If you want to address that, instead of a doctored sentence of mine, go for it.

I never said Saddam killed them. Article 111 of the Criminal Code states that they may be executed. But hey, executing homosexuals is okay with you I suppose. I wouldn't dare expect anyone to enforce those pesky Western laws on Iraq, like not murdering innocent gay men and women.

I am not saying i support it, i am saying that the amount of controversy with reversing such a law would bring instability to iraq, so it is best to leave it as it is.

besides, in a society which doesnt tolerate gays, not many spring up. people arent born gay, cos its blatantly against the laws of nature.

I am not saying i support it, i am saying that the amount of controversy with reversing such a law would bring instability to iraq, so it is best to leave it as it is.

Right, we should let Iraq continue with human rights violations because of this Islamic morality and the fact that it would "bring instability." Lets not forget that some Muslim nations, like Turkey, don't have laws against homosexuality and seem to be perfectly stable.

besides, in a society which doesnt tolerate gays, not many spring up. people arent born gay, cos its blatantly against the laws of nature.

Oh? History and modern scholarship disagree with you. Arab countries have been notoriously homosexual, and have even formulated an unofficial sexual class sytem with little boys in it, according to the Middle East Report here:

Middle East Report 2006 (http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/bruce.htm)

And the only school of thought that would tell you that homosexuality is "against the laws of nature" is a religious fundamental one. There is not a single scientific law that homosexuality in nature would violate. In fact, we see homosexuality in nature consistently, such as in primates like bonobos. So much for being "unnatural." The fact is, you're just a religious bigot against gays.

Well, first of all, Apartheid does no more exists. If people uses it is for the force of the name.

Second, of course, there many countries that discriminates people based on race, religion sexual orientation or gender. That's always horrid.

Third, for me and many others, is much worse when a democracy does this kind of thing. Of course Saudi Arabia is discriminating people. They are a teocracy, it's "normal". So Iran does, but not on ethnic items, as Iran is made by many ethnics groups. The same with kurds in Iraq, they are just not leting them having autnomy or independence.

Fourth, you're just triying to defend US and Israel from discrimantions blames, telling "they do it more". That's very, very sad. If you're a real patriote, you should want your country not to do it at all. The sad reality is that Israel and US do it, outside the law, so society is guilty. Maybe law is not allowing it in USA, but it happens.

Fifth, there's a point where israel law is racist or discriminating. Is the first line of the constitution, where it stablish Israel as a Jew country. It's made on former arabs lands, so it's quite normal arabs are forbiding jews to stablish in their countries. Moreover, is forbiden for jews to sell land or building to arabs. Or it was, to keep Israel jew.

And the palestinians are not citizens is a fact, but is due to israel policy, and it's a shame, they should give them the citizenship rights (so israel wouldn't be no more a jewish state) or give them independence (1967 borders, please, if not is a Bantustan policy).

I agree with you on your critics on the rest of countries, of course, as long as they are true in general.

Ah, finally, most people are not antisemitic but antisionistic, but is Israel game to make both ideas the same.

I didn't put any European nations up there because the accusation of Apartheid is hardly leveled against European nations, not that there aren't European nations guilty of racially discriminatory laws (hint hint, France).
Oh, Europe is guilty as hell. You just don't seem aware of it. For one thing, Apartheid is a Dutch word. For another, racially related laws stem from a misguided notion of racial superiority, the most powerful proponents of which have been Western Europeans since the age of colonialism.

I'm beginning to get the impression from this thread that arguments like "islamic apartheid" are aimed towards the intolerance of other countries by those who would advocate similar intolerance at home. I don't mind the initial comparison, because there are similarities, but I do mind if it's being used as an argument to rid yourself of criticism. Israel is constructing a new iron curtain, and the same is happening by militant groups along the US/Mexican border. Although one can't compare these actions to Apartheid as a political system, those in favour of it shouldn't point at Arab countries to shed the blame.

Because, as I wrote in the OP, Islamic nations are the most similiar today (and the most numerous) that practice anything we can compare to classical South African Apartheid. What part of that is unclear?

The fact that the name of the thread is Islamic Aparteid, and that you have no less than 4 non-Islamic countries in the poll. Further, since you did not include OTHER non-islamic countries in your poll, especially ones that are more Islamic than the ones you chose.

Your combination of Islamic countries with Israel, China, the US and SA only being considers (while totally ignoring Europe) is a joke. It's no more valid than if I posted a "which country has the most child rape" and only included 7 EU nations, China, Chad and Sudan for voting.

