Oppressive rule of Islam based on American diplomatic history

[rpp]

The idea that America and it’s policies, is somehow responsible for the policies of Islamic countries is worse than silly. It demonstrates an ignorance of history so breathtaking that it can only be motivated by the worst possible potentials of human nature.

The fact that these people fly airplanes into building does nothing except support this statement.

Moslem countries rely on laws and a political a system derived from a book that was written more than 1100 years before the American Declaration of Independence was penned by Thomas Jefferson and signed by the continental congress. In order to blame America such people must also be believe in time travel.

Still other consider it a badge of honor when they can get people to hate them. That is why they try to provoke Americans. Such people are so blinded by their religion that they have become mentally ill.

I hate no one. Not even those who insult me. Even those who would try to kill me. However, that does not mean that I trust them.

 

[Sister_Amy]

The idea that America and it’s policies, is somehow responsible for the policies of Islamic countries is worse than silly. It demonstrates an ignorance of history so breathtaking that it can only be motivated by the worst possible potentials of human nature.

Mm-hmm. What’s happening in Iraq has nothing to do with America, does it?

Moslem countries rely on laws and a political a system derived from a book that was written more than 1100 years before the American Declaration of Independence was penned by Thomas Jefferson and signed by the continental congress. In order to blame America such people must also be believe in time travel.

Muslim countries have laws derived not only from Islam–but also from English law and French law as many were colonies or governed by European nations. And the behavior of those Muslim governments has more to do with international politics than religion–and international politics are dominated by the United States.

I hate no one. Not even those who insult me. Even those who would try to kill me. However, that does not mean that I trust them.

It’s okay, I don’t hate you either. Or trust you.

 

[BeeSweet]

I would like to participate in a thread about US Diplomatic history (and you seem to be very informed on the topic!) but I’m really afraid that this thread is making me look pretty anti-American right now.

I know virtually nothing about American diplomacy with the middle east, but I want to know more. I don’t get the impression that you are anti-American. I love my country, I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, but not because we have never made any mistakes or stepped on any toes around the world (check out the story of Commodore Perry “negotiating” trade agreements with Japan in 1853). A fact is a fact, the truth is the truth. I don’t see any reason to hide from any of it.

An easy example is Iran–the USA reinstated the Shah in 1953, which allowed for a wave to build up in Iran that allowed some very extreme religious authorities to take hold in the revolution.

Was the US involved? Yes. Was it to blame? NO!! And neither is Islam.

That is exactly the sort of answer I am looking for, something specific and verifiable. Thank you for that. This was an American CIA orchestrated coup d’etat. It was something that had more to do with the Soviet Union and the cold war than it did with Iran, Iran happened to be the unlucky sport caught in the middle. Now, we can’t take full responsibility for how the Iranian people eventually dealt with the problems we caused, but we can own partial responsibility for meddling as we did.

Any other examples would be appreciated, including anything you may know about how the state of Israel was established. Touchy subject… I know.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

As an American, I’d be the first to tell you we are far from perfect, especially as it relates to international diplomacy. I am very interested to know what the Islamic states think we’ve done diplomatically which has led to the reaction we’ve seen.

Support for Israel, propping up dictatorships in the Middle East after WWII, the invasion of Iraq?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Hmm, just a gentle (name removed by moderator)ut on my part. What about British diplomacy? The Germans in Turkey? The French in Lebanon? If I’m not mistaken these countries set the tone for that which American diplomats stepped into. The British alone had immeasureable (name removed by moderator)ut in the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent and for a far larger period of time.

very, very true, and I regret that I don’t put America’s role in the proper and more fair context more often

 

[Sister_Amy]

The USA actually played only a very small role in the creation of the state of Israel. It had more to do with the UK as a superpower, and of course the Zionist Movement. It wasn’t really until the 60s that a “special relationship” develops between the USA and Israel. It is true that Truman did recognize the state of Israel which made it official… and that made some people very unhappy. If you want to read how Truman agonized over that decision (before making it) I have some links to documents online. How he went against the State Department and how Clark Clifford was on his side… documents. On the other hand, the USA has taken over the major role of supporting Israel since the 60s or 70s.

US policy in the late 40s, the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, and even the 80’s had a common theme… it was the Cold War, so containing the Soviet Union was the mainstay. The Middle East was a turbulent area for that time, and the choices of which governments to support were not necessarily the most ethical. We would support governments that supported us, basically. We didn’t want them to buy guns from Moscow and if they did we would arm their enemy unless they liked us and changed to buy weapons from us instead.

With the Third World coming of age, it’s only natural for superpowers to influence their leadership. And for governments who would show support for America, some of the gravest crimes against humanity would be tolerated. I mean, just look at South Africa–we were allies with South Africa so we tolerated apartheid!

