Jump to content

What is wrong with the Islamic world?


Recommended Posts

Well of course, I doubt anyone can sum up their perspective of an entire civilization in one highly sarcastic, though ultimately pretty accurate, paragraph. But please, tell me your disagrements for this is the reason why I post here!

I can see how discussing a "practical" problem would be to discuss such things, because after all, a comfortable life follows once we conquer all. My problem is, I think things would be different if we knew the reality of the situation. I like to believe, "we" (as an industrial civilization), are capable of compassion, because I think we value this idea in the context of human interaction. However, because people do not (too "busy"?), or cannot (intricate systems of population control?), or are not willing (lazy? arrogant?) to contemplate, discover, or anticipate consequences of their own actions, we are what we are today. What I mean to say is, although this is a comfortable life, I want to believe more people will become uncomfortable if they realize the real issues.

For these reasons, the transfer of information is very important. The problem of who to trust arises. Our idea of what realities exist are dependent on those we trust. Some trust people who say there is something wrong with the Islamic world. Others trust people who say there is a lot more wrong with us. Others still trust no one, but are no better off, nor do they change anything for the better. I like to think one solution is discussion, but this must be discussion with the intent to find solutions, and all parties must have an open mind, not merely trying to be the "winner" of an argument. I'll give you a political example. If you have ever sat down and watched CPAC, you may realize that our politicians take the meaning of debate literally - which is to exploit opportunities to argue against anything and everything by exposing a weakness in the opposition or by sarcasm that aims to make the opposition seem ridiculous, dull, or irrelevant. If you wish to know where I came up with that, I was handed that garbage as guidelines to follow as a debator! MH, maybe you too see the problem with this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).
I must take issue with this statistic because it is so erroneous and so common.

First of all, Walmart has huge revenues - but the wholesale costs of its goods are also high. In other words, value added should be the measure of corporate size, not gross revenue. One way would be to look at the number of employees. (IOW, all of your subsequent data and reasoning are meaningless.)

Second, this country vs. corporation comparison glosses over one distinction and then ignores a critical difference. The distinction is between a country and the State (government). There is a critical difference between corporations and the State. My relationship with all corporations is voluntary. (I can buy elsewhere, work elsewhere). My relationship with the Canadian government is involuntary. (Well, I guess I could emigrate.)

Third, corporations and governments don't exist in any real sense. They are composed of individual people who each act in their own way.

Public corporations must answer to shareholders; the famous bottom line. Anyone who has had to meet a payroll knows how it wonderfully focusses the mind. IMV, this is the best morality.

People seem to value real principles, but do not realize they do not actually exist.
Real principles do not actually exist? Do airplanes fly? Why? Einstein's theory of relativity applies in the physical sciences. I don't think he meant it to be applied in the social sciences. And anyway, even Einstein spoke about frames of reference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean to say is, although this is a comfortable life, I want to believe more people will become uncomfortable if they realize the real issues.

Be optimistic. The average North American is far more aware of the issues than they were five years ago.

For these reasons, the transfer of information is very important. The problem of who to trust arises. Our idea of what realities exist are dependent on those we trust. Some trust people who say there is something wrong with the Islamic world. Others trust people who say there is a lot more wrong with us. Others still trust no one, but are no better off, nor do they change anything for the better. I like to think one solution is discussion, but this must be discussion with the intent to find solutions, and all parties must have an open mind, not merely trying to be the "winner" of an argument. I'll give you a political example. If you have ever sat down and watched CPAC, you may realize that our politicians take the meaning of debate literally - which is to exploit opportunities to argue against anything and everything by exposing a weakness in the opposition or by sarcasm that aims to make the opposition seem ridiculous, dull, or irrelevant. If you wish to know where I came up with that, I was handed that garbage as guidelines to follow as a debator! MH, maybe you too see the problem with this!

That's why these types of boards will save democracy !

Uh... Maybe that's too optimistic.