Strange that you would say "what kind of world do you live in" when your assessment is based on your own personal, subjective experience in Prague. I based my assessments on popular opinion.

Popular opinion WHERE?!? May I suggest changing your TV channel now and then?
For that matter, is not what I hear on the streets popular opinion?
You're mixing the two for your own arguement, and refusing it as a counterpoint. :rolleyes:

Also nice of you to ignore Euro examples, esp. the only recent German moves to end their ACTUAL apartheid of Turks.

If you google the term "Apartheid" you will get more that relates to the US, Israel, the Middle East, and Africa than any European countries. That much is an objective fact, while European racism is your own subjective experience.

Ah. Please tell that to all the dead people in Russia and Jugoslavia. While you're at it, please tell it to those that died in the Parisian riots.

Apartheid is a LEGAL seperation of people. You've yet to show me ONE in the US. Please, just one. FACT: The US and Israel at the very least should not be on this poll without some disclaimer, like "I disagree: The US has legal Apartheid".

Alright, I wrote this in the last response, maybe you didn't read it.

There is a time lag when writing responses, you know.

I never stated that I believed all of the nations I listed practice Apartheid. I said that they are nations commonly accused of practicing Apartheid. If you want to see which nations I think are even remotely similiar to Apartheid, you can check the public poll and see which ones I voted for.

Ah, the sweet smell of bullshit. Your post #1:
"It seems in vogue to criticize free, democratic states today as practicing "Apartheid", such as the US and especially Israel, while at the same time ignoring the multitude of states that have all of the hallmarks of classical, South African Apartheid."

...you then go on to say that the US and Israel DONT fit into this description, but include them in the voting anyway! As above: your voting options don't fit your postulate in an accurate fashion. And they're heavily biased to not include European nations.

But, just to humor you:

1. In regards to India, the government still keeps official records and recognizes the official status of the Scheduled Castes. See Wikipedia (Indian Caste Sytem) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Caste_System#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system). While most of the racially discriminatory laws regarding the caste system are gone, its a myth that the caste system has been abolished. It is still legally recognized.

2. South African laws against Racism and Xenophobia are attempting to prohibit people from private racial discrimination that they are currently legally entitled to, for example.

3. I don't believe that the US or Israel are engaged in Apartheid. However, the US and Israel are constantly accused of Apartheid, and that is why they are on the poll. This is why I think you didn't pay much attention to what I wrote in the OP or my first response to you. You just seem to have a knee-jerk response.

1. You shoot me a wiki article that's been heavily edited in the last few days as proof? Try a news site, please.
2. Still waiting for an example of one.
3. No, I'm bashing you because of your polling options. It is disingenuous to postulate an idea and then not seperate it somehow in the poll.
Saying "Which of the following states currently practice Apartheid?" is NOT the same as saying "Which of the following states do you think currently practice Apartheid?".

besides, in a society which doesnt tolerate gays, not many spring up. people arent born gay, cos its blatantly against the laws of nature.

People aren't born gays? so they are supposed to go to a gay academy? Please!! In not tolerant societies they're hidden, even married and with children.

Fourth, you're just triying to defend US and Israel from discrimantions blames, telling "they do it more". That's very, very sad. If you're a real patriote, you should want your country not to do it at all. The sad reality is that Israel and US do it, outside the law, so society is guilty. Maybe law is not allowing it in USA, but it happens.

Actually, if you read what I wrote, I stated that Israel and the US do not practice this type of "apartheid" at all. There are no apartheidesque laws in Israel or the US as there are in these other states. Yes, there is discrimination, but this is at the hands of private individuals. It can't be blamed on 'society' (which is an abstract concept) or the state (which is a political, legal body).

Fifth, there's a point where israel law is racist or discriminating. Is the first line of the constitution, where it stablish Israel as a Jew country. It's made on former arabs lands, so it's quite normal arabs are forbiding jews to stablish in their countries. Moreover, is forbiden for jews to sell land or building to arabs. Or it was, to keep Israel jew.

Israel being a Jewish country doesn't make it any more discriminatory than the United Kingdom being an Anglo kingdom. An ethnic nationality does not mean that it discriminates toward other ethnicities.

And it isn't made on former Arab lands. The vast majority of the land was unowned, then it became British Crown Lands, and the remaining land that was owned by Arabs was bought from them legally. Less than 2000 Arab families were ever displaced, a historical record minimum.

