- This topic has 7 voices and 28 replies.
-
Posts
-
Installing a Western-style democracy in Iraq will not work, the culture is just too different.
Forgive me for saying this but your sentence is the height of "Western" arrogance.
How is recognizing a culture as different considered arrogance?
I would submit that 6th century Islam was more tolerant than present day Islam. Women were not so repressed and Muhammad ibn Abd Allah,(570-632) founder of the religion was influenced by and admired the Jews. In Arabia, he saw that the cohesive nature of the Christian and Jewish religions, living in exile in Arabia, made for a high functioning, productive society. He banishes idol worship from Mecca (many battles fought over this) and establishes the law of 'umma, that is all humans should live in corresponding unity. He tolerates any monotheistic religion, including what could could be considered cultism, so long as it meant a spiritual journey of the self. Islam was intended to be a quest for this level of peace, thus the phrase "religion of peace." I think the problem comes in with the directives put into place after Muhammad has died and the the rift develops, Shia-Sunni. Here we have ever more bitter disputes and more hardship imposed on Muslims, more seclusion from non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians.
Ski, what is "genuine" Islam? That is a question without an answer, somewhat in the vein of what is "genuine" Christianity.
Not to hijack, but "Genuine Islam" and "Genuine Christianity", in my humble opinion, are what exists without the corrupting influence of man... But I guess that rates its own thread.----Now, back to the topic... what we practice in the U.S. isn't true (or "genuine" ;D) democracy, and I think we all know that.I guess that, in order to advance this discussion where it might actually further our knowledge and understanding, we should define what we mean by "civilization". While there are numerous dictionaries out there, let's start here:CIVILIZATION: noun1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. 2. those people or nations that have reached such a state. 3. any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization. There are other definitions, but I think these might be most germane to our discussion.If we accept this definition, then civilizations are different based on different cultures, industry, and government.That leads us to one of the root issues in this discussion, "Western Civilization". So, back to the dictionary:WESTERN CIVILIZATION: noun - the modern culture of western Europe and North AmericaI guess we could modify this definition for Middle Eastern Civilization -- The modern culture of the Middle EastFor a different perspective, when Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he said he "...thought it would be a good idea"
Just a little backtracking here, when I say “genuine” Islam I mean the Islam that is not the extremist politics like we see today. Islam IS religion and politics, it cannot be separated. But there are those like the Taliban and al Qaeda who are not (what I consider) genuine Islam. They have abused it and use it for their political goals. Now back on topic: What's the definition of society?
The problem with any democracy in the Middle East is the refusal to separate religion from politics.
It's actually blanket statements like the one above that epitimise Edward Said's Orientalism framework.These statements also conveniently forget that the secular socialist moderate parties of the 1970s were all driven out by US interference, coups and assassinations, radicalising those that remained and driving them into the arms of radical Islam. Let's forget that Hamas began in the Islamic University of Gaza during the 1970s which was funded by Israel and used to polarise Palestinian society and divide and conquer the moderate and secular Fatah party.We conveniently forget that the US was shipping plain loads of Al Quaeda terrorists into the heart of Saraevo in 1999 to kill Serbs two years before they turned on them. We forget that they were arming them with stinger missiles to shoot down Russian planes in Afghanistan.
If we accept this definition, then civilizations are different based on different cultures, industry, and government.WESTERN CIVILIZATION: noun - the modern culture of western Europe and North America
I think there's a fine line between civilisation and nationalism. However I'm arguing that the pillars of civilisation - that had been erroenously atrributed solely to the West - such as law, maths, science, athletics, philosophy, democracy are universal concepts that evolved from nation to nation and empire to empire.
Hmm… interesting…. I'll have to cogitate on this one…In all of my studies, we have had it all tied by to Mesopotamia... but then come the examples of societies that developed with no contact from better known "civilizations" -- places such as Borneo and New Guinea.Like I said, I'll have to cogitate some....
The problem with any democracy in the Middle East is the refusal to separate religion from politics.
It's actually blanket statements like the one above that epitimise Edward Said's Orientalism framework.
You are missing my meaning. I am simply saying that Islam does not even recognize the concept that religion and politics should be separate. I am not, nor will I claim that the west or America is perfect. Your problme seems to be with the west, specifically America. What is the basis for this topic? Are you just trying to throw rocks at America/the west? It seems you are taking the easy and convenient path of blaming the troubles in the Middle east on the Great Satan. While this is easy, it does not present any solutions.
However I'm arguing that the pillars of civilisation - that had been erroenously atrributed solely to the West - such as law, maths, science, athletics, philosophy, democracy are universal concepts that evolved from nation to nation and empire to empire.
