Religion or more?

[BVulgaris]

I never said Mohammed created a peacefull revolution. He united the local tribes by force. His motives were humanitarian. His actions were not. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you would look at modern practicing muslims in Canada you would find a peaceful reform of islam.

As for inquisitions, they were religious courts that condemned people for deviations in the christian bleifs of the roman catholic demonination.
Anyone deviating from what the religious leaders dictated were brought before a court and often burned or murdered in various ways. This was how the protestants were kept under oppresive regimes for years. I would suggest that the same has happend to Muslim reformists. I would suggest that many leaders under the banner of islam as well as leaders under the banner of christ have waged wars and commited horrible atrocities.

As for the cycle of hatred I loosely refer to the fissure of the beliefs carried forward by Abraham. I consider Islam a kind of protestant branch off... not the best description but a similar situation. The cycle im talking about is where leaders throughout history such as Constantine who use religion as a method of state cohesion. The conversion to christianity allowed for him to better unite his countrymen as the majority religion was fast becomming christianity. He also later changed religious docterines such as enforcing Sunday laws which deviates from the original texts and beliefs. Many leaders used religion to gain power and unite countries. This often came at the expense of human life and horrible treatment of minority religions.

im not sure what you are claiming to be exculpatory... can you clarify what you mean in that last part of the sentence. ( i understand the word, just not how you are using it...) im guessing you mean that by my comment i am releasing those who are responsible for such hatred from such a label? sorry i think i dont understand you here. Clarify and i'll respond accordingly


As for this distortion of the relations between abrahamic religions, im not sure we are talking about the same historical time period or region. In Canada, i do not fear walking up to any muslim and asking to learn about their beliefs. I also do not think that a muslim has any fear to walk up to any other religious follower and ask the same.

On the point of Judaic conquest, i would point to the story of the invasion and conquest of Cannan. There are other examples.

On the topic of conquest to enforce various laws, i would suggest you look at the history of the inquisitions in europe dealing with the early Italian (roman) enforcement as well as spanish enforcement. Untill the late 60's and even in some places early 80's, places like Texas in the US have had what are called "Blue laws" that upheld christian laws dealing with the sabbath. Note not even comparable to how some countries enforce religious laws in the punnishments, but its the same line of thinking as well as character of action. (im not forgiving anyone who kills another for their religion).

As for the christianity abandoning any notion of conquest i would suggest you read the comments by the church after napoleon's imprisonment of the pope (and why he imprisoned him) as well as the recent message the pope sent to the G8 summit to mention that it is time for one world religion and one world government.

As for the last bit, most religions consider criticism of their beliefs blasphemy.

My question to you is, do you think islam is undergoing a reformation?

And do you beleive that muslims living in Canada or in all secular countries think this way?

[Homeownertoo]

I never said Mohammed created a peacefull revolution. He united the local tribes by force. His motives were humanitarian. His actions were not. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you would look at modern practicing muslims in Canada you would find a peaceful reform of islam.

First, a general observation or two: At least you've fleshed out some of your earlier postings. However, there is a thread running through your comments that compares Chritianity's at-times violent or coercive past with current Islamic practices. All that shows is that Christianity evolved, perhaps to a better appreciation of Christ's original message, while no such evolution toward moderation is evident in modern Islam. Some people question whether it is even possible, given the doctrinal and structural differences between the two, though I am not sufficiently informed to make such a judgment.

Anyway, I put no words in your mouth and a recognition of that fact would be appreciated. I simply pointed out that, contrary to what you said earlier, Islam's leaders did not "eventually" resort to violence, they wielded it from the start. It was the very basis for Islamic expansion in the first decades.

As for inquisitions, they were religious courts that condemned people for deviations in the christian bleifs of the roman catholic demonination. Anyone deviating from what the religious leaders dictated were brought before a court and often burned or murdered in various ways. This was how the protestants were kept under oppresive regimes for years. I would suggest that the same has happend to Muslim reformists. I would suggest that many leaders under the banner of islam as well as leaders under the banner of christ have waged wars and commited horrible atrocities.