Islam is not so evil, but the Cold War wasn’t so cold in the Middle East, and that’s when many of the current policies for that region hardened, and governments began to stabilize. And when I look at the Muslim governments… why are people like Musharraf and Mubarak in power? I mean, these guys… it’s really awful what they do, but yet they enjoy the support of the sole world superpower. I think that after Israel, the largest recipient of American aid is Egypt, and who knows what kind of a deal Pakistan is getting, with their crucial role in the war in Afghanistan.

If you’d like to talk about US Relations with the Middle East during the Cold War, I can recommend some good books and hopefully maintain a fair discussion on the subject. I am American and I love America–I love that I can for the most part freely practice my religion here. I’m also planning to move overseas soon so I think it’s important to know what’s going on in the world.

 

[BeeSweet]

Support for Israel…

General support for Israel since they’re already there is not necessarily a problem, how we do it can be problematic, and the history of the establishment of the state of Israel in my opinion is extremely problematic.

…propping up dictatorships in the Middle East after WWII…

These are the specifics of which I need to know more.

the invasion of Iraq?

Probably would have never happened were it not for previous interference.

It’s quite unfortunate that my education in history basically stopped at World War II. Both in high school (public) and in college (state university). True, I could have probably taken more classes, but I was a music major, and school is expensive. The US was not a super power until after WWII, so it’s just ridiculous that we spent more time on Roanoke Island than we did on post WWII diplomacy. Sure there are reasons, but the outcome is an uninformed populace, and a voting one at that.

 

[BeeSweet]

The USA actually played only a very small role in the creation of the state of Israel. It had more to do with the UK as a superpower, and of course the Zionist Movement. It wasn’t really until the 60s that a “special relationship” develops between the USA and Israel. It is true that Truman did recognize the state of Israel which made it official… and that made some people very unhappy. If you want to read how Truman agonized over that decision (before making it) I have some links to documents online. How he went against the State Department and how Clark Clifford was on his side… documents. On the other hand, the USA has taken over the major role of supporting Israel since the 60s or 70s.

US policy in the late 40s, the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, and even the 80’s had a common theme… it was the Cold War, so containing the Soviet Union was the mainstay. The Middle East was a turbulent area for that time, and the choices of which governments to support were not necessarily the most ethical. We would support governments that supported us, basically. We didn’t want them to buy guns from Moscow and if they did we would arm their enemy unless they liked us and changed to buy weapons from us instead.

With the Third World coming of age, it’s only natural for superpowers to influence their leadership. And for governments who would show support for America, some of the gravest crimes against humanity would be tolerated. I mean, just look at South Africa–we were allies with South Africa so we tolerated apartheid!

Islam is not so evil, but the Cold War wasn’t so cold in the Middle East, and that’s when many of the current policies for that region hardened, and governments began to stabilize. And when I look at the Muslim governments… why are people like Musharraf and Mubarak in power? I mean, these guys… it’s really awful what they do, but yet they enjoy the support of the sole world superpower. I think that after Israel, the largest recipient of American aid is Egypt, and who knows what kind of a deal Pakistan is getting, with their crucial role in the war in Afghanistan.

If you’d like to talk about US Relations with the Middle East during the Cold War, I can recommend some good books and hopefully maintain a fair discussion on the subject. I am American and I love America–I love that I can for the most part freely practice my religion here. I’m also planning to move overseas soon so I think it’s important to know what’s going on in the world.

Thank you, I would love to have a reading list especially as it relates to US mid east relations during the Cold War. I’ve been meaning to look at Edward Said’s Orientalism for a few years (which I believe goes far beyond the Cold War, commenting on European colonization of the mid east).

It’s absolutely imperative if we are to maintain a civil mid-east / west dialog that the “veil of the temple be torn in two” so to speak. We can’t understand real time without an honest look at the past.

Now, this next question may be difficult for you to provide an unbiased answer, but I wonder of your opinion, and if you have any insight on the Islamic community’s opinion as a whole: The Islamic faith has interwoven politics and religion with the leaders of the faith being both spiritual and temporal leaders (caliphs as the successors of Muhammad, who was a political leader as well as a spiritual leader). Is there anything that can be done to separate church from state in Islam, or is political control an integral part of practicing the faith? Furthermore, in your opinion do most Muslims find the entanglement of faith and politics a necessity, or a regrettable complication?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Here is an interesting article, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy, which is worth a read if you’re interested in the subject.

The West is in love with “separation of church and state.” It’s a fundamental (or used to be) mainstay of American outlook and policy-making. The idea is really that the government does not act as religious authority, or carry any religious mandate. The leader of the church is not the leader of the government. That sort of thing.

