Job Discussion Forums

[shadowfax]

welcome to your world

[ohman]

Has anyone in KSA actually been able to link to that site?

I'd hope in my last posting to trawl for a response to the current US mood regarding US/Saudi relations.


http://www.internetweekly.org/photo_cartoons/cartoon_bush_saudi_arabia.html

Beneath the mordant, infantile humor of this site, there is a reasonable yet very troubling concern.

The overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims must stop living in denial, accept what is happening to their faith and condemn Wahhabism--which is a cult, and a very dangerous one at that. The world will continue to turn once the Wahhabis are chased into the hills surrounding Mecca. If and when this is accomplished, the 21st century will gladly extend a welcoming hand to the majority of moderate Saudis, a fine, generous, funny and hospitable bunch of folks overall.

And don't you think that most Saudi men, when asked to run their women to the mall, wouldn't rather toss them the keys and say, "Hey, drive yourself. I'm trying to take a nap here"?

[guest of Japan]

"a conspicuous lack of skill and awareness in textual analysis" I do believe the pot has just called the kettle black. Shadowfax you do indeed have a very powerfull writing style. I'm sure that in the past you have been able to win quite a few arguments by pummelling your opponents with your expansive vocabulary. I'm quite sure that I do not write as effectively as you.

However, your erudite prose does not excuse the bias of your arguments. It is quite obvious that you are Christian and do not look favorably on either Islam or Judaism. Why do you feel it is necessary to deconstruct the religions of people who do not believe the same as you. Are you so insecure in your own faith?

I am not a Muslim. Nor am I a Christian or Jew. To me every religion possesses too many contradictions and logical fallacies to preclude me from having faith. I used to feel the urge to deconstruct the various religions using examples from the own texts, however I've grown to realize that people value faith. Faith is not logical, yet it gives meaning to the lives of billions of people around the world. Religious institutions provide political stability through charities, guidance, and power politics.

As johnslat stated, religious fanaticism abounds in every religion. Fanaticism is not unique to religions either. It can be seen in political ideology, economic ideology, opinions on race, gender, ethnicity, tribal lines, and so much more. Since people are obviously not going to agree on every possible issue, tolerance is necessary. If you feel it necessary to deconstruct another persons faith, then you are not very tolerant.

[shadowfax]

let brick walls be brick walls still

[guest of Japan]

I suppose if I were ever to be faced with that situation I would be arguing the same case. That would be for the human rights of the person confined and religious tolerance of the confined person.

Islam has been around for more than 1300 years, but the fanatical governments and laws we are now seeing have only popped up in the last
30 years or so. Because of this ratio I cannot condemn the religion wholesale. I think it is pretty safe to say that other factors are at work.

[johnslat]

Dear shadowfax,
I don't know your religious affiliation - or even if you have one. But on the chance that you are a Christian, I'd like to offer these web sites as a response to your remark that, " toleration is ultimately a two way street. ".

http://www.collegebaptist.org/sermon/10.21.01.shtml

http://godslastcall.org/cheek.html

http://peaceonearth.net/achristianresponse.htm

In these days of fear, hate and intolerance, what immense courage and faith is required to not only " talk the talk " of " love thy enemies; do good to them that hate and persecute you " - but even more to " walk the walk ". Quite honestly, such courage and faith are beyond me - but I have tremendous admiration and respect for those who do so. I know they are much better people than I am.
Regards,
John

[ohman]

"fanatical governments and laws we are now seeing have only popped up in the last 30 years." Not true.

For example, late in the eleventh century, a fanatical band of devotees belonging to the Ismaili sect of Islam developed into a potent political force. These Islamic cultists subscribed to an intolerant belief known as "Assass" or the "Fundamentals" These fundamentalists, these Assasseen , led by Hasan as-Sabah, similar to today's various jihadist groups, eliminated their targets by gaining audiences with progressive liberal, forward thinking Khaleefs in diwans throughout Persian then murdered the governors knowing well that body guards would immediately retaliate--murder/suicide fundamentalist fanatics have existed in Islam throughout its history.