The problem with this analysis is that you are lumping the inquisition, which was conceived as a corrective process that got brutally out of hand, with subsequent imperialist conquest under the banner of Christ. That atrocities were committed in the name of Christ and Mohammed is not the issue here. The issue is whether Islam is capable of putting aside the us-versus-them mentality that drives it to demand submission or dhimmification of subject peoples and extension of dar al Islam globally, at least where possible. The issue, in short, is the future, not the past.

As for the cycle of hatred I loosely refer to the fissure of the beliefs carried forward by Abraham. I consider Islam a kind of protestant branch off... not the best description but a similar situation. The cycle im talking about is where leaders throughout history such as Constantine who use religion as a method of state cohesion. The conversion to christianity allowed for him to better unite his countrymen as the majority religion was fast becomming christianity. He also later changed religious docterines such as enforcing Sunday laws which deviates from the original texts and beliefs. Many leaders used religion to gain power and unite countries. This often came at the expense of human life and horrible treatment of minority religions.

Your characterization of Constantine's efforts is alright but I'm not sure how it fits into the discussion. I saw your reference to a cycle of hatred as that between the three Abrahamic religions.

im not sure what you are claiming to be exculpatory... can you clarify what you mean in that last part of the sentence. ( i understand the word, just not how you are using it...) im guessing you mean that by my comment i am releasing those who are responsible for such hatred from such a label? sorry i think i dont understand you here. Clarify and i'll respond accordingly

This was in reference to the cycle of hatred as I noted above, and specifically to the animosity toward Jews that is deeply embedded within the teachings of Islam (which seems to be related to the original rejection of Mohammed's teachings by the Jews of Medina, whom he subsequently slaughtered), and the refusal to accept control of any part of dar al Islam by infidels (Jews). It's not the Jews of Israel who are keeping the cycle of hatred alive, nor the Christians of Europe who fear the introduction of sharia law in the land of the Enlightenment. It's not the Jews who keep the refugees of Partition in squalid camps as a tool with which to batter their enemies and refuse them citizenship or a normal life. By contrast, the Arabs of Israel are treated far more humanely by Jews than the refugees are by their own Arab brothers. That the cycle of hatred continues today is largely due to a Muslim mindset that rejects accommodation with other religions and non-muslim people within dar al Islam. Blame may not be exclusive to one religion but neither is it equally distributable. Denial of that is exculpatory of those who shoulder a disproportionate share of responsibility.

As for this distortion of the relations between abrahamic religions, im not sure we are talking about the same historical time period or region. In Canada, i do not fear walking up to any muslim and asking to learn about their beliefs. I also do not think that a muslim has any fear to walk up to any other religious follower and ask the same.

Nor do I. I was referring to the divide that has opened up between Christian and jewish societies influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and the essentially medieval mindset that informs so much of the Islamic world.

On the point of Judaic conquest, i would point to the story of the invasion and conquest of Cannan. There are other examples.

That's a bit of the historical stretch, even in a land of long memories. The Jews ended up with, and accepted with equanimity, far less land than was envisioned for them in the aftermath of the Ottoman empire. I think it's time to set the conquest of Caanan aside.

On the topic of conquest to enforce various laws, i would suggest you look at the history of the inquisitions in europe dealing with the early Italian (roman) enforcement as well as spanish enforcement. Untill the late 60's and even in some places early 80's, places like Texas in the US have had what are called "Blue laws" that upheld christian laws dealing with the sabbath. Note not even comparable to how some countries enforce religious laws in the punnishments, but its the same line of thinking as well as character of action. (im not forgiving anyone who kills another for their religion).

I'm sure both you and I would rather face the inquisitorial nature of Texan Christians than the tender mercies of a sharia court.

As for the christianity abandoning any notion of conquest i would suggest you read the comments by the church after napoleon's imprisonment of the pope (and why he imprisoned him) as well as the recent message the pope sent to the G8 summit to mention that it is time for one world religion and one world government.