Who is saying this? Certainly nobody on this board. Neither I nor anyone else has claimed that Western civilisation sprung solely from the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. You made that assertion and then have tried to pick a fight. You then further started making the claim that all the current Problems in the Middle east are the fault of the west. What is it? Are you just a certified West hater? can you only see the bad in Western society while ignoring the abuses and injustices in the Middle East? That is certainly how you sound.I will give you that some good things have come out of Islam. They made advances in math, they even developed the numeral system in use worldwide. But equality has never been a hallmark of Islam or Islamic governments. I would posit that much more good has come out of Christianity than Islam, and we can go there if you so desire. The clash between East and West is hundreds, if not thousands of years old. Origins are irrelevant to the current debate if people are not willing to debate honestly, which you seem to fail to desire.I am also still waiting for an answer to this question.
At least in the west there are legitimate mechanisms to let the people's voice be heard. Is that the case in the Middle East as well?
We conveniently forget that the US was shipping plain loads of Al Quaeda terrorists into the heart of Saraevo in 1999 to kill Serbs two years before they turned on them.
This I have never heard and am not sure that I believe it. But this sounds like a typical outrageous claim. Where is the proof of this? I am certain if it were true the media would be all over it, especially the new York Times.
It is certainly true that Greece was partially influenced by the Persians and other peoples to their east, but the vast majority of Greek culture must be homegrown because their are few real antecedents until they showed up. I would bet that eastern influences were mostly limited to crops and some artistic methods. I am somewhat skeptical of artistic influences though because I have never seen any eastern art that even comes close to the realism of Greek or Roman sculpture.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017073.phpAbove link is from a conservative source but no civilized person could defend this "torture" makes waterboarding look like a cake walk.http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/09/iranian-youth-reject-islam-return-to-zoroastrianism.html Above link is representative of the students that I have met from the Middle East, look at the contrasthere. In Iran people under age 30 represent the largest demographic, their parents fought the war against Iraq and these young people embrace the West. In my veiw the reason for this can only be a rejection of theocracy.Good for them, I say they want a revolution.
would posit that much more good has come out of Christianity than Islam, and we can go
Thats a really odd statement. Shouldn't religious success be based on a feeling the person has about their relationship with their religion only? No religion does good, its people do good. People without religion do good too. But a religion did not create this country (America), People did.
would posit that much more good has come out of Christianity than Islam, and we can go
Thats a really odd statement. Shouldn't religious success be based on a feeling the person has about their relationship with their religion only? No religion does good, its people do good. People without religion do good too. But a religion did not create this country (America), People did.
Not what I was saying. I did not say Christianity or the church itself was good or did good. I was saying that Christian morals and ideals are much more tolerant and ethical than those of Islam. Yes, I am aware of the Inquisition and Witch burnings too. As far as I am aware there is no Muslim equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount to act as a guide for Muslims in their conduct towards others, nor is there a golden rule.The bottom line is that despite some elective bodies in Near eastern culture. The Greeks developed democracy to its highest form before the American Revolution and the founders of America used Greek models and not Babylonian models when writing the American Constitution.
I'm not really sure what is meant by the term Orientalist. Say all you want about ancient Mesopotamia, maybe the Hittites or Sumarians where democratic, I don't know enough about them to even take a guess, but the Persian Empire was certainly not democratic. And it was the Persian Empire, and not anyone else, who ruled from the Near and Middle East all the way to India.I have a problem with this:
As has been detailed above, contemporary scholarship, opinion and foreign policy regarding the issue of Middle Eastern democracy seems to ignore the ancient Near Eastern ancestry of this political system.
I don't disagree that the Ancient Greeks borrowed a lot from the Near East and Egypt. Even some forms of government were adopted. But what the author is ignoring is the fact that the rise of the Macedonian kingdoms marked the beginning of the end for the ancient Egyptian and Persian civilizations. The Seleucid Empire and its successors vastly changed the dynamics of the Middle East and Southwest Asia. If this is what Isakhan is referring to when he says Eurocentric, then he is wrong and is denial of reality. Any new forms of government that were introduced later in these areas at that time were greatly influenced or adapted to Hellenistic (or Western) culture. I will guess that this lasted until the Sassanid Empire and then Islam came about. The author often mentions Islam to justify his thesis and, in my opinion, he is wrogn because Islam is it's own entity that didn't stem from previous civilizations. Islam is culturally and religiously different than any of the ancient Mesopotamian kingdoms.