Finally, there are no Israeli laws that forbid Jews to sell land to Arabs. You may be confusing this with Jordan, where it was illegal until very recently for Arabs to sell land or property to Jews. Private property may be sold to anyone in Israel, however, State lands in Israel can't be sold to anyone (Jew or Arab), they belong to the State. They can, however, be leased to anyone.

And the palestinians are not citizens is a fact, but is due to israel policy, and it's a shame, they should give them the citizenship rights (so israel wouldn't be no more a jewish state) or give them independence (1967 borders, please, if not is a Bantustan policy).

It isn't due to Israeli policy. They refused independence four times. When Arafat refused independence this final time, Prince Abdullah stated that Arafat committed a crime against the Palestinian people and the entire region.

Firstly the Sharia is not an aparthied system, as demonstrated in Islamic Medina under the prophet where the Jews, Christians were all included in a treaty to protect the state. Furthermore there were non-muslim courtiers in Islamic Caliphates in the past. If you want to point out Jizyah, just because the non-muslims follow a diffrent tax system as discrimnatory then i really do not know what to say because the Islamic tax system (Zakat) is based on religious obligation as a muslim, therefor, we cannot force non-muslims to pay this tax after all, there is no compulsion in religion.

Contrary to popular beliefs, no nation, even muslim majority nations can be considered to be implementing tthe Sharia as its penal code or constituition. In most cases it has only traces or minor influences of the Sharia. To be considered an Islamic nation, the particualr nation has to implement the Sharia as its constituition and base every law it makes on the Sharia be it social, political or economic. However today we only see muslim-majority nations using parts of the sharia that benefits them and ignoring the rest.

Iraq for example, is more of a secular nation than a muslim nation. Saddam killed many Islamic scholors during his reign, Sunni or Shia.

Any Monarchy is not following the Sharia becuase state leaders are to be elected by a Shura or concensus among the learned so that rules out Jordan or Saudi Arabia or and other muslim majority nations.

Iran is not following the Sharia as well because the State leader in a contry governed by the Sharia is both a relgious and political leader, Iran seperates them and the power is shared between the Grand Ayatollah and the president.

Furthermore, you must bear in mind that you cannot impose your value system and use it as a yardstick to determine what is aparthied or not or waht is right or what is wrong becuase the value systems differ and it is unfair to compare them at face value. Like Islamic values value the family and community above individuals. Regarding homosexuals, concensus is that it is alrite to be homosexuals but it is not alrite to be giving into the tendency and performing homosexual acts simply because it is not natural, well thats how we muslims see it. And talkin abt innocents being murdered because of state sanctioned execution, maybe we should worry more abt our own contries than others.

however what is more important is that no muslim majority nation can be called an Islamic state because no muslim majority nation, no matter how religous they are on the outlook do not implement the sharia FULLY.

Oh, Europe is guilty as hell. You just don't seem aware of it. For one thing, Apartheid is a Dutch word. For another, racially related laws stem from a misguided notion of racial superiority, the most powerful proponents of which have been Western Europeans since the age of colonialism.

I'm beginning to get the impression from this thread that arguments like "islamic apartheid" are aimed towards the intolerance of other countries by those who would advocate similar intolerance at home. I don't mind the initial comparison, because there are similarities, but I do mind if it's being used as an argument to rid yourself of criticism. Israel is constructing a new iron curtain, and the same is happening by militant groups along the US/Mexican border. Although one can't compare these actions to Apartheid as a political system, those in favour of it shouldn't point at Arab countries to shed the blame.

Alright, I am well aware that Europe could be accused of things like Apartheid. However, what I am going off of is popular opinion. The reason the US and Israel are included is because the charge of Apartheid is constantly levied against them, not against European states.

As I stated, you can use google to demonstrate this as a fact. You can do the "google fight" between the terms "israel apartheid" and any other european country, and you will get more terms relating to Israel currently being accused of Apartheid than any European country currently being accused of Apartheid. The same with the United States. This is why Israel and the US are included, because they are the democratic countries most frequently charged with Apartheid. That much is a fact.

When European countries are routinely accused of Apartheid, then I'll make a new poll with European countries up here. In the same light, if a European country enacts racial laws akin to those found in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, India, or Iran, then I'll go ahead and replace some Muslim countries with European ones.

It isn't due to Israeli policy. They refused independence four times. When Arafat refused independence this final time, Prince Abdullah stated that Arafat committed a crime against the Palestinian people and the entire region.

I will not answer the rest of your post , but here I have just one thing to say: Bantustan were also legally independent but were in the practice prisions, as Palestina.