It seems to me that our system of democracy is founded on open discussion and the inevitable compromises that result. Two people tend come up with a better solution than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

corporations and governments don't exist in any real sense. They are composed of individual people who each act in their own way.
What utter nonsense. If this were even remotely true, words like nepotism, patronage, graft and brown-noser would not exist.
My relationship with all corporations is voluntary.
Again, untrue. There is very little one can buy while being aware of which corporations are involved. Food additives, energy suppliers, even going to the movies can mean that your dollar ends up in the hands of weapons manufacturers or sports athletes. Supposedly the mantra of free enterprise is that 'competition is good'. Few knew that in the strip mall in their town offering a choice between Taco Bell, KFC or Pizza Hut meant no choice at all. They were all owned by Pepsi.
Public corporations must answer to shareholders; the famous bottom line. Anyone who has had to meet a payroll knows how it wonderfully focusses the mind. IMV, this is the best morality.
This is where I start to wretch. This is the wonderful system that is based on the absence of morality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Two people tend come up with a better solution than one.
That depends on what the issue is, and who the people are. If one of those two people covets the possessions of the other, there is little, by way of means or method, that they could agree on. that is when democracy gives way to man's old standby, naked force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People seem to value real principles, but do not realize they do not actually exist.
Real principles do not actually exist? Do airplanes fly? Why? Einstein's theory of relativity applies in the physical sciences. I don't think he meant it to be applied in the social sciences. And anyway, even Einstein spoke about frames of reference.

Sorry this my fault, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant to say that people value real principles (that the ideas are meaningful to them), but they do not realize the principles are not practiced, and what they value is superficial.

As for the rest of your post...

I really do not have time to spell out all the stats. I usually consider a stat a limited argument, but because this was a political forum, I thought people would consider them with a higher relevance (stats define much of the budget formulation). In any case, you seem to have tried to dismiss them by asserting other stats - "value added should be the measure of corporate size, not gross revenue. One way would be to look at the number of employees." I'm not sure why when all you had to say was a stat in and of itself takes a situation out of context. This of course, is not always the case. An understanding of why I imported those stats admittedly requires an understanding of other corporate malpractice. So in retrospect, they were useless...knowing your assumptions.

My relationship with all corporations is voluntary. (I can buy elsewhere, work elsewhere).
Maybe you can. I doubt it. But I don't know you that well. In any case, a corporation theoretically survives on profits (there is gov't subsidy, but disregard that if you wish). Profits come from somewhere! I mean, the premise of the vast majority of advertisements if for consumers to consume more (in my interpretation). Using the "choice" argument is like saying someone who has never been involved in a fist fight chooses not to fist fight with a professional boxer because he wants to be the "better person". Well could you really call this person humble if they were really not capable of the choice in the first place?
corporations and governments don't exist in any real sense. They are composed of individual people who each act in their own way.
Actually a U.S. corporation is defined as a "person" under the U.S. Constitution, and thus is fully entitled to all the rights and freedoms of a U.S. citizen, just without an accountable physical body to support it. U.S. Supreme Court has come a long way from the mere corporate charters of the original corporations (those being a body of people with a work order to produce some good or service).
Public corporations must answer to shareholders; the famous bottom line.
This is correct, in fact, it is written in laws that they must aim to provide for their shareholders. This morality you speak of is part of the problem. Everything but profits is irrelevant. Well that is a stretch, the environment is slowly making its way on the podium, but the actual environmental issues are far from being solved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Islam= Arabs religion

Arab= Ishmael ,or the son Abraham had by hagar or the maid

Islam claims she was a queen but truth is she was Sarahs Maid , Sarah was getting old and God had promised her children but she was still baren .

So her and Abraham took matters into their own hands ,or should i say there faith wavered.

So Abraham went in Hagar and brought us Ishmael

Ishmaels blessing in the bible = Ishmael shall be a wild man ,his hand against every man and every mans hand against him.

So because Sarah and Abraham Doubted God we get the trouble maker of the earth .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
"Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture," Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television wrote in his daily column published in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. It ran under the headline, "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"

Jerusalem Post

There needs to be some genuine, soul-searching amongst intelligent Muslims, and certainly not the kind that confuses pride and childish frustration with the West.

This thread got off track but I thought I'd resurrect it with this article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we not ignoring something about human nature and the relationship of various religions to that nature? I wiukd suggest that the majority of human beings need to be told how to act and think: even those who think they are individualists.

Christianity has got away from that. Islam gives a structure and order to life. Hierarchies are inherent in humanity and authority goes with that. The average person would probably feel closer to himself and others under Islam even if it reduced his self-regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we not ignoring something about human nature and the relationship of various religions to that nature? I wiukd suggest that the majority of human beings need to be told how to act and think: even those who think they are individualists.
Eureka, what you have written is frightening, and thankfully wrong I believe.

The posters to this forum are evidence of the fact that there are many free-thinkers, obstinate in their own way, who prefer to reason ideas on their own rather than blindly accept another person's idea.

The closer the ideas are to one's own desires, the more independent people are. Romeo and Juliet is evidence of that.