I think you should be complimented on your vivid imagination.

As for the last bit, most religions consider criticism of their beliefs blasphemy.

Most religions don't have the state aparatus at their disposal to enforce punishments of blasphemy. What is happening today in the Netherlands is a disgrace, but common practice in the Muslim world.

My question to you is, do you think islam is undergoing a reformation?

It has had its reformation, but it did not involve a moderation of Islamic thinking. It went the other way.

And do you beleive that muslims living in Canada or in all secular countries think this way?

Which muslims? CAIR or the Muslim Canadian Congress?

[BVulgaris]

My commentary on muslim leaders had more to do with rule of the islamic empire post mohammed, though i agree i was very very loose with my interpretation. However i would like to point out that even Jesus's deciples were quick to unsheath their swords. My main point around this is in any religion you can find similar negative elements in its history or modern practice. I agree that Islam at this point and time is in the spotlight as a large portion of the world has not evolved to allow for more tolorant practices to form. I however must point out that anyone going around questioning moderate muslim national loyalties (i am not accusing you of this), needs to take a serious look at the whole world in perspective. There is a stark difference between the practicing muslim next door and the shariah courts elsewhere.

I comment about christianity because it had undergone such an upheval where the populous became
so fed up that in some cases such as Napolian, priests were executed! There have been changes in the dogmas of islam and many practicing muslims that i know are not violent nor feel they must spread thier own religion more than answering questions from those who are curious.

As for the inquisitions, yes there were catagorialy 4. I didnt feel like going into them in detail. Most were church run, but there were inquisition periods in countries where they were state enforced, and some where state and church enforced. The issue is that other religions have had periods of time where they went through the same deviations from the original teachings, and in some cases in leiu of better practices.

I have found some references to interpretations that possibly promote this dar al islam view, the conquest is better called dar al-Harb, is an interpretation that does not directly come from the Quran. This goes along with the extreme jihadi views that originally came from Saudi interpretations. Have you ever read of Sayyid Qutb?


The example of constantine was to show that there is a pattern through history of leaders of countrys using religion to futher their own policies.

The rejection of teachings by mohammed has more detail than what you give it. Some interpret mohammed's actions as a protestant branchoff. His unification of tribes and states by the sword is also not singled out in history as the Mongols did pretty much the exact same thing.

I dont have the time to lament the story of mohammed's conquest but in many cases he spared the population where tradition would state that conquest requires a "great revenge" where the people of a conquored town are systematically slaughtered. instead he asked them to joinj or die (which i agree isnt much better). there is a long detailed history of his conquest which i dont wish to get into just yet (maybe tonight if theres time). i dont agree with what he did but i feel that just saying that Islam is against Jews i believe is wrong. It is usually the interpretation of the leaders, but i agree not in all instances.

As for the comments on how Isreal is treating the Palestinians, i will not comment on this subject further here because it requires a full discussion in a separate thread. And i dont have the time to bring forward the sources. suffice it to say that i agree with Noam Chomsky on issues relating to the Isreal Palestine issue.

btw, i am not saying that they are all equally to blame, but there is a history of hypocrites casting stones back and forth. Also again, dar al harb is an interpretation that is not universally followed except by more extremist versions of islam.

The point about Caanan was just to comment that all have commited this crime, though to different degrees.

As for the texans, i dunno.... now adays i think i can argue with a muslim extremist at the point of a gun better than i can some southern texans.

As for the muslim communities, both. As well as muslims that do not attribute themselves to interest groups.

[Homeownertoo]

... i would like to point out that even Jesus's deciples were quick to unsheath their swords.

Even disciples of Buddha have been known to do so, if you figure that one. The point though is not what Mohammed's followers did (unless they were acting in strict adherence to his teachings), it is what M himself did. It is beyond question that this was a leader with a lot of blood on his hands; the same cannot be said of Jesus or his teachings.

There is a stark difference between the practicing muslim next door and the shariah courts elsewhere.

