Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Dubai Hotel Apartments Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Housemaids available in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Dubai politics talk

Do Arabs regret supporting the British against the Ottoman?


Lionheart I wonder would Arabs have supported the British Imperlist against their Ottoman brethrens have they foreseen the situation Middle east would be in near future.
Chocoholic For goodness sake man stop living in the past! Lionheart
You have to visite the past to see many of the problems facing Middle east, Africa and Asia.... kanelli Yeah, but you can't change it, and you are talking about faaaar back. What is important is what Arab governments are doing now. shafique Strange question - but I would say no, the Arabs shouldn’t be sorry they supported the British instead of the Turks. The British were the stronger power, were the dominant world power and did a lot of good in the region. For example, the British stayed at the fringes of the Arabian peninsular and did not interfere with religious practices – in fact they stepped in and got the authorities to clamp down on robberies that were taking place on pilgrims to Mecca (a little known fact). History shows the movements of the centre of power – at the rise of Islam, the power of the Roman empire was on its way out (at least the Western Roman empire, but the Byzantine empire was still going strong and they were just a continuation of the Roman empire) – then the Islamic empire started, with power moving between Arabs and non-Arabs until the Ottoman empire which was Turkish. Arabs and Turks are different races and therefore not brethren. The Turks sided with the Germans – so for my money, the Arabs sided with the right side. I don’t therefore think that the current Mid East situation has much to do with what happened in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire.. but has more to do with choices that were made after oil was discovered in the region and getting into bed with the USA. Watch Syriana for an intriguing view of the interplay of oil and politics in the MidEast. Sorry - I could go on, but I need to ask whether you actually wanted a debate on geopolitics in the region? :) cheers, Shafique Lionheart
Shafique you are right Arabs shouldn't be sorry for supporting the British, matter fact they should thank them for their support for the past 100 years.
Arabs should thank the British for giving them Isreal
Arabs should thank British and Allies for Supporting Isreal in humiliating six day war deafet at the hand of Isreal.
Arabs should thank the British and its western Allies for supporting the dictators in the Arab world for the past 50 years.
Arabs should thank the British and Allies for invading and killing over 100000 of their fellow Arab brothers in Iraq...
"Arabs and Turks are different races and therefore not brethren. The Turks sided with the Germans – so for my money, the Arabs sided with the right side."
Doesn't islam say that all muslims are brothers regardless of race or ethnicity?
Shafique how could today Arabs be race when most of them with the exception of bediuns in Yemen and Saud Arabia are of people who were not ethnically Arabs like the Berbers, Egyptians, Nubians, Habashees, Akkaddins, Babylonians, Hebrews, African slaves,Monguls, Persians and even Turks. Shafique, Arabs living in Syria and Lebanon are more genetically and racially related to the Turks than Arabs in Saud Arabia or yemen, the same thing Arabs in Egypt and Sudan are more genetically related to Turks, Balkans and Africans than Arabs in the Gulf. The only thing Arabs have incommen is language, allot like America where you have black, white, native people all speaking and sharing one culture.
"According to Islam, all men are equal, whatever be their color, language, race or nationality. Islam addresses itself to the conscience of humanity and banishes all false barriers of race, status and wealth. There can be no denying the fact that such barriers have always existed, and do exist even today in this so-called enlightened age. Islam, however, removes all these impediments and proclaims the idea of the whole of humanity being one family of God.
Islam is international in its outlook and approach. It does not admit barriers and distinctions based on color, clan, blood or territory such as were prevalent before the advent of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). These are rampant in different forms, even in this modern age."