I would argue that Islam creates more than its share of broken hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I would disagree with you. One reason that I enjoy this forum and the openness of most contributors is their free thinking and exploration of ideas.

However, outside of PART of the academic world, that independence of mind is not often found. Stubborn many people are. But many are also unbending and closed minded in the main.

It is the human condition to be, in the majority, followers in thought as well as action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The quote below is from a blogger in Bagdad. It's in reference to the various nonsensical claims (Bush did it, Israel did it, Jews didn't go to work that day) made in the Middle East about the WTC attacks.

16 Sep 2004 "Conspiracy Theories and the Ummah": Most Arabs and Muslims are unfortunately unaware that these claims would be laughed at by most people, they also cannot be possibly blamed for such thinking simply because they have been repeatedly fed prepackaged rumours and conspiracy theories as truth throughout their lives by school texts, speeches of immortal Arab leaders, official statements and state-sponspored media.

The blogger's argument might support your claim eureka but the fact that the blog exists is eveidence to the contrary.

IMV, the blogger describes more the citizens of a totalitarian state. Totalitarian states have always given themselves a veneer of religiousity.

Incidentally, the link above provides links to other blogs in Iraq. I suspect this is better than traditional news which has become the "war-torn Beirut" variety. (From all accounts Bagdad is no Beirut, and Iraq is certainly no Lebanon.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

It is the human condition to be, in the majority, followers in thought as well as action
Eureka's quote, I believe, is a reference to the vernacular term "Sheeple". Sadly, it is also very true. Certainly people can be free thinkers, but as 'tabula rasa' entities, they can only think with what they have been exposed to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eureka's quote, I believe, is a reference to the vernacular term "Sheeple". Sadly, it is also very true. Certainly people can be free thinkers, but as 'tabula rasa' entities, they can only think with what they have been exposed to.
Most people understandably think mostly of things that are near and dear to them. This makes sense. It is the near and dear that will have the greatest impact on us. And for such things, people usually think independently.

Romeo and Juliet is all about young people thinking outside the box. It happens all the time and I would never refer to them as "sheeple".

Islamic countries, indeed traditional societies in general, are filled with tragic stories like Romeo and Juliet.

Your reference to "sheeple" just means you don't agree with some people's pre-occupations.

With all that said, there is an absence of humour, a boring lassitude, in totalitarian societies.

As to Islamic societies, I sometimes have the impression that the Christian reformation and the Scientific Method passed them by.

We are born with the ability to communicate; we are not born with the ability to be literate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

Your reference to "sheeple" just means you don't agree with some people's pre-occupations.
Indeed I don't. Television, idol-worship and wonton consumption 'ain't my bag, baby'. Not that I feel people shouldn't be able to enjoy these things, the term 'sheeple' comes from the media espousing and subliminally reinforcing these things as 'the greatest good', and people both believing and doing it.

By the by, 'Romeo and Juliet' was fiction. The creation of someone by the name of Willy Shakespeare, I think. If your only example of 'thinking outside the box' are two fictional characters, we're in trouble. 'Love is Blind', they say. To logic, I guess, but not to media-influenced ideas of perfection.

Still, if Willy Shakespeare is to teach us anything, I hope it is to follow one's heart, and not 'respect the status quo or you'll end up dead'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The following dispatch, recorded and translated by MEMRI's TV Monitor Project, are excerpts from a show on Saudi Arabia's IQRA TV Channel, which featured "man on the street" interviews about feelings about Jews.

Interviewer: 'Would You, as a Human Being, be Willing to Shake Hands with a Jew?'

Respondent 1:

"Of course I wouldn't be willing to shake hands with a Jew, for religious reasons and because of what is happening now in Palestine, and for many reasons that don't allow me to shake a Jew's hand."

Respondent 2:

"No. Because the Jews are eternal enemies. The murderous Jews violate all agreements. I can't shake hands with someone who I know is full of hatred towards me."

Respondent 3:

"No, the Jew is an enemy. How can I shake my enemy's hand?"

Interviewer: "Would you refuse to shake hands with a Jew?"

Respondent 4:

"Of course, so I wouldn't have to consider amputating my hand afterwards."

Interviewer: 'If a Child Asks You Who 'Who are the Jews,' What Would You Answer?'

Respondent 5:

"The enemies of Allah and His Prophet."

Respondent 6:

"The Jew is the occupier of our lands."

Respondent 7:

"The murderers of prophets. Our eternal enemies, of course."

Respondent 2:

"The murderers of prophets, that's it."