Islam is now as old as Christianity was when anti-episcopacy rumblings resulted in political/religious reformations throughout Europe (thus setting the stage for the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment and all that jazz). The choke hold the papacy had on the western world gradually slackened over the centuries.

If historical fiction is to your taste, might I recommend the novel Samarkand, Amin Maalouf, (trans. Russel Harris) Abacus Publishing Company (1994). Maalouf has written an intriguing parable for our times.

[guest of Japan]

That was very interesting. I must defend my statement a little by saying that the group you described from the 11th century in not one of the groups we are seeing now.

Also in your mention of the Reformation you failed to mention the birth of the Calvinist Faith which later morphed into the birth of the Puritans. These were fundamentalist groups that enacted very stict laws against those who deviated from their faith or the moral principles of the time.

However your analogy is very interesting. If it holds true then we can expect about 100 years of intense bloodshed and insightful political theory.

[johnslat]

Dear othman,
Having spent over 20 years in the Middle East, I have my own " pet theories " about the region ( and other " Islamic parts of the world ", such as Pakistan and Afghanistan ). According to the Islamic calendar, this is the year 1424 AH - and I've long felt that was most appropriate. For, as I see it, much of the Islamic world is, in so many respects, very similar to what Europe was like in 1424 CE. The " Western world " some of us inhabit today, run mostly by essentially secular governments, was shaped by many historical forces, such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Reason and the Industrial Revolution, most, if not all, of which never significantly touched the Islamic world, due, perhaps, to an " accident of geography " and probably other reasons. Right now, much of that Islamic world is in a kind of " time-warp ", in which its culture and society are, in large measure, still in the past, while it is also experiencing many of the good and bad effects of the latest technology. The transition from theocratic or near-theocratic rule to lands in which Church ( or Mosque ) and State are separate is one that took the West centuries to achieve. And this will not happen overnight in the Middle East. I think we need to be more understanding of the historical circumstances that the inhabitants of many Islamic countries experience, and to realize that
what most of them are going through today, we in the West once went through ourselves. My hope is that Islam will also undergo a " Reformation " and an " Age of Enlightenment ", but this process will, I think, be delayed or fatally impared by an increased polarization between our two cultures.
Regards,
John

[Truth Hurts]

John Slat
You do occasionally make some very excellent points but in all frankness this has got to be one that puts your 20 years in the region into very serious disrepute!
You seem to gloss over the fact that back home (US) we are governed by a mindless, radical fringe of religious zealots that pose a much greater threat to the world than anything Usama Bin Laden could cook up.

The whole 1424 theory is so ludicrously facile that as far as I'm concerned you successfully manage to demonstrate a supreme ignorance of historical events. Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' very much comes to mind here.

TH

[ohman]

The 1424 theory is, for me, an interesting one as are all coincidences of history. I wouldn't say it's facile so much as it simply, at first, begs the question then later answers the question.

But more important than the coincidence of the relative ages of the beliefs is the similarity in the political structure of the Khaleej to those regions in Europe at the time which were poised on the verge of reformation.

For example, sudden wealth! Instead of expanding trade routes, the monarchies of the Khaleej have oil obviously. And similarly, the royal familes--most of whom claim to have been in power since the mid-18th century similarly depend upon their clerics to root out dissent.

Where the analogy between pre-reformation Europe and 21st century GCC countries abruptly ends is where the printing press, the telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, chartered flights to Disneyworld and the internet take over. The centuries it took change to succeed in Europe could take, with the proper spin doctors, only months in Kuwait, the UAE, Oman, Qatar and KSA (Bahrain appears to be taking the lead on change) Change would occur rapidly provided of course there is the will among those who desire it to act upon it sooner than, "inshaillah", later.

Having taught in the Khaleej for about ten years, I know those who wish for reform are out there. I have seen them in my classrooms whenever the one or two bearded ones raise a stink to an objectionable graphic in a textbook. The other 18 or so students generally roll their eyes and some have even come up after class to apologize for the interruption.