shafique Lionheart, you are the one that used the word 'Arabs' - perhaps you meant to use the word 'Muslims' instead? I'm glad we agree that Arabs are distinct race and the word refers to a specific semitic people. I agree with you that according to Islam all muslims are brethren in a spiritual sense, but you said 'Arabs' and whilst most Arabs are Muslim, not all of them are Muslim, and also therefore the Turks are not brethren of Arabs - at least not literally. But let's leave this point as it is not important. I would urge you to think of the points made in Arnie's post above. Then also tell me why the Arabs/Muslim world sat on their hands when Muslim 'brethren' were being massacred in Bosnia and Kosovo. It was the US who finally put a stop to this by bombing Kosovo - and there was no oil or other US national interest in the region. I would also ask you to consider what the Muslim/Arab world is doing about the situation in Chechnya? I can only see non-Muslim organisations protesting at the killings by the Russians there - organisations like Amnesty international. And as you bring up the point of Israel, can I ask your opinion on what the Arab nations are doing for the Palestinian refugees in Jordan? What about all the consumption of US goods by Arab states? Why is the Arab Oil sold in Dollars? etc etc But then again, perhaps I have been brainwashed by the west? :) Wasalaam, Shafique arniegang Shafique you are right Arabs shouldn't be sorry for supporting the British, matter fact they should thank them for their support for the past 100 years. Arabs should thank the British for giving them Isreal Arabs should thank British and Allies for Supporting Isreal in humiliating six day war deafet at the hand of Isreal. Arabs should thank the British and its western Allies for supporting the dictators in the Arab world for the past 50 years. Arabs should thank the British and Allies for invading and killing over 100000 of their fellow Arab brothers in Iraq... Lionheart. When posting within a political debate, it would help to give a balanced viewpoint. Lets take a couple of recent events in the history of Arabia and lets see where your theories lead. Kuwait Where was the "United Arab Nations", when Mr Saddam strolled into a GCC Country?? Where was the United Arabs Nations in 1948 when the UAE was at war with itself over occupation of the individual Emirates. The common denominator here, is the British Lionheart. Instead of giving a very biased anti British viewpoint, take a look at the bigger picture. kanelli Shafique, you haven't been brainwashed - you just know how to think critically and don't fall into the pits of anti-West propaganda. Thank you for not being one of the few people here to like to demonise the West at every opportunity, and consistenly overlook the conduct of Arab governments. Chocoholic Yep, Agreed, it's refreshing to see someone such a great attitude.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
arniegang Shaf is da man 8) Lionheart
Kanelli how could puppets who do the bidding of the West standup for their brethrens in need when they can't even stand up for their own people. The leaders in Middle east today with the exception of Hamas and Iran's Ayatollah's are all puppets of Western interest, drunks, Zombies, pedophiles, greedy, fascist, Masons, and many other things. These are the same leaders the West supports, protects, but at the same time the West condemns leaders that were voted by the people, like in the case of Algeria were Islamic party won the election. But because the West didn't like the muslim idealogy they supported their removal from power at the hand of puppet Algerian Military. The same thing is happening in Palastine were West is condemning the elected party of Palastinian people the Hamas, simply because they are faithful to their deen instead of Western and Zoinist interest. Iran is another country whose officials were elected by the Iranian people, but who west condemns because they refused to bow down to western interest. For this Iran is being threatened with invasion, sanctions, all other means to destroy their land and people. Why is Iran being denied to advance its people by developing nuclear energy or even nuclear weapon to protect itself against oil, power hungry Western imperlist AKA Britian and USA. This boils down to West not wanting to see a true Islamic government serving its people's interest rather than the interest of the West in power.
When the British Imperlist divided the map of middle east they made sure that a Islamic government that thinks of the interest of its people would never take hold of power. Arabs and muslims in general fell for the trap prophet Mohammed(pbuh) warned us against.."nationalism".
Kenalli none of the events you mentioned would have happened if Arabs never betrayed their Ottoman brethrens..because their would be a Kuwait, or UEA or Saud Arabia or Jordan or Iraq or Syria, etc. The whole middle east would be one big Ummah. Genocides like the one that accurring in Sudan Muslims killing fellow muslims for race and land would have been tolerated, US/British invasion of Iraq would have never happened, massacre like the one in the balkans wouldn't have been tolerated, the starvation of Muslim brethren in East Africa, Cheyne, Kashmire and Tsunami devastated Indonesia wouldn't havd begged western agencies for hand outs, lunatics like Bin Laden and Wahabbis wouldn't have been able to Hijack the religion of peace to please their sinister agenda and the Wests. Lionheart "The British dismember the Khilafah State However, since the British aim was to dismember the Ottoman State in her quality as an Islamic State and to abolish the Khilafah, they trod the path that led to this and they proceeded in their dealings with the vanquished Ottoman State in a manner different to that proceeded with the vanquished Germany, despite the fact that the two states had fought alongside each other. Indeed the Allied victory over the Ottoman State was similar to their victory over Germany; thus the two states should have been treated equally. However, the British treated Germany as a vanquished state according to international law and what it stipulated in the event of a war coming to an end between two states, with one emerging as the victor and the other the loser. As for the Ottoman State, she was treated differently. For as soon as the war ended she was dismembered into pieces, most of which the British occupied and divided into parts according to the plan that had been devised during the war. They also started to avoid their Allies in order to gain the lion’s share in the lands of the vanquished Ottoman State. Then they concentrated their efforts on the Khilafah’s centre in order to adopt the most appropriate styles to ensure its abolishment. Adopting nationalism and patriotism as a basis for the process for dismemberment As for the process of dismemberment, the seeds of nationalist tendencies and patriotic chauvinism implanted earlier by the British had by then come to fruition. Thus it was the right time for them to use them as a basis for the