Firstly the Sharia is not an aparthied system, as demonstrated in Islamic Medina under the prophet where the Jews, Christians were all included in a treaty to protect the state.

I'm not surprised someone would come up trying to defend their interpretation of Sharia based on Medieval history. Currently, today in 2006, Jews and Christians are not allowed in Medina or Mecca due to Saudi Arabia's version of Sharia law. Fact. So what happened in Medina around 1500 years ago doesn't impress me much.

Furthermore there were non-muslim courtiers in Islamic Caliphates in the past. If you want to point out Jizyah, just because the non-muslims follow a diffrent tax system as discrimnatory then i really do not know what to say because the Islamic tax system (Zakat) is based on religious obligation as a muslim, therefor, we cannot force non-muslims to pay this tax after all, there is no compulsion in religion.

Islamic Caliphates also have a notorious history of killing off "dhimmi" in contrast to how they should be treated. But I don't intend to get into a long debate of how good or how bad Muslims were during the Middle Ages. Once again, I'll try to redirect you back to the topic at hand, which is current events. Right now, in 2006, Jews are discriminated against in Muslim nations. Address that, not what happened in your choice of an Islamic Caliphate hundreds of years ago.

Contrary to popular beliefs, no nation, even muslim majority nations can be considered to be implementing tthe Sharia as its penal code or constituition. In most cases it has only traces or minor influences of the Sharia. To be considered an Islamic nation, the particualr nation has to implement the Sharia as its constituition and base every law it makes on the Sharia be it social, political or economic. However today we only see muslim-majority nations using parts of the sharia that benefits them and ignoring the rest.

Yes, I agree with you here. Of course, to these states, it IS Sharia. Once again, it comes down to a matter of interpretation. Saudis believe that their government is Sharia, not that it is a secular code based on Sharia.

Furthermore, you must bear in mind that you cannot impose your value system and use it as a yardstick to determine what is aparthied or not or waht is right or what is wrong becuase the value systems differ and it is unfair to compare them at face value. Like Islamic values value the family and community above individuals. Regarding homosexuals, concensus is that it is alrite to be homosexuals but it is not alrite to be giving into the tendency and performing homosexual acts simply because it is not natural, well thats how we muslims see it. And talkin abt innocents being murdered because of state sanctioned execution, maybe we should worry more abt our own contries than others.

Things like this are called human rights violations. They become more than personal values "imposed" on others when they effect other people. If a Muslim nation executes someone for being gay, they are just as much "imposing" their values on that person as a foreign entity telling them not to do so.

however what is more important is that no muslim majority nation can be called an Islamic state because no muslim majority nation, no matter how religous they are on the outlook do not implement the sharia FULLY.

Fair enough, I wont argue with you about it. I did write in a previous post that I did not consider Sharia itself to be Apartheid, only that many of these states with Sharia law (or as you would put it, based on Sharia law) resemble classical Apartheid.

[QUOTE=Tropical Sands]

Israel being a Jewish country doesn't make it any more discriminatory than the United Kingdom being an Anglo kingdom. An ethnic nationality does not mean that it discriminates toward other ethnicities.
QUOTE]

England is not legally an anglo country so your answer is quite stupid. Israel can only exist as that as long as it is a not normal country. Is made for jews.

The land was worked by arabs, they were the owners, and the fact than england became the master doesn't change that. You're right about the freedom of selling lands, that's why the state owns a huge surface of land, so it cannot became a property of arabs, as long as it was the way the building of israel started. " A land without people for a people without land" is a very clever propaganda phrase but is not true at all.

1. You shoot me a wiki article that's been heavily edited in the last few days as proof? Try a news site, please.
2. Still waiting for an example of one.
3. No, I'm bashing you because of your polling options. It is disingenuous to postulate an idea and then not seperate it somehow in the poll.
Saying "Which of the following states currently practice Apartheid?" is NOT the same as saying "Which of the following states do you think currently practice Apartheid?".

I just thought I would address this, briefly, while ignoring the rest, since most of what you responded with is a non sequitur.

1. I don't need to shoot you anything, because this type of information is what is recognized as 'common knowledge.' It is common knowledge that the Indian government still recognizes the caste system and its workings as an official government structure. Common knowledge isn't something obscure or controversal that needs to be cited in the way you're asking, it would be like asking me to prove to you that Washington DC is on the East Coast with a news article. Quite absurd. I just used the wiki article to give you more detail about it. In any case, it wasn't necessary.