Yes, the practicing muslim next door is not necessarily practicing sharia, certainly not in his wider community. He is not the problem.

I comment about christianity because it had undergone such an upheval where the populous became so fed up that in some cases such as Napolian, priests were executed!

Your characterization of Napoleon's actions are somewhat ahistorical. He was acting in the aftermath of the French revolution where anti-catholicism was a potent mix of populist antipathy as you note and ideological hatred toward all things religious, the roots of which lay in philosophy, not anti-Christian sentiment. An interesting topic of its own but not relevant here.

There have been changes in the dogmas of islam and many practicing muslims that i know are not violent nor feel they must spread thier own religion more than answering questions from those who are curious.

Yes, but not relevant. What characterized Catholicism during the Inquisition was not the sentiments of the peasant in the field but the church hierarchy that felt threatened by reform movements. What characterizes Islam today is not the moderate fellow working at the next desk but the fundamentalists and jihadists who are driving it into conflict with their neighbours.

As for the inquisitions ... the issue is that other religions have had periods of time where they went through the same deviations from the original teachings, and in some cases in leiu of better practices.

But who is deviating from practice in Islam today -- the moderates who seem to find it so difficult to gain official support or the fundamentalists who have no problem finding koranic support for their actions? You are also forgetting the point that Islam has no equivalent of a clerical hierarchy that determines church law and practice. Every muslim has an equal right to interpret the koran and issue fatwas as he sees fit -- actually more akin to the original teaching of Jesus that held everyone has a personal relationship with god and can find persoanl salvation through him. It was Christianity that created the church hierarchy that is so distinctive from Islam.

I have found some references to interpretations that possibly promote this dar al islam view, the conquest is better called dar al-Harb, is an interpretation that does not directly come from the Quran. This goes along with the extreme jihadi views that originally came from Saudi interpretations. Have you ever read of Sayyid Qutb?

Not directly, though I'm somewhat familiar with his writings. Yes, such a concept is very amenable to a fundamentalist interpretation and, worse, an acrimonious relationship with non-muslims.

The rejection of teachings by mohammed has more detail than what you give it. Some interpret mohammed's actions as a protestant branchoff. His unification of tribes and states by the sword is also not singled out in history as the Mongols did pretty much the exact same thing.

But not in the name of religion.

i feel that just saying that Islam is against Jews i believe is wrong. It is usually the interpretation of the leaders, but i agree not in all instances.

It would require a reformation of a sort to remove that stigmatization of Jews, much as Christians, and particularly Catholics, have had to struggle over the past century with their relationship to the Jews and come to an understanding that doesn't blame them for Christ's crucifixion. I don't see this happening anywhere in the Islamic world. In fact, relations between Jews and muslims has deteriorated ove the past several decades.

As for the comments on how Isreal is treating the Palestinians, i will not comment on this subject further here because it requires a full discussion in a separate thread. And i dont have the time to bring forward the sources. suffice it to say that i agree with Noam Chomsky on issues relating to the Isreal Palestine issue.

And suffice to say I don't.

As for the texans, i dunno.... now adays i think i can argue with a muslim extremist at the point of a gun better than i can some southern texans.

Texans like their guns.

As for the muslim communities, both. As well as muslims that do not attribute themselves to interest groups.

I don't see much ground for optimism today in dealings with CAIR. They seem to be confrontational with secular society, including their moderate brethren at MAA.

[BVulgaris]

i think few in history can be paralelled to the person Jesus was.

As for Napleon i feel it had more to do with the structure of political influence the church had all through europe as well as their financial manipulations. Yes there was an anti religious movement, but this was i feel more against the organizations of religion rather than religion itself. church and state separate for ever, that was the main movement (i'll try to set some time aside to delve into it further).