process of dismemberment, and they effectively began to do so. Accordingly, they turned the lands inhabited by Turkish speaking Muslims into one single entity and started to use their direct rule and overwhelming influence to flare up Turkish nationalist tendencies. They tried to evoke the idea of Turkey’s independence, meaning her separation from the rest of the Islamic State, or according to them the Ottoman Empire, while defining the word independence with the meaning of getting rid of the Allied occupation. This was despite the fact that the practical reality they were actually pushing people towards was the independence from all the other parts of the State, namely a complete separation. They also broke the lands inhabited by Arabic speaking Muslims into several pieces. Although the British had occupied most of them, they did not keep them as one entity, as they had found them when they had occupied them, they rather turned those lands into several entities according to the maps they had drawn for them during the war. Hence they physically carried out the dismemberment of the conquered State and turned her into several states before holding with her a peace treaty, and before even agreeing with her the terms of peace. For no sooner had they occupied the lands than they divided them into several countries and started ruling them as if they were several states which they had just occupied. This was in violation of international law and contradictory to international conventions because the occupation by the victorious state in the war of the land of the vanquished state is not sufficient to determine the fate of the occupied state or the occupied territories; what determines this is rather the peace treaty, even if the terms of the treaty were dictated and imposed. The nearest example to this is the fact that although Berlin was occupied for over forty years, her fate was not determined by its occupation but by the terms of peace or the peace treaty and the agreement of the Allies on it. Therefore, by dividing the Ottoman state soon after occupying her lands and soon after she was defeated in the war, Britain committed an invalid act which violated international law. For she undertook that action unilaterally before agreeing terms with the Allies and before signing the peace treaty or agreeing on the terms of peace and not even before the Allies could dictate the terms, assuming that this dictation would have been valid. In fact, these countries were all part of the state, for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, East Jordan, Hijaz and Yemen were all under the banner of the Ottoman state and part of her Wilayas. They had no entity, be it a self-rule or a state, and none of them had any independent sovereignty, be it domestic or foreign. Therefore, none of her inhabitants had a mandate to conduct any international negotiations. Any international act undertaken by any person from these Wilayas with any state would be invalid and could not be recognised and would have no consideration whatsoever. Even Egypt which was under British domination and a British mandate, was considered part of the Ottoman state. When her people, the Egyptian people, were calling for the exit of the British, they were calling for the return of their country under the banner of the Islamic state, the Ottoman state, so that they become once again under the rule of the Khaleefah of the Muslims. Mustafa Kamal called for the evacuation of the British and for the return of Egypt as part of the Khilafah in Istanbul." Lionheart The British Attempt to Destroy the Khilafah through Political and Legal Actions
It seemed that the British were hoping to generate a radical change in the ruling system by destroying the Khilafah and establishing a republic through legitimate and legal means, without having to resort to a military coup or an armed rebellion. So they resorted to purely political styles. Once Izzet Pasha was removed, the Khaleefah instructed Tawfiq Pasha to form the new government. Tawfiq Pasha was known to be a British agent, for during the rule of Abdul-Hamid while he was a civil servant, he was appointed as ambassador of the Ottoman State to London, where he managed to gain the sympathy and the pleasure of the British. However, when he formed his government, he was an old man in his eighties and unfit to perform the role expected of him. Thus the British were uneasy about his forming of the government.
However, prior to attempting to replace him and bringing a new government, they wanted to dissolve the parliament known as the council of "Al-Mab’uthan". This was because that council was elected by people from all over the Ottoman State, namely the Khilafah State. Accordingly, it was not a Turkish parliament, exclusive to Turkey. Besides, most of the deputies were from the Young Turks and the Committee of Union & Progress (C.U.P.). In other words the party of Anwar and Jamal, whose views were in favour of maintaining the Khilafah and all the parts of the Ottoman State. Therefore, it would be very unlikely for it to agree to the abolishment of the Khilafah, or to agree to the severing of the other parts of the Empire from Turkey. They also wanted to generate a political vacuum in the country, and dissolving parliament would help them generate this vacuum. Hence, they were determined to dissolve it. They wanted at first to dissolve it through constitutional means, without having to resort to an intervention from the Sultan in response to their demand. This was when Mustafa Kemal attempted to apply the constitutional solutions and failed. Then the Sultan, in an unexpected move, dissolved parliament by a decree; and this could only be based on a demand of which he was convinced or which he could not afford to refuse.
More specifically, it became imperative for Tawfiq Pasha to gain a parliamentary vote of confidence according to the constitutional rules,and so aparliamentary session to cast that vote was to be held. Mustafa Kemal who had just returned from Aleppo and Adhano, rushed to convince the deputies to give the government a vote of no confidence. He had some friends from among the unionists who represented the majority of parliament. From among those was Fathi Beik who had power and influence. Fathi Beik gathered for him a number of deputies and he initiated a debate with them in an adjacent room, and Mustafa Kemal put forward his proposal, that is, to give the government a vote of no confidence. However, they objected to this, claiming that casting a vote of no confidence would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the council. Upon this he could no longer conceal the objectives he was aiming for so he promptly replied : "And this would be better in the long term, for through this, we can bide our time and prepare our affairs to form the government that we want."
The division bell rang and the deputies made their way into the parliament chamber. But when the time came to cast the votes and the speaker announced the result, with the overwhelming majority gave the government a vote of confidence.