Respondent 8:

"Allah's wrath is upon them, as the Koran says. Allah's wrath is upon them and they all stray from the path of righteousness. They are the filthiest people on the face of this earth because they care only about themselves - not the Christians, not the Muslims, nor any other religion.

"The solution is clear, not only to me but to everyone. If only [the Muslims] declared Jihad, we would see who stays home. We have a few countries… There is one country with a population of over 60-70 million people. If we let them only march, with no weapons even, they would completely trample the Jews, they would turn them into rotten carcasses under their feet. There is another country that donated money, saying, 'I am behind you, I'll support you with weapons, just wage [ Jihad ].'

memri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During September 2003, mass hysteria spread through Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, which was ultimately quelled by police intervention and statements made by the health minister. The panic was caused by rumors of foreigners roaming the city and shaking men's hands, making their penises disappear. The rumors were spread rapidly by text messages on cellular phones, and diverted the public's attention from a breakthrough in negotiations in Kenya between Sudanese Vice President Ali Othman and SPLA leader John Garang.

Middle East Media Research Institute

What is remarkable here is the combination of modern technology (cell phones) and pre-rationalist superstition. We are dealing with people from a different century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that it is not sensible to ascrible the problems countries experience solely to their belief systems. However, to consider only the the question of what is wrong with Islam, then the answer is clear enough. The same thing that is wrong with any archaic irrational belief system such as Christianity, etc.: irrational belief leads to bad outcomes in approximate proportion to the reliance a society places on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor comparison. Christians aren't crashing planes into buildings in the name of God. And if they did Christian leaders would loudly condemn it. Instead we have muslims around the world cutting peoples heads off, committing genocide and declaring holy war against the entire non-muslim world. Not only this but they are preaching hate towards Jews in their mosks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor comparison. Christians aren't crashing planes into buildings in the name of God. And if they did Christian leaders would loudly condemn it. Instead we have muslims around the world cutting peoples heads off, committing genocide and declaring holy war against the entire non-muslim world. Not only this but they are preaching hate towards Jews in their mosks.

You convieniently ignore the voices of the tens of thousands of Muslims world wide who have condemned acts of terror perpetrated in the name of Islam. Islam is not a monolith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't see it. Perhaps it's the media ignoring it. But all I see are Muslims buring the star of David and the US flag. I see Muslim clerics declaring Jihad. I've seen it here in my own city. And most common is the whole "I disagree with terrorism, but the US pushes them to do it". A fatwa (sic) is declared against people for writing books dishonoring their families but why are their no fatwas against these terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear I miss Reagan,

Honestly I don't see it. Perhaps it's the media ignoring it.
The media is part of the problem, but I have seen news reports suggesting that the majority of Muslims do not support terrorism. As to the claim that 'the US is pushing them to do it', yes, they feel that the US must be stopped, and held accountable for their actions, but do not advocate 'terrorism'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Forum Members,

Having gone over all of the posts on this topic, I realize that the biggest problem with Islam and the West is understanding of one another.

We all have baises that are predefined in us. The problem gets blown up when we stress on solving the problem from only one point of view. The problem between the west and terrorists ( I will not associate terrorism to any religion as none of them advocate violence) is that each of them are trying to impose their own version of the bias on one another.

The West wants to introduce Westerns Style democracy in the Arab and Islamic World, where as the terrorists see the re-birth of their version/interpretation of Islam in demolishing Western power.

What is the likelyhood of a Western Style democracy being successful in any Arab country. What works for one person does not neccessarily work for another, and here we are talking about chaning millions of peoples views. This can only come through self realization not by imposing it from the outside.

The same goes for the terrorist, their blind belief in their interpreation of faith is another for of imposed philosophy. What happened to the self realization and self understandign of faith.

Being a muslim my self who spent six years studyig in Canada and getting married to white Canadian (sorry for the mention of race) has helped me lots in understanding the world from both point of views. Now that I am working in Saudi Arabia, it is clear that the major problem in understanding one another.

Moderates from both worlds should work for and promote more open understanding and tolerence for each other. There is nothing wrong in having a differene of opinion but when it is imposed on one another we tend to react negatively.

Aren't teenagers and parents a good example of this.

Hoping to add to this constrcutive conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoping to add to this constrcutive conversation.
First of all, welcome. (Salam alaykoom).

You will find a tremendous variety of views on this forum ranging from the thoughtful to the completely ridiculous.

IOW, you can try different ideas and see where they lead.

Most posters are usually respectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...