J. Guest: Are you speaking of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, the Al Aksa Martyrs brigade, the PLO? That they're fanatics is debatable. Consider their cause. Their cause has only recently been added to the Wahhabi cause, tacked on as a rider to gain support. As for the Wahhab cause--it's basically preparing the way for the day when Jesus (Esau) stampedes from the skies to turn us all the into Muslims.


Remember the 11 March 2002 fire at a Girls' Intermediate School wherein mutawa ordered under dressed school girls to their deaths by forcing them back into a blazing building? Now that's fanaticism!


Wahhabism, which came into its own in the 18th century, has its origin in the 13th century teachings of Taymiyah. Taymiyah gained enormous popularity in response to the Tatar (Eastern Euro/Turkic people) invasion.

If change doesn't come from within the Muslim community, it will come from outside--in fact is coming from outside--as F18s and A 10 Thunderbolts continue to fire warning shots across the bows of extremist Islam.

Having said that, I would like to know if anyone who is in KSA has noticed any evidence of a schism between the Beyt Al Saud and the Wahhabs? Any chance we'll see fewer mutawa in the near future?

(speaking of fanatics sending schoolgirls to their firey death, here's a whacky Waco quiz night question: the prophet belonged to which tribe? ans. Quresh)

[johnslat]

Dear Truth Hurts,
Sorry you disagree - how long have you spent in the Middle East, may I ask? Not that your either not having ever been there or not having spent very much time there would automatically put your opinions into disrepute; however, I do think that personal, first-hand experience of an area and its people can be of considerable assistance in forming viewpoints. My " facile " analogy between the West, circa 1424 CE and the Islamic World in 1424 AH is just that: an analogy. It is not, by any means, perfect - or even close to it. But it does make some sense to me, anyway.
I assure you that I am not unawate of who's running things back home, and I thoroughly disagree with their policies, both domestic and foreign. However, I fail to see how that impinges upon what I wrote. It did enter into my post a bit, though, when I remarked that, " this process will, I think, be delayed or fatally impared by an increased polarization between our two cultures. ". By the way, I very much liked Mr. Moore's book, and have recommended it to a number of friends. Finally, would you be so kind as to be more specific with reference to this part of your post: " you successfully manage to demonstrate a supreme ignorance of historical events.". I'm curious as to what " historical events I am " demonstrating a supreme ignorance of "? Thanks.
Regards,
John

[guest of Japan]

Ohman, your knowledge of Islam is obviously greater than mine and I appreciate your sharing of it. I'd appreciate any leads on books where I could bone up my knowledge on some of the things you have spoken of.

[ohman]

GoJ,
try to find Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalist Movements in the Arab World, Iran, and Turkey, Moussalli. The Scarecrow Press, 1999

and

The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder Bassam Tibi, U of C Press, 1998

You can sample about 30 pages here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520088689/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/103-1001985-7334251?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link

[Mark100]

If all the facts are put on the table i think that you would find that it is the Christian fundamentalists that pose the greatest threat to world peace and not Islamic fundalmentalists.
It would seem that the Christian fundamentalists along with the Zionists in the US have a strong influence on the Bush Administration's foreign policy.It is this unholy alliance that has been pushing and running the current pre emptive strike baloney that has put the US govt into what is a very untenable postion in Iraq. This policy has further alienated even moderate Muslims and has by its unilateral action in Iraq surrendered any high moral ground that it may have had.
In fact one might even go as far as to say that the US has raised Bin Laden into an almost myth like character.With all the hysteria associated with Bin Laden let us face facts and realise that he is no threat to the US and in fact very little threat to world peace. He is more of a nuisance than anything else.
Let's also not forget who actually has all the WMD and is willing to use them.
Let's also not forget who is responsible for the success of Saddam Hussein and the mujahadeen. The US supported these groups but when they didn't want to play ball any more they became the enemy.
Ultimately over the years US foreign policy in the ME has helped to foster those groups which it now sees as a threat to it.