When Mustafa Kemal learnt this, he left the parliament buildings and as soon as he arrived home, he telephoned the palace requesting an urgent meeting with the Sultan. Sultan Wahid-ud-Deen was aware of Mustafa Kemal’s thoughts and knew about his ambition to seize power. Indeed, he sensed in him some power and thought that he had powerful Allies in the army and had influence over the army. Wahid-ud-Deen’s main concern was to maintain his throne and he viewed Mustafa Kemal as a threat to him. Thus, when he requested an audience with him he immediately agreed. However, he set the date of the meeting to be on the earliest Friday. Wahid-ud-Deen chose that day because it was the day when the "Salammalik" took place, meaning when the Khaleefah met with the people who came to greet him. His intention was to get Mustafa Kemal to declare his links with the Sultan and to confirm his loyalty to the Khaleefah along with performing the Juma’a prayer with him. Then he would take the appropriate arrangements to listen to his talk -which he knew- in private. Lionheart A British Muslim converts Journey through Ottoman Khalifah in Middle East....
Marmaduke Pickthall
a brief biography
‘Action is the Life of all and if thou dost not Act, thou dost Nothing.’
(Gerrard Winstanley)
Before we consider the life-story of the British Muslim and Koranic translator, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, it is as well to recall that aspect of the practice of every believer without which there are only ashes: holiness of life. In the case of Pickthall, this was a luminous, steadily progressing reality which impressed all who came into contact with him. Even his unbelieving first biographer, Anne Fremantle, opined that ‘had he changed from evangelical or even from high church Anglicanism to the Roman faith, doubtless the machinery of sanctification would have by now been set to work.’ He was a man of discreet charity, the extent of whose generosity was only discovered after his death. He turned down lucrative and prestigious speaking tours and the pleasures of travel in favour of his last and, in his eyes, greatest project, acting as headmaster to Muslim boys in Hyderabad. He witnessed the dismemberment of his beloved Ottoman Caliphate while rejecting bitterness and calls for violent revenge, convinced that Allah’s verdict was just, and that in the circumstances of the age, Islam’s victory would come through changing an unjust world from within. Above all, he was a man who constantly kept Allah and His providence in mind.
Pickthall’s humility did not prevent him from taking a rightful pride in his ancestry, which he could trace back to a knight of William the Conqueror’s day, Sir Roger de Poictu, from whom his odd surname derives. The family, long settled in Cumberland, came south in Dutch William’s time, and Pickthall’s father Charles, an Anglican parson, was appointed to a living near Woodbridge in Suffolk. Charles’ wife, whom he married late in life, was Mary O’Brien, who despite her Irish name was a staunchly nonconformist daughter of Admiral Donat Henry O’Brien, a hero of the same Napoleonic war which brought Sheikh Abdullah Quilliam’s grandfather fame as master of Victory at Trafalgar. O’Brien, immortalised by Marryat in Masterman Ready, passed on some of his heroic impulses to his grandson Marmaduke, who throughout his life championed a rather Shavian ideal of the saint as warrior. It may be no coincidence that Pickthall, Quilliam and, before them, Lord Byron, who all found their vocation as rebellious lovers of the East, were the grandsons of naval heroes.
Marmaduke was born in 1875, and when his father died five years later the family sold the Suffolk rectory and moved to the capital. For the little boy the trauma of the exodus from a country idyll to a cold and cheerless house in London was a deep blow to the soul, and his later delight in the freedom of traditional life in the Middle East may have owed much to that early formative transition. The claustrophobia was only made worse when he entered Harrow, whose arcane rituals and fagging system he was later to send up in his novel Sir Limpidus. Friends were his only consolation: perhaps his closest was Winston Churchill.
Once the sloth and bullying of Harrow were behind him he was able to indulge a growing range of youthful passions. In the Jura he acquired his lifelong love of mountaineering, and in Wales and Ireland he learned Welsh and Gaelic. So remarkable a gift for languages impelled his teachers to put him forward for a Foreign Office vacancy; yet he failed the exam. On the rebound, as it were, he proposed to Muriel Smith, the girl who was to become his wife. She accepted, only to lose her betrothed for several years in one of the sudden picaresque changes of direction which were to mark his later life. Hoping to learn enough Arabic to earn him a consular job in Palestine, and with introductions in Jerusalem, Pickthall had sailed for Port Said. He was not yet eighteen years old.
The Orient came as a revelation. Later in life he wrote: ‘When I read The Arabian Nights I see the daily life of Damascus, Jerusalem, Aleppo, Cairo, and the other cities as I found it in the early nineties of last century. What struck me, even in its decay and poverty, was the joyousness of that life compared with anything that I had seen in Europe. The people seemed quite independent of our cares of life, our anxious clutching after wealth, our fear of death.’ He found a khoja to teach him more Arabic, and armed with a rapidly increasing fluency took ship for Jaffa, where, to the horror of European residents and missionaries, he donned native garb and disappeared into the depths of the Palestinian hinterland.