The fundamentalists have no shortage of reasons why the west should be destroyed. We've given quite a few reasons to see the west as a threat. The fact is the harder we push military actions the more financial backing the opposition gets. Any conflict is always exploited on both sides for many many reasons. As for "Koranic support", extreme christians have taken incredible liberties with the interpretation of the bible for years. Protestant and Catholic groups in europe have caused their fair share of terrorsim as well modern and ancient.

as for the mongolians, yes they did. It was for the Sky Kahn that they did these things. The leader was a religious ruler, infact a god. Also remember that in england the king is the head of the anglican church, also remember that the King louis (a number of them) called themselves the Sun king! Leaders have allways tried their hand at devine rule.

for the last point, im more interested in what the common muslim in Canada thinks. Interest groups are rather concentrated beurocracies of money and idealisms that favor a codified way of thinking. But as we have established, the muslim next door is not part of the issue.

[BVulgaris]

A few side notes,

Cyrus the great attempted to free the jews from slavery in his area of rule. Dont know if thats relevant to jewish relations in the middle east as that was so long ago. As for more recent actions i dont know. Isreal's rebirth has made it a sitting target for extremists. I still wonder what would have happened if the US or Brittain set aside a chunk of their own countries post ww2. Maybe because its not the holy city which is sought after by the children of abraham.

As for the question of clerical heiarchy for Islam. There is one. And it did regulate and set laws like the catholic church. Infact there are some questions as to the influence M's wife and chrisian cousin had on the emerging structure. The idea that every muslim has the right to interpret the koran (quran) has been restricted in the past and usually followed the interpretation of the Imum. Now, if you are saying that there is mechanism of talking to god, no there is no heiarchy. You pray to god and talk to him personally. You do not need to talk to a preist, bishop, or head leader like the pope. But there is most definately a heiarchy of power in the religion.

I would also point to the Roman Catholic church's attempts at "colonization" in north america as well as its administrative attempts to take natives away from their homes and put them into schools that committed sins that any member of any religion would object to. (my point there being that followers of religions dont allways follow what is taught, and that goes for the leaders of such actions). Or more recently, there are christians on the ground who are refusing to give aid to hatians who do not convert (this is not the majority by any means, these are what i consider christian extremists). (this is in response to the evolution of christian organizations to something better).

Last point, i think the us-vs-them mentality is universal. The US has a HUGE complex with this issue as does the majority of the western world.

btw thank you for the dialogue and your time,
tell me what you think!

[Homeownertoo]

Isreal's rebirth has made it a sitting target for extremists. I still wonder what would have happened if the US or Brittain set aside a chunk of their own countries post ww2. Maybe because its not the holy city which is sought after by the children of abraham.

You make the common mistake of thinking that the choice of Palestine as a homeland for the Jews was largely an arbitrary decision by foreign powers. Not so. First, it was the choice of the Jews, for nearly 2,000 years in Jewish culture and, more important, as the nexus of the zionist project for 60 years. Second, it was conceived by those foreign powers (and the Jews) as a homeland for the more than one million Jews who inhabited not only Palestine but the entire Arab world at the time but who were not particularly welcome in the Arab world. Their presence and right to be there was an undeniable fact. The creation of Israel simply gave this fact political form in the form of a small parcel of land they could call their own -- as the creation of the various Arab nations gave political form to the various Arabic peoples there.

... there is most definately a heiarchy of power in the religion.

Yes, but there are substantive distinctions I will return to at a later time.

I would also point to the Roman Catholic church's attempts at "colonization" in north america as well as its administrative attempts to take natives away from their homes and put them into schools that committed sins that any member of any religion would object to.

Outside of Quebec, the Catholic church had little political influence or role, certainly nothing like the role Islam plays in any muslim country. And the church did not take natives away from their homes. They acted under the authority and direction of the federal gov't to provide educational (and assimilationist) facilities that were determined at the political, not the sectarian, level. In other words, this was a political project in which the church played the role of junior partner. And the results, while hardly an unblemished success and open to criticism, have been trivialized and smeared in the name of post-modern political correctness and with the benefit of hindsight.

Last point, i think the us-vs-them mentality is universal. The US has a HUGE complex with this issue as does the majority of the western world.