2. I did give you an example, but perhaps it wasn't clear. Laws on Racism and Xenophobia are a set of statutes regarding the issue, that was your example. But I guess you don't know enough about SA to get even that, right?

3. "Do you think" is an implict necessity of the question. Every person, by responding, implicty expresses that they think it to be true. Logic lesson.

England is not legally an anglo country so your answer is quite stupid. Israel can only exist as that as long as it is a not normal country. Is made for jews.

Its just as legally an 'anglo country' as Israel is a 'jewish country.' Both are written into various documents of the country, yet neither are discriminatory toward non-anglo or non-jewish populations.

The land was worked by arabs, they were the owners, and the fact than england became the master doesn't change that. You're right about the freedom of selling lands, that's why the state owns a huge surface of land, so it cannot became a property of arabs, as long as it was the way the building of israel started. " A land without people for a people without land" is a very clever propaganda phrase but is not true at all.

The land was worked by Arabs, but they weren't the owners. They were fellaheen, Arab workers on land that belonged to other Arabs. Jews bought the land from absentee landowners, displacing less than 2000 felaheen families. Before the formation of Israel, Jews never "stole" a single acre.

And "a land without a people for a people without a land" was not originally a Zionist phrase, but was a remark made by a British man, Lord Shaftsebury. The fact is, the vast majority of the land really did have no people on it. Numerous British sources record this, and some of the most colorful and detailed accounts come from Mark Twain. But what it all comes down to is the fact that Jews didn't steal Arab land, and that Israel being a Jewish State is no more discriminatory than any other state that exists today with a national ethnicity, national language, or national religion (and there are plenty of all of these).

I just thought I would address this, briefly, while ignoring the rest, since most of what you responded with is a non sequitur.

1. I don't need to shoot you anything, because this type of information is what is recognized as 'common knowledge.' It is common knowledge that the Indian government still recognizes the caste system and its workings as an official government structure. Common knowledge isn't something obscure or controversal that needs to be cited in the way you're asking, it would be like asking me to prove to you that Washington DC is on the East Coast with a news article. Quite absurd. I just used the wiki article to give you more detail about it. In any case, it wasn't necessary.

2. I did give you an example, but perhaps it wasn't clear. Laws on Racism and Xenophobia are a set of statutes regarding the issue, that was your example. But I guess you don't know enough about SA to get even that, right?

3. "Do you think" is an implict necessity of the question. Every person, by responding, implicty expresses that they think it to be true. Logic lesson.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/bluetooth_startrek.jpg

"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life in this conversation".

/leaves thread

Right, we should let Iraq continue with human rights violations because of this Islamic morality and the fact that it would "bring instability." Lets not forget that some Muslim nations, like Turkey, don't have laws against homosexuality and seem to be perfectly stable.
Tell it to your state legislator.

*shrug* ANY state that tolerates the existence of shari'a is guilty.
Non patieris vivere...

I can't copy and paste something from a thread that is gone. But I'll start logging stuff like this, since you seem to have a habit of academic dishonesty (like denying it, in this case).


Actually you can because all my posts can be found against my name, should you right click and open a new window. You have made a false accusation, and now have not the common decency withdraw it.


It is common knowledge that the Indian government still recognizes the caste system and its workings as an official government structure. Common knowledge isn't something obscure or controversal that needs to be cited in the way you're asking, it would be like asking me to prove to you that Washington DC is on the East Coast with a news article. Quite absurd.


Double standard again.

Now, what I did say is that we can find the caste system in Indian law. And I gave a clear example of how the caste system still exists in Indian law as well....

India has the caste system, even if not legally enforced (thought, contrary to popular belief, we can find the caste system in law in some instances...

"in some instances".


But I don't intend to get into a long debate of how good or how bad Muslims were during the Middle Ages.

Because that undermines the whole 'muslim=ultimate evil' thing, obviously.


That is just a common defense for self-hating Jews when they engage in anti-Semitism. And "left wing Jewish thought" doesn't espouse anything that you do. You're confusing left wing Jewish thought, with left wing thought by people who happen to be Jews..

So you define whats Jewish and isn't and who is "self hating" and who isn't? What criteria have you met to be able to pass judgement on others in such a manner?


The land was worked by Arabs, but they weren't the owners. They were fellaheen, Arab workers on land that belonged to other Arabs. Jews bought the land from absentee landowners, displacing less than 2000 felaheen families. Before the formation of Israel, Jews never "stole" a single acre..

What was the approximate total acreage they bought by 1947?


You post a US State Dept report that doesn't actually say what you're claiming, and then when that gets pointed out to you and you're challenged on your attempted deception, this is how you respond...