Some of his experiences in the twilight of that exotic world may be re-read in his travelogue, Oriental Encounters. He had found, as he explains, a world of freedom unimaginable to a public schoolboy raised on an almost idolatrous passion for The State. Most Palestinians never set eyes on a policeman, and lived for decades without engaging with government in any way. Islamic law was administered in its time-honoured fashion, by qadis who, with the exception of the Sahn and Ayasofya graduates in the cities, were local scholars. Villages chose their own headmen, or inherited them, and the same was true for the bedouin tribes. The population revered and loved the Sultan-Caliph in faraway Istanbul, but understood that it was not his place to interfere with their lives.
It was this freedom, as much as intellectual assent, which set Marmaduke on the long pilgrimage which was to lead him to Islam. He saw the Muslim world before Westernisation had contaminated the lives of the masses, and long before it had infected Muslim political thought and produced the modern vision of the Islamic State, with its ‘ideology’, its centralised bureaucracy, its secret police, its Pasdaran and its Basij. That totalitarian nightmare he would not have recognised as Muslim. The deep faith of the Levantine peasantry which so amazed him was sustained by the sincerity that can only come when men are free, not forced, in the practice of religion. For the state to compel compliance is to spread vice and disbelief; as the Arab proverb which he well-knew says: ‘If camel-dung were to be prohibited, people would seek it out.’
Throughout his life Pickthall saw Islam as radical freedom, a freedom from the encroachments of the State as much as from the claws of the ego. It also offered freedom from narrow fanaticism and sectarian bigotry. Late Ottoman Palestine was teeming with missionaries of every Christian sect, each convinced, in those pre-ecumenical days, of its own solitary rightness. He was appalled by the hate-filled rivalry of the sects, which, he thought, should at least be united in the land holy to their faith. But Christian Jerusalem was a maze of rival shrines and liturgies, where punches were frequently thrown in churches, while the Jerusalem of Islam was gloriously united under the Dome, the physical crown of the city, and of her complex history.
1897 found him in Damascus, the silent city of lanes, hidden rose-bowers, and walnut trees. It was in this deep peacefulness, resting from his adventures, that he worked methodically through the mysteries of Arabic grammar. He read poetry and history; but seemed drawn, irresistibly, to the Holy Qur’an. Initially led to it by curiosity, he soon came to suspect that he had unearthed the end of the Englishman’s eternal religious quest. The link was Thomas Traherne and Gerrard Winstanley, who, with their nature mysticism and insistence on personal freedom from an intrusive state or priesthood, had been his inspiration since his early teens. Now their words seemed to be bearing fruit.
Winstanley is an important key to understanding Pickthall’s thought. His 1652 masterpiece, Law of Freedom on a Platform, had been the manifesto of the Digger movement, the most radical offshoot of Leveller Protestantism. In this book, which deeply shaped the soul of the young Pickthall, Winstanley outlined what was to become the essence of Christian Socialism. The Diggers believed in the holiness of labour, coming by their name when, in 1649, Winstanley and a group of friends took over a plot of waste land at Walton-on-Thames, planting corn, beans and parsnips. This gesture was, Pickthall realised in Damascus, illegal in Christendom, but was precisely the Shari‘a principle of ihya al-mawat, gaining entitlement to land by reviving it after its ‘death by neglect’. The Diggers were held together, not by cowed obedience to a religious state, but by love among themselves, fired and purified by the dignity of labour.
It soon became clear to Pickthall that their Dissenting theology, which moved far beyond Calvin in its rejection of original sin and orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and its emphasis on knowing God through closeness to nature, was precisely the message of Islam. This was a religion for autonomous communities, self-governing under God, each free to elect its own minister.
The God of the Diggers was a god of Reason – not the mechanical dictator whom Blake was to scorn as Urizen, ‘blind ignorance’, but reason as illuminated by God through the practice of the virtues and communion with nature. Superstition and priestcraft were abhorred. The Reason-God was immanent in creation, which, for Winstanley, as for Traherne and the Cambridge Platonists, was a blessed sign of God’s nearness. Winstanley had dipped into the Hermetic wisdom of the age, and, like the Quakers with whom we was for a time associated, absorbed something of the spirit of Islam through the Italian esoterists Ficino, Bruno, and Campanella. It was not for nothing that the first English rendering of the Basmala was made by an enthusiastic Quaker, George Keith, who translated it as ‘In the Name of the Lord the merciful Commiserator.’ Somewhat later, Robert Barclay, the greatest name in English Quaker theology, borrowed extensively from Ibn Tufayl. By all these channels Islam had enriched and uplifted English Dissent.