I don't accept that premise, certainly not in 2010. But what I meant by an us-versus-them mentality is the oft-repeated assertion by muslim clerics that Islam, far from being a religion of the individual's relationship with God, is a creed that advocates the submission of non-believers to itself and the dhimmification of infidels worldwide, in due time of course.

I rest this case on this forum's opening statement by Wafa Sultan, that "Islam is both a religion and a state, and to be a true Muslim you must believe in Islam as both religion and state. A true Muslim does not acknowledge the U.S. Constitution, and his willingness to live under that constitution is, as far as he is concerned, nothing more than an unavoidable step on the way to the constitution’s replacement by Islamic Sharia law."

This is, I suggest, an us-versus-them mentality without parallel in the world.

[BVulgaris]

Im sorry but i have to disagree with you on the point of what i consider extremist interpretations being a global view. I completely disagree with Wafa Sultan on this point specifically.

I would call forward the election of the pan malaysian islamic party. An enforcement of their interpretation of islamic laws left numerous amputees that could not work as a direct result of state enforced punnishments from these religious edicts. The people did not support these elected leaders and there are many reports of possible rigging of the elections. Many in the population dont wish to speak out against the government openly there because of the deathsquads that come in the night. Singapore (directly south) is an example where foreign influences (mainly chinese) have worked hand in hand with the locals to help them create an atmosphere of secular freedoms. Note this is at a cost as they are a dictatorship, in some cases born out of the need to keep influences in that area of the world at bay(right next to the triangle drug trade). They also have a strong military program that every citizen must go through. The training has allot to do with how to live a healthy life and take care of your finances as well as how to survive and respond in situations of national crisis. The city also has a policy of making sure every citizen has the ability to work, a place to live, and food to eat. They are a small citystate and so are able to do so. This results in secular loyalties to the state because they allow freedoms of religion, and a well invested life. Dont get me wrong, there are things the government does in Singapore that i dont agree with at all. Its not all sunshine and lollipops over there, and i do beleive we are lucky to live in such a free country.

As for the post ww2 decision, it was up to the foreign powers to "ok" and seal the deal. It would be understandable that the population would wish to take control of the holy land rather than areas set aside in the US or England. However this offended the very people who helped combat axis powers and supplied a vital resource. The saudi's especially felt a level of betrayal due to brittish and american dealings with oil trades (they traded, roughly, a barrel of oil for the price of a barrel of sand). The decision for the creation of a jewish state on top of this did not help to quell mounting distrust of the west.

[Homeownertoo]

As for the post ww2 decision, it was up to the foreign powers to "ok" and seal the deal. It would be understandable that the population would wish to take control of the holy land rather than areas set aside in the US or England. However this offended the very people who helped combat axis powers and supplied a vital resource.

You may disagree with Sultan but you don't say why, and I can't make head nor tail out of the point of your references to Malaysia (which has grown increasingly fundamentalist since I first visited it in 1986, or Singapore, which is a bit much to label a dictatorship.

You ignore the right of Jews, despite their numbers, to any process of self-determination in their homeland -- the mideast, and instead construe this as some kind of confiscation of Arab land. It was Ottoman land occupied by a variety of peoples of various religions, of which the overwhelmingly largest group were Arabs. The creation of the various nations, including, belatedly, Israel, was a recognition that these peoples deserved their own homelands. Even though Trans-Jordan had been envisaged as the homeland of the Palestinians, the Jews, under pressure from the West, also ceded any claim to the Westbank, and it is only Arab intransigence since Partition that has denied its residents a viable homeland. It is also only Arabs who demand 'racial' purity of their citizens, making refugees of hundreds of thousands of their Jewish residents, while Israel accords greater rights to its Arab countrymen than they have in any Arab state. I realize this particular topic belongs in another forum, and so will stop here.

How you can construe the Arabs as allies of Britain during WW2 is beyond understanding. The Mufti of Jerusalem was a guest of Hitler in Berlin, where together they plotted the extension of the Final Solution to the Mideast's Jewish population. In Iraq, the Arabs openly sided with Nazi infiltrators who were, barely, beaten back by thinly stretched British and Indian troops. Did any Arab troops support that Allied campaign? To my knowledge, Arab troops played no role in the British campaigns against Rommel in North Africa.