The report that says....."The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens" in its introductory paragraphs? That report?

Saudi Arabia.

Right, we should let Iraq continue with human rights violations because of this Islamic morality and the fact that it would "bring instability." Lets not forget that some Muslim nations, like Turkey, don't have laws against homosexuality and seem to be perfectly stable.

What are human rights anyway? what if Iraq decides that its civil laws are more important than human rights? kind of link israel eh?
It has nothing to do with islamic morality, saddam was hardly muslim, for example he used to drink. And stability is quite important in countries, you wont be very happy living in an unsable country, i can guarantee you that.

With regards to Turkey, you are comparing apples with oranges, Turkey is, due to its geographical location, alot more western. Remember, for laws to be popular they have to reflect the culture. The fact is, most people in iraq do not beat or kill their wives or gays, read the law, it only says that they CAN. this is to appease the more religious fundamentals who live in the desert, the reality on the ground is that very few actually exercise that right.

Oh? History and modern scholarship disagree with you. Arab countries have been notoriously homosexual, and have even formulated an unofficial sexual class sytem with little boys in it, according to the Middle East Report here:

Middle East Report 2006 (http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/bruce.htm)

And the only school of thought that would tell you that homosexuality is "against the laws of nature" is a religious fundamental one. There is not a single scientific law that homosexuality in nature would violate. In fact, we see homosexuality in nature consistently, such as in primates like bonobos. So much for being "unnatural." The fact is, you're just a religious bigot against gays.

What kind of website is that? Lets take this for a fact, i know more than you, IM FROM IRAQ. so let me explain this.

in iraq, family ties are important, marriage is in high regard, very few people are unmarried by 30. So, if someone was gay in Iraq, theyre cheating. However, in a society where it is told to you that being gay is wrong, chances are you'll try to change. just like in the west being a pervert is considered wrong, pervs will change their behaviour to more social norms.

being gay is unnatural, its a fact. It breaks the scientific law of SEXUAL production. it is the entire reason there are males and females, do the maths. Being a cannibal is also unnatural, but many animals, and people, practice it as well, the fact we witness unnatural behavioiur in other species does not make it natural.


Please understand this, attack the law, not the culture. A culture can be however it wants and its not up to outsiders to dictate that it should be more like theirs, that is their opinion, and it definately should not be bombed into them, because thats xenophobic.

Actually you can because all my posts can be found against my name, should you right click and open a new window. You have made a false accusation, and now have not the common decency withdraw it.

I tried that, and it only goes back 100 posts. Like I said, I'll have to start saving your anti-Semitic little comments in a text box since you deny them every couple weeks.

Double standard again.

You've yet to demonstrate this. India still recognizes the caste system as a an official, legal structure as I posted. We're talking about legal issues, and that is something legally recognized.

Because that undermines the whole 'muslim=ultimate evil' thing, obviously.

Because it isn't the topic. If you want, you can start a new thread about how nice Muslims were to their second-class Dhimmi citizens throughout history, and then I can take out the time to point out the thousands of Jews slaughtered over the course of 1500 years by Muslims.

But right now, I'd like to stick to the topic at hand, which is state-sponsored racial discrimination. Such as that occuring in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

So you define whats Jewish and isn't and who is "self hating" and who isn't? What criteria have you met to be able to pass judgement on others in such a manner?

No, a worldwide Jewish concensus defines what is Jewish. A Jew's opinions don't make them "Jewish opinions." For something to be Jewish, it needs to be a part of Judaism, by definition. The problem is when people take the political, philosophical, etc. opinions of secular Jews and then pass them off as "Jewish." It would be like taking the philosophical beliefs of an African man and passing them off as "African", even if they didn't originate in Afirca.

What was the approximate total acreage they bought by 1947?

Surprise surprise, Nodina pulls another slick non sequitur. I don't have any statistics in acerage, but I think the total bought percentage of land was around 10% of the total area that was given to Israel by 1947. 80% was Crown Lands, and the remaning 10% remained the property of Arabs.

The original point was that there was little to no Arab displacement, and no 'theft', of land during this time period. Benny Morris, a historian noted for his harsh criticism of Israel and being the 'opposition', wrote "Historains have concluded that only several thousand families were displaced following land sales to Jews between the 1880s and the late 1930s."