Another Digger theme which attracted Pickthall was their communitarian optimism. Winstanley had written: ‘In Cobham on the little heath our digging there goes on, And all our friends they live in love, as if they were but one.’ The brotherhood of Muslims which he observed in Syria, the respect between Sunnis and Shi‘is, and their indifference to class distinctions in their places of worship, seemed to be the living realisation of the dreams of English radicals at the time of Cromwell’s Commonwealth. This theme of Muslim brotherhood was to be fundamental in Pickthall’s later writing and preaching. No less important was the Digger rejection of traditional Church exclusivism. Irrespective of creed, they thought, all men were candidates for salvation. Christ’s sacrifice indicated, in its orthodox understanding, a meanness unworthy of a loving God, Who can surely accept the repentance of any faithful monotheist, whether or not he had been bathed in the blood of His son.
Oddly, then, Pickthall came home in Damascus. The picaresque adventures of his days in Palestine had given way to a serious spiritual and intellectual quest. Like Henry Stubbe, another Commonwealth dissident, he saw in Islam the fulfilment of the English dream of a reasonable and just religion, free of superstition and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, and bearing fruit in a wonderful and joyful fellowship. As the New Statesman put it in 1930, reviewing his Koranic translation: ‘Mr Marmaduke Pickthall was always a great lover of Islam. When he became a Muslim it was regarded less as conversion than as self-discovery.’
If this was his Road to Damascus, why, then, did he hold back? Some have thought that the reason was his concern for the feelings of his aged mother, with her own Christian certainties. This was his later explanation:
‘The man who did not become a Muslim when he was nineteen years old because he was afraid that it would break his mother’s heart does not exist, I am sorry to say. The sad fact is that he was anxious to become a Muslim, forgetting all about his mother. It was his Muslim teacher – the Sheykh-ul-Ulema of the great mosque at Damascus – a noble and benign old man, to whom he one day mentioned his desire to become a Muslim, who reminded him of his duty to his mother and forbade him to profess Islam until he had consulted her. ‘No, my son,’ were his words, ‘wait until you are older, and have seen again your native land. You are alone among us as our boys are alone among the Christians. God knows how I should feel if any Christian teacher dealt with a son of mine otherwise than as I now deal with you.’ […] If he had become a Muslim at that time he would pretty certainly have repented it – quite apart from the unhappiness he would have caused his mother, which would have made him unhappy – because he had not thought and learnt enough about religion to be certain of his faith. It was only the romance and pageant of the East which then attracted him. He became a Muslim in real earnest twenty years after.’
He left Damascus, then, without Islam. But jobs were beckoning. The British Museum offered him a post on the basis of his knowledge of ancient Welsh and Irish, but he declined. He was offered the vice-consulship at the British consulate in Haifa, but this was withdrawn when it was learnt how young he was. His family, and his patient Muriel, summoned him home, and, penniless, he obeyed.
He travelled back slowly, considering the meaning of his steps. As he left the sun behind him, he seemed to leave courtesy and contentment as well. The Muslims were the happiest people on earth, never complaining even when faced with dire threats. The Christians among them were protected and privileged by the Capitulations. The Ottoman Balkans, under the sultans a place of refuge for victims of church wars, had been cruelly diminished by crusade and insurrection, prompted, in every case, from outside. He saw the Morea, the first land of Greek independence, in which a third of a million Muslims had been slaughtered by priests and peasants. The remaining corners of Ottoman Europe seemed overshadowed by a similar fate; but still the people smiled. It was the grace of rida.
Back in London, Pickthall recalled his romantic duties. He paced the pavement outside Muriel’s home in the time-honoured way, and battered down her parents’ resistance. They married in September 1896, the groom having fasted the previous day as a mark of respect for what he still considered a sacrament of the Church. Then he bore her swiftly away to Geneva, partly for the skiing, and partly, too, to associate with the literary circles which Pickthall admired.
During his sojourn in the dour Calvinist capital, Pickthall honed the skills which would make him one of the world’s most distinguished exponents both of novel-writing, and of the still underdeveloped sport of skiing. He began a novel, and kept a diary, in which, despite his youth, his mature descriptive gift is already evident. He wrote of
‘a pearly mist delicately flushed from the sunset, on lake and mountains. The twin sails of a barque and the hull itself seemed motionless, yet were surely slipping past the piers. There was something remote about the whole scene, or so it appeared to me. I was able to separate myself from the landscape: to stand back, as it were, and admire it as one admires a fine painting. I crossed a bridge: starless night on the one hand: dying day on the other. There was a mist about the city: a mist that glowed with a blue spirit light which burned everywhere or nowhere, out of which the yellow lights looked over their dancing semblance in the water watchfully, as from a citadel. The distance of the streets was inundated with stagnant grey light, from which the last warmth of light had just faded. As I penetrated the city it had no other light than that which the street lamps gave it, and the glow from a lamp-lit window here and there. But the sky was still pale and green, with a softness as of velvet. The great round globules of electric light, rising up on the bridge against illimitable space, and their lengthened reflections, caught the eye and blinded it.’