But don't take my word for this. Here's an excerpt from the website of the respected German magazine Der Spiegel:

"Recently published research by two Stuttgart-based historians, Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, claims that Hitler had worked out plans to extend the Holocaust to the Middle East, and that the Nazis had forged an alliance with Arab nationalists who wanted to drive the Jewish refugees out of Palestine -- a murderous version of German-Arab friendship founded on common hatred of Jews. Jews living in the Middle East were petrified by Rommel's victories.

"'Those fighting Jewry can always rely on the sympathy of the Arab population,' the German army general staff wrote in an information booklet to prepare troops for the conquest of Palestine.

"Hitler was celebrated in large parts of the Arab world, and some newspapers even likened him to the Prophet. The Desert Fox was almost as popular as Hitler. "Heil Rommel" was a common greeting in Arab countries.

"Adolf Hitler assured the exiled Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, at a meeting in Berlin in November 1941 that his goal was the "destruction of Jewry living in Arabia."

"Hitler also provided the Mufti, who later sponsored Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, with a budget of 750,000 Reichsmark per month to foment Jihad in Palestine. In an example of ideological flexibility, the SS even recruited Muslim volunteers and declared that the Muslims living in the Balkans belonged to the "racially valuable" peoples of Europe."[/i]

[westsidebud]

hometo give it up, like i said all your trying to do is justify a war on muslims.

if it was up to me id go back to the creation of isreal and say no one step out of these borders

[westsidebud]

You ignore the right of Jews

you ignore the right of everyone that is not a jew

[BVulgaris]

I suggest you read up on the history of Singapore as its technical description of its government is that of a dictatorship. This is also the description of a citizen of Singapore who visits yearly and has parents still living there.

Malaysia is considered an extremist country and its citizens are wishing it wasnt and are angry that officials that would rather uphold the laws of religion which resulted in many people not being able to work because they are now minus one hand, instead of allowing secular rule that has brought investors and allowed Singapore to flourish. (I have worked on a number of projects with the Keppel Fels corp. for offshore oil production in Singapore).

As for land being taken away from those in the jordan region, were any of the occupants allowed in this decision? You seem to feel it is the right of a people to get their land they lost in the past back after they've suffered great atrocities at the hands of people in the present. If this were applied to everyone globally we should be handing north america back to the natives to rule in a secular manner. I agree maybe this should be a separate thread as it in itself is a leviathan of literature and discussion which could muddle the current topics. (and no, i would suggest racial purity is not the issue and i know there are prejudices on both sides, and i am aware of the wars that followed to get isreal back, this is what started the west using isreal as a middle east shield/weapon/excuse. win win if you ask me on that side of the equation).

In 1938 Ibn Saud agreed to allow american and brittish oil companies (may have just been the americans though) to develop the industry in Saudi Arabia. The trade ended up being a barrel of oil for the price of a barrel of sand. Without this source of oil the war would have been very hard to conduct. The whole war anchored on the fact that both sides needed fuel for their new warmachines. Had hitler made the agreement with ibn saud we may be talking german today. Oil was the key to winning that war. (i suggest the book "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin).

I also suggest that Arabs is being used loosely here. I was originally talking about the Saudi's. Also the location where radical islam was born. Ibn Saud originally made the oil development agreement because the US was so far away that in bedowin culture, it was the best trade partner to have as they would not "encroach" on the saudi's borders wanting to invade. After world war 2 Ibn saud was not so sure of american and brittish intent. His son King Faisal would continue this skeptical oppinion that the west wanted their oil so bad they would take it by force one day.

I will however look into the topic of other islamic countries supporting hitler's policies.
I would also like to point out that many American and brittish investments went into hitler's campaigns. Dutch Shell, run by a Henri Deterding, not only successfully donated to hitler's cause but also tried to give them oil on credit. It was the action of credit that got him booted from his position.