But forget that China's Three Gorges Dam displaced, and virtually ruined, the lives of an exponential amount of people compared to this. Forget that this number was even less than various Arab forced deplacements. Those are things that the anti-Israel crowd will never focus on and tell you, as the minimal displacement of fallahs are distorted for the agenda. They also don't like to tell you that fellaheen were paid more to return and work on Jewish land, and that felaheen communities developed around kibbutzim that rivaled in prosperity major Arab settlements that had existed for hundreds of years. The reality is, Jewish settlement was nothing but good for the land and Arab population.

The report that says....."The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens" in its introductory paragraphs? That report?

You keep posting the same thing over and over, but it doesn't demonstrate that there is state-sponsored racism, or any racist laws on the books. It could be argued that there is "legal discrimination" against minorities in the US as well, because they tend to get more harsh sentences and are the majority of the prison population, but this does not equate to legal racism, state sponsored laws, or anything that would demonstrate "apartheid."

You've still been unable to show me a single racist Israeli law, and have been trying to argue from a State Dept. report that doesn't endeavor to claim that Israel has racist laws either.

What are human rights anyway? what if Iraq decides that its civil laws are more important than human rights? kind of link israel eh?
It has nothing to do with islamic morality, saddam was hardly muslim, for example he used to drink. And stability is quite important in countries, you wont be very happy living in an unsable country, i can guarantee you that.

No, nothing like Israel. Israel's Basic Laws gurantee human rights. Arab countries have no concept of human rights in this fashion.

And you've slipped into the "no true scottsman" fallacy. "Oh, Saddam wasn't Muslim, he used to drink." The fact is, he was Muslim, rather you like it or not. History doesn't dispute this, although religious zealots like yourself who don't want to be associated with bloody Islamic dictators do.

With regards to Turkey, you are comparing apples with oranges, Turkey is, due to its geographical location, alot more western. Remember, for laws to be popular they have to reflect the culture. The fact is, most people in iraq do not beat or kill their wives or gays, read the law, it only says that they CAN. this is to appease the more religious fundamentals who live in the desert, the reality on the ground is that very few actually exercise that right.

I'm getting a kick out of you justifying Iraqi laws that state you can beat and kill your wife and homosexuals.

What kind of website is that? Lets take this for a fact, i know more than you, IM FROM IRAQ. so let me explain this.

No, I'm afraid you don't. Being from a region doesn't make someone more knowledgable about the region, especially about regional politics. And the "kind of website" was a legal one. And, so far, you havn't even seemed to be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of your own Iraqi laws. You've already been refuted by the two laws I listed.

being gay is unnatural, its a fact. It breaks the scientific law of SEXUAL production. it is the entire reason there are males and females, do the maths. Being a cannibal is also unnatural, but many animals, and people, practice it as well, the fact we witness unnatural behavioiur in other species does not make it natural.

There is no "scientific law of sexual production." Although, they may have taught you this in one of those great Iraqi schools. We all know Iraq is the pinnacle of education. And as such, just being from Iraq means you know far, far more.

Please understand this, attack the law, not the culture. A culture can be however it wants and its not up to outsiders to dictate that it should be more like theirs, that is their opinion, and it definately should not be bombed into them, because thats xenophobic.

When your culture is harmful to the freedom and human rights of others, it needs to be restrained. If you don't want people attacking your culture, keep your culture out of other people's lives. You could start with stopping the terror, since terrorism is a noted fact of your culture. Stopping with the human rights abuses against women, minorities, and homosexuals would be great too.

[QUOTE=
Contrast this to Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq (under Saddam) which follow Sharia law, and thus systematically and legally discriminate against ethnic, racial, and religious groups. Jews have not been allowed, and still are not allowed, to settle in many parts of Jordan. They are completely exluded. This, by definition, is Apartheid. Non-Muslims are not allowed in the holy cities in Saudi Arabia, and non-Arabs are not allowed on many Arab-only roads. I think we all know about Apartheid in Iraq.

Apartheid in Iraq is today applied against the Iraqi people! Under the Baathist ruling there had always been Kurdish and Christian ministers. (Tarik Aziz was a Christian.) Of course that was not a democratic state and the Kurdish people were oppressed but there was not an apartheid as in Israel now. Non-Jewish Arabic minority in Israel are opressed "legally." And the laws in Israel depend on the Jewish Sharia.
I live in a country where the 90 percent of the population is Muslim. (Turkey). I am not a Muslim but I know that the Islamic Sharia doesn't allow Apartheid or racism.
The representative of the Iranian Jewish community was in Istanbul a few months ago and he wasn't allowed to enter a sinagouge just because he was an Iranian citizen!
And consider that there are Jewish, Kurdish, Azeri and Arabic parliament members in Iran.
You may criticise all these states as dictatorships but in the Middle East region apartheid can't be applied easily because of the historical traditions. Jews, Muslims, Christians and all the ethnic groups live together for centuries altough there has been some cruel wars between them. APARTHEID WAS INVENTED IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. (Germany, S.Africa, USA...)