But this landscape concealed a tristesse, the local mood that Byron had dubbed ‘Lemancholy.’ By morning, a thick fog
‘hung over the city, like a veil on the face of a plain woman, hiding blemishes and defects, softening all hardness of outline, soothing with the suggestion of a non-existent beauty. It is a law of nature, as it is of art, that half-revelation is more attractive than nakedness. Unhappily there is another law which forbids a man to rest content until he has stripped his ideal and beheld it naked. Hence the end of most men’s dreams is disappointment. And this disappointment is proportionate to what the world calls success.’
By the shores of Lake Leman, then, the novelist-in-waiting acquired his love of light, which later became one of the strengths and hallmarks of his mature prose. Here, too, he developed that sense of the fragility, even the unreality, of observed nature, and the superficial nature of man’s passage upon it, which enrich his novels, and increased the readiness of his heart for Islam. In all these ways, his writing mirrored the sensitivity of the paintings of his great fellow-converts, Ivan Agueli, and Etienne Dinet. Agueli’s tableaux have a Sibelian sense of misty timelessless; while Dinet’s exuberant Algerian and Meccan paintings recall the Muslim sense that God is present in our daily joys: the utter ubiquity of the qibla. Pickthall’s novels, at their best, resemble a marriage of the two styles, just as he found in Islamic faith the ideal which he had sought in Christianity: a medieval liturgy combined with a low ecclesiology, the hieratic dignity of Laud invigorated by the social passions of Dissent.
On the surface, however, his religious needs seemed to be satisfied by an increasingly high Anglicanism. He frequently fasted and took communion, and insisted (to the annoyance of his chapelbound in-laws) on the truth of the Apostolic Succession. Behind this, however, his notebooks indicate a robust willingness to accept and face doubts, and even a solid cynicism about the ultimate truth of God; he wrestled with these difficulties, seeking help in the secular philosophy of the day, eventually to emerge, as al-Ghazali had done, a stronger man.
Rare is the secular soul that can produce true literature; and Pickthall’s youthful agonies over faith energise the first of his writings to see print: his short stories ‘Monsieur le Président’ and ‘The Word of an Englishman’, both published in 1898. The novel he had begun in Switzerland was never published: it is simple juvenilia, a laboratory experiment that in print would have done him no good at all. Sadly, his first published novel, All Fools, was little better, and contained morally problematic passages which were to saddle him in later years with the reputation of a libertine. Even his mother was disturbed by the most offending passage in the book, which used the word ‘stays’, an unmentionable item of Victorian underwear. The Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, to whom Pickthall unwisely sent a copy, was similarly agitated, and the young novelist lost many friends. Soon he bought up the unsold copies, and had them destroyed.
But by then he had already written much of the novel that was to catapult him to fame as one of the bestselling English novelists of the day: Said the Fisherman. This was published by Methuen in 1903, to spectacularly favourable reviews. A blizzard of fan-mail settled on his doormat. One especially pleasant letter came from H.G. Wells, who wrote, ‘I wish that I could feel as certain about my own work as I do of yours, that it will be alive and interesting people fifty years from now.’ Academics such as Granville Browne heaped praises upon it for its accurate portrayal of Arab life. In later years, Pickthall acknowledged that the novel’s focus on the less attractive aspects of the Arab personality which he had encountered in Palestine could never make the book popular among Arabs themselves; but even after his conversion, he insisted that the novelist’s mission was not to propagandise, but to tease out every aspect of the human personality, whether good or bad. As with his great harem novel, Veiled Women, he was concerned to be true to his perceptions; he would document English and Oriental life as he found it, not as he or others would wish it to be. The greatness of the Oriental vision would in this way shine through all the brighter.
His next novel returned him to England. Enid is the first of his celebrated Suffolk tales, reminiscent in some respects of the writings of the Powys brothers. It was followed by The House of Islam, which he wrote while nursing his mother in her final illness, and at a time when his life was saddened by the growing realisation that he would never have children. The novel is unsteady and still immature: still only in his twenties, Pickthall could manage the comic scenes of Said the Fisherman, but could not fully sustain the grave, tragic theme which he chose for The House, which described the anguish of a Muslim compelled to take his sick daughter to a Western Christian doctor when traditional remedies had failed.
This productive but sober period of his life ended in 1907. An invitation to St James’s Palace to meet the wife of Captain Machell, advisor to the Egyptian Prime Minister Mustafa Fahmi Pasha, began with a discussion of his books, and led to an invitation to Alexandria.
Pickthall accepted with alacrity, and soon was back in his beloved East. In native dress again, he travelled through the countryside, marvelling at the mawlid of al-Sayyid al-Badawi in Tanta, and immersing himself in Arab ways. The result was a series of short stories and his novel Children of the Nile. It also offered an opportunity to help his friend James Hanauer, the Anglican chaplain at Damascus, edit his anthology of Muslim, Christian and Jewish tales, Folklore of the Holy Land.