[Homeownertoo]

You seem to feel it is the right of a people to get their land they lost in the past back after they've suffered great atrocities at the hands of people in the present.

I really wish you would read what I wrote rather than what you wished I had written. My reasoning made no mention and had nothing to do with the Holocaust. I have only so much patience with people who put words in my mouth.

In 1938 Ibn Saud agreed to allow american and brittish oil companies (may have just been the americans though) to develop the industry in Saudi Arabia.

And what was the oil worth to Ibn Saud without development and buyers? About a barrel of sand. He got the best deal on offer at the time, and you have a peculiarly naive view of politics if you imagine the British or Americans would have let Saud put his oil resources into the hands of the nazis in 1938, or let him prevent them from halting the Nazi rampage through Europe, North Africa and the mideast. There was more at stake than the sovereignty of a sheik.

I also suggest that Arabs is being used loosely here. I was originally talking about the Saudi's. Also the location where radical islam was born. Ibn Saud originally made the oil development agreement because the US was so far away that in bedowin culture, it was the best trade partner to have as they would not "encroach" on the saudi's borders wanting to invade. After world war 2 Ibn saud was not so sure of american and brittish intent. His son King Faisal would continue this skeptical oppinion that the west wanted their oil so bad they would take it by force one day.

I don't see how the Saudi's oil deals with the West relates to the original posting or anything I've written since. I only responded because you didn't make clear that your were talking about the Saudis.

I would also like to point out that many American and brittish investments went into hitler's campaigns.

Here you illustrate less your knowledge of international capital investment than your lack of such knowledge. Hence, this 'fact' does not merit a direct response and I can only hope you will understand why. Here's a hint. All facts require context. Ignoring context (on several levels in this instance) leads you into making such egregious errors. I assume a basic level of competency from those with whom I discuss things. I think you qualify but slipped up here.

[Homeownertoo]

You ignore the right of Jews

you ignore the right of everyone that is not a jew

Perhaps there are some forums here more suitable to your limited wit and knowledge. I recommend you seek them out and inflict what minor capacity you have for such on those forums, and leave the serious topics to people more capable of making a contribution. Operating within your limits might even enable you to develop some capacity for self-awareness.

[BVulgaris]

I really wish you would read what I wrote rather than what you wished I had written. My reasoning made no mention and had nothing to do with the Holocaust. I have only so much patience with people who put words in my mouth.

Response: i appologise if that is what i did. I retract my statement. What did you mean?

And what was the oil worth to Ibn Saud without development and buyers? About a barrel of sand. He got the best deal on offer at the time, and you have a peculiarly naive view of politics if you imagine the British or Americans would have let Saud put his oil resources into the hands of the nazis in 1938, or let him prevent them from halting the Nazi rampage through Europe, North Africa and the mideast. There was more at stake than the sovereignty of a sheik.

Response: Acctualy the skepticism was that of king Fiasel as he was very crafty in bringing in the things of the west and not the ways of the west. Shortly after development of the industry it became very obvious they had signed an unfair deal. There was much to learn about american business diplomacy.

Acctualy, i do think the oil resources were a very important part of the war and without it there could have been very drastic results.

I don't see how the Saudi's oil deals with the West relates to the original posting or anything I've written since. I only responded because you didn't make clear that your were talking about the Saudis.

Response: Acctualy, the oil deal, the re-creation of isreal, etc. have quite a bit to do with the mounting distrust of the west in the middle east as well as in asia.

As for the brittish and american investments, yes there were germans abroad that helped to fund hitler's war. There were also non germans. Please point out what i have wrongly claimed here. You are hinting that you know something that i may not, or a viewpoint that i disagree with. So out with it please.

Perhaps there are some forums here more suitable to your limited wit and knowledge. I recommend you seek them out and inflict what minor capacity you have for such on those forums, and leave the serious topics to people more capable of making a contribution. Operating within your limits might even enable you to develop some capacity for self-awareness.

Response: lets not be harsh in this place of discussion and learning pls.