SNIP
You may criticise all these states as dictatorships but in the Middle East region apartheid can't be applied easily because of the historical traditions. Jews, Muslims, Christians and all the ethnic groups live together for centuries altough there has been some cruel wars between them. APARTHEID WAS INVENTED IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. (Germany, S.Africa, USA...)

So what?
Does that excuse others in some sense?

If I invent killing - does that excuse you in any sense?

They got a choice: a total focus on being good little boys - or facing unknown consequences.

Ummm....I may have been out of the loop for a while,

But since when has Israel practiced Apartheid...and to such a degree, that it is alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia & Sudan.

Actually scratch that....apparently being worse then the above mentioned 3.

Or this another Israel in another dimension...?

Non-Jewish Arabic minority in Israel are opressed "legally." And the laws in Israel depend on the Jewish Sharia.

Well, there is no such thing as Jewish Sharia, perhaps you're thinking of Halacha. In any case, Israeli law is not based in any way on Halacha. I'd love for you to show me a law used to oppress the Arab minority in Israel based on this "Jewish Sharia", if you can.

I'm willing to bet that you've just bought the anti-Israeli propaganda that you get fed by the government in Turkey. A free press would help.

The representative of the Iranian Jewish community was in Istanbul a few months ago and he wasn't allowed to enter a sinagouge just because he was an Iranian citizen!

If someone wasn't allowed in a synagogue in Istanbul due to being an Iranian citizen, that sounds like a Turkish issue to me. Halacha doesn't prohibit anyone from entering a synagogue, and in Israel everyone is allowed in any synagogue. Unlike the Dome of the Rock, where only Muslims are allowed in.

And consider that there are Jewish, Kurdish, Azeri and Arabic parliament members in Iran.

There are Arab and Druze Knesset members in Israel, as well. However, this doesn't change the fact that Iran has discriminatory laws against Jews, while Israel has no discriminatory laws against Arabs.

You may criticise all these states as dictatorships but in the Middle East region apartheid can't be applied easily because of the historical traditions. Jews, Muslims, Christians and all the ethnic groups live together for centuries altough there has been some cruel wars between them. APARTHEID WAS INVENTED IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. (Germany, S.Africa, USA...)

Fair enough, I can understand that the Middle East is quite different than the West, and other parts of the world, and thus has a different culture, values, tradition, etc. I also wasn't the first one to criticize any state as Apartheid; I brought up the Apartheid example because this false accusation is constantly levied against democratic Western states, and I wanted to put it in scope with other states that have noted human rights abuses. And on that note, the culture and tradition of Middle Eastern nations can't be taken to the extreme that it is used as an excuse to violate the human rights of people in this day and age.

Ummm....I may have been out of the loop for a while,

But since when has Israel practiced Apartheid...and to such a degree, that it is alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia & Sudan.

Actually scratch that....apparently being worse then the above mentioned 3.

Or this another Israel in another dimension...?

The entire world has been accusing Israel of Apartheid for quite some time. Its totally insane, and I'm glad at least some people realize it. However, the world still tends to carry harsh anti-Semitic sentiments coupled with a large Arab and Islamic population.

It does seem like Bizarro world when Israel gets more 'votes' for Apartheid than countries like Saudi Arabia, where Jews are prohibited from driving on certain roads and entering certain cities.

(Although, checking who voted for what, it would seem that many of the votes against Israel on this poll are made by people with 0 posts. Very very suspicious. Did people go back and vote twice to demonize Israel? Survey says: yes.)

The entire world has been accusing Israel of Apartheid for quite some time. Its totally insane, and I'm glad at least some people realize it. However, the world still tends to carry harsh anti-Semitic sentiments coupled with a large Arab and Islamic population.

It does seem like Bizarro world when Israel gets more 'votes' for Apartheid than countries like Saudi Arabia, where Jews are prohibited from driving on certain roads and entering certain cities.

(Although, checking who voted for what, it would seem that many of the votes against Israel on this poll are made by people with 0 posts. Very very suspicious. Did people go back and vote twice to demonize Israel? Survey says: yes.)


Haven't you figured it out yet?
Dhimmitude = Political Correctness.