In Islam, or more specifically Sunni Islam (because Shi’aism is slightly different) there is no religious hierarchy. Catholicism for example has a hierarchy, right? With priests and bishops and so on up to the Pope. This does not exist in Islam–there is no “head of mosque” so to speak, no single leader who is supposed to have divine authority in the religion. There is nobody in Islam who can speak on behalf of God. So even a leader of government is not an ultimate religious authority.

So it’s not quite a mix of politics and religion that Western nations have been trying so hard to avoid–they don’t want religion forced on them. The Qur’an says that religion can’t be forced. It’s just that Islam is a complete way of life–not just beliefs and worship practices. So part of Islam is guidelines for an authority. So what if a person is not Muslim? Not all the laws apply to him. In fact, other religious communities (non-Muslim) are allowed to use their own laws to govern them.

So, imagine some proper Muslim nation–there is a government authority, but it does not make the rules of the religion. Religious rulings are reserved for scholars and judges who, rather than being appointed by and responsible to the government, are independent religious authorities, based on their own qualifications. Suppose there is a Catholic community inside the Muslim nation–the government is not supposed to impose any spiritual/religious obligations on them (like fulfilling the pillars of Islam), nor impose Islamic law on them. They are allowed to rule by their own law, worship without interference.

No such Muslim nation exists like this today, I know, but that is what proper adherance to islamic law would look like. It’s not a problem for Muslims that government is part of their way of life.

I think the problem is for religious people in the West, who are forced to prefer a secular government which conflicts with their own religious obligations, and don’t have a system of government as a aprt of their religion.

 

[Swan]

Mm-hmm. What’s happening in Iraq has nothing to do with America, does it?

Muslim countries have laws derived not only from Islam–but also from English law and French law as many were colonies or governed by European nations. And the behavior of those Muslim governments has more to do with international politics than religion–and international politics are dominated by the United States.

It’s okay, I don’t hate you either. Or trust you.

Sister Amy, you are correct and I for one welcome your (name removed by moderator)ut into this forum. The Iran example is perfect. The democratically elected government of Iran chose to nationalize their oil industry, thus cutting out American Big Oil - so the CIA backed the overthrow of this democratically elected government and put in the Shah - a puppet of the US whose human rights abuses and totalitarian regiem led to the conditions in which radical Islam sprang and flourished.

The European powers, and espeically the British, carved up the Middle East after WW1 with no regard to the feelings, wishes, and cultures of the people living there, leading to many of the problems we see today. All of this was done for selfish, short-sighted reasons which have turned out to have tragic consequences. And I’m not even going to get started on the Israel issue.

The point is, that the foreign policy decisions made by the US often foster feelings of distrust and even hatred among the peoples they affect most directly, peoples we in the US generally think very little about. Indeed, our policies in Latin America are similarily misguided. Pinochet in Chile is just one example of how the US plays ball with any regieme that will go along with us regardless of their human rights policies to their own people - yet we constantly wave the banner of democracy (as we have in Iraq). It makes us look somewhat hypocritcal, to say the least.

 

[BeeSweet]

No such Muslim nation exists like this today, I know, but that is what proper adherance to islamic law would look like. It’s not a problem for Muslims that government is part of their way of life.

Why is that, and can you cite any historical examples of “what proper adherance to islamic law would look like.”

 

[Rocky]

Here is an interesting article, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy, which is worth a read if you’re interested in the subject.

The West is in love with “separation of church and state.” It’s a fundamental (or used to be) mainstay of American outlook and policy-making. The idea is really that the government does not act as religious authority, or carry any religious mandate. The leader of the church is not the leader of the government. That sort of thing.

In Islam, or more specifically Sunni Islam (because Shi’aism is slightly different) there is no religious hierarchy. Catholicism for example has a hierarchy, right? With priests and bishops and so on up to the Pope. This does not exist in Islam–there is no “head of mosque” so to speak, no single leader who is supposed to have divine authority in the religion. There is nobody in Islam who can speak on behalf of God. So even a leader of government is not an ultimate religious authority.

So it’s not quite a mix of politics and religion that Western nations have been trying so hard to avoid–they don’t want religion forced on them. The Qur’an says that religion can’t be forced. It’s just that Islam is a complete way of life–not just beliefs and worship practices. So part of Islam is guidelines for an authority. So what if a person is not Muslim? Not all the laws apply to him. In fact, other religious communities (non-Muslim) are allowed to use their own laws to govern them.

So, imagine some proper Muslim nation–there is a government authority, but it does not make the rules of the religion. Religious rulings are reserved for scholars and judges who, rather than being appointed by and responsible to the government, are independent religious authorities, based on their own qualifications. Suppose there is a Catholic community inside the Muslim nation–the government is not supposed to impose any spiritual/religious obligations on them (like fulfilling the pillars of Islam), nor impose Islamic law on them. They are allowed to rule by their own law, worship without interference.

No such Muslim nation exists like this today, I know, but that is what proper adherance to islamic law would look like. It’s not a problem for Muslims that government is part of their way of life.

I think the problem is for religious people in the West, who are forced to prefer a secular government which conflicts with their own religious obligations, and don’t have a system of government as a aprt of their religion.

The revolutionary war in America began because of what was perceived as unjust taxation---- “No taxation without representation.” So governments that use the Islamic model of special taxes on non-muslims, or of hoops that one has to go through to build/maintain places of worship (such as in Saudi Arabia) are bound to be suspect by non-muslim Americans. Especially when muslims here on this forum have said they want to live under sharia law. And even by what you have written, Sister Amy, it seems that no one is capable of enforcing sharia law that corresponds to what you say is demanded by your holy book!

 

[AgnosTheist]

No such Muslim nation exists like this today, I know, but that is what proper adherance to islamic law would look like. It’s not a problem for Muslims that government is part of their way of life.

What about in the past 1400 years? Was there any?

 

[tomshaikh]

Hi, Calmdown Guys i thought no one mistake. I thought you know this phrase that :“You cannot clap from one hand, You need both hands to clap”.

 

[rpp]

Why is that, and can you cite any historical examples of “what proper adherance to islamic law would look like.”

Afghanistan before the American invasion of 2001 is an excellent example of a nation guided predominantly by the adherence to Islamic (Sharia) Law.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Historical examples of proper adherance to Shari’ah/Islamic law.

Muslim rule of Spain for 700 years allowed Christianity and Judaism and Islam to all flourish together, advancing research in mathematics and science.

The Ottoman Empire had a ruling Sultan (i.e., caliph) and also a “millet” system, which provided minority protection, and the authority for religious minorities to govern themselves according to their own law.

The system is still in effect in some parts of the world. An example, oddly enough, is Egyptian family law. In America, everyone is subject to all the same laws. But Egyptian family law is based on the person’s beliefs (within the 3 Abrahamic faiths.) So the rulings for a Christian family are based on canon law; for Jews based on Jewish law, and for Muslims on Shari’ah.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Amy, while I’m delving into each of those examples can you please think about the Golden Rule…would it be ok for you and you muslims if YOU were the ones who were subjected as the DHIMMIES under a similar system?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Afghanistan before the American invasion of 2001 is an excellent example of a nation guided predominantly by the adherence to Islamic (Sharia) Law.

Afghanistan is an interesting place… the Bristish tried to colonize it and failed–they fought a number of wars there. The Soviet Union tried to occupy it and failed. The CIA covertly trained and armed the Mujahideen (there is an excellent book/movie about this that just came out with Tom Hanks called Charlie Wilson’s War) and eventually the Soviets marched out.

By then, most of the surviving population was under the age of 14. And after the war nobody had an interest in helping the war-ravaged nation. (It had been at war then for 10 years.) That left the country open to tribal feuding, warlords, and eventually the Taliban (literally translated “students”) tried to take over to restore order to the country. In so doing, most of the population suffered limitations of their freedoms, restrictions on employment and education.

You act like the Taliban had been in control of Afghanistan since the time of Muhammad–but they did not acquire power there until 1996!

And no, they were not adhering strictly to Islamic Law–not at all.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Amy, while I’m delving into each of those examples can you please think about the Golden Rule…would it be ok for you and you muslims if YOU were the ones who were subjected as the DHIMMIES under a similar system?

The millet system is derived from the “dhimmi” concept. Someone has complained above about the tax. There is a tax, yes–but Muslims pay it as well, it just has a different name for them. And if the government is unable to protect the people, then rulers have abolished the tax–so that the non-Muslims do not pay it since the government is not able to fulfill its end of the bargain.

In the USA, there are a couple of ways that I am “inconvenienced” I’ll say by not being able to follow the law of Islam. Primarily in regards to marriage, inheritance, divorce, and banking. It would be very nice, I think, if I could choose to follow a law which I found more appropriate based on religion. Islam actually allows that.

It’s the basis of a federation. The Constitution is supposed to ensure rights given to states and local authorities, so people can govern themselves. In principle nice… it isn’t working in practice, as the federal government only grows and imposes more laws on the entire population.

So the answer is actually yes.

 

[AgnosTheist]

So the answer is actually yes.

Millet System: Problem #1

When a member of one millet committed a crime against a member of another, the law of the injured party applied, but the ruling Islamic majority being paramount, any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia−based law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_system

Can you see the problem there? Are you ok with that? Are you ok being on the recieving end of such a system?