1908 brought intimations of the collapse of the old world. At first, the Young Turk revolution seemed to presage a renewed time of hope for the Empire. Pickthall welcomed the idealistic revolutionaries, imagining that they would hold the empire together better than the old Sultan, with his secretive ways. Here, perhaps, is the essence of his apparent remoteness towards Sheikh Abdullah Quilliam. Quilliam had been a confidant of Abdul Hamid, ‘the Sultan’s Englishman’, his private advisor and his emissary on sensitive missions to the Balkans. Quilliam knew the Sultan as Pickthall never did, and must have felt that his opposition to the Young Turk movement was fully vindicated by the disasters of the Balkan War of 1912, when the Empire lost almost all her remaining European territories to vengeful Christians. More calamitous still was the Unionist decision to cast in its lot with Prussian militarism during the First World War. Pickthall, too, became anxious for Turkey, seeing that the old British policy of upholding the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, which had begun even before Britain intervened on Turkey’s side in the Crimean War, and had been reinforced by Disraeli’s anti-Russian strategy, was steadily disintegrating in the face of Young Turk enthusiasm for Germany.
Coup and counter-coup let much gifted Osmanli blood. The Arabs and the Balkan Muslims, who had previously looked up to the Turks for political and religious leadership, began to wonder whether they should not heed the mermaid calls of the European Powers, and press for autonomy or outright independence from the Porte. Behind the agitation was, on the one hand, the traditional British fear that, in the words of Sir Mark Sykes, ‘the collapse of the Ottoman Empire would be a frightful disaster to us.’ On the other were ranged the powers of bloodsucking French banks, Gladstonian Christian Islamophobia, and a vicious pan-Slavism bankrolled from the darker recesses of Moscow’s bureaucracy.
Sheikh Abdullah Quilliam, that undying Empire loyalist, fired off a hot broadside of polemic:
‘List, ye Czar of “Russia’s all,”
Hark! The sound of Freedom’s call,
Chanting in triumphant staves,
“Perish tyrants! Perish knaves!”’
Like Pickthall, he knew that the integrity of the traditional free lands of Islam was threatened not by internal weakness so much as by the Russian system of government, which, as Pickthall saw, ‘must have war. War is a necessity of its existence, for an era of peace would inevitably bring to pass the revolution which has long been brewing.’ The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, he knew, would plunge the region into disorder for an age. He had no confidence in the ability of Arab or Balkan peoples to recreate the free and stable space which the Ottomans, at their best, had supplied, and he lamented the Foreign Office’s change of heart. ‘An independent Turkey,’ he opined, ‘was regarded by our older, better-educated statesmen as just as necessary […] as a safety-valve is to a steam-engine: do away with it – the thing explodes.’ Lawrence and his Arab allies would soon demonstrate the truth of his predictions.
Pickthall was never fully at ease with the Unionists. In later years, he must frequently have wondered whether Quilliam’s insistent conservatism, now to be manifested in support for the Liberal party of Old Turks, was not the course of a wiser head. Quilliam had lived behind the scenes at Yildiz Palace, and knew Abdul Hamid as few others had done; and he had trusted, even loved the man. The Young Turks promised a new dawn for Islam, the Caliphate and the entire Muslim world; but their Turanian preoccupations were liable to alienate the very minorities that they claimed to emancipate from the dhimma rules. Quilliam had urged the Sultan to allow the Balkan Muslims to retain their arms; the Unionists had disarmed them; and the results were to be seen in the tragic refugee columns that escaped the religious pogroms of 1912 and 1913.
As the dismal news rolled in, it seemed as though Heaven had finally abandoned the Empire to its fate. In England, Pickthall campaigned vigorously on Turkey’s behalf, but could do nothing against the new Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, who was, as Granville Browne commented, ‘russophile, germanophobe, and anti-Islamic.’ He wrote to a Foreign Office official demanding to know whether the new arrangements in the Balkans could be considered to further the cause of peace, and received the following reply: ‘Yes, and I’ll tell you why. It is not generally known. But the Muslim population has been practically wiped out – 240,000 killed in Western Thrace alone – that clears the ground.’
While campaigning for the dying Empire, Pickthall found time for more novels. Larkmeadow, another Suffolk tale, appeared in 1911, and in 1913 he produced one of his masterpieces, Veiled Women. This follows Saïd in its realistic, often Zola-like depiction of Middle Eastern life, but now there is an undercurrent of polemic. Edwardian imperial convictions about the evils of slavery stood little chance against the charming reality of a Cairo harem, where concubinage was an option desired earnestly by many Circassian girls, whose slave-guardians thanked God for the ease of their lot. Lord Cromer, although generally contemptuous of Egyptian ways, made an exception in the case of slavery, an institution whose Islamic expression he was able grudgingly to respect:
‘It may be doubted (Cromer wrote) whether in the majority of cases the lot of slaves in Egypt is, in its material aspects, harder than, or even as hard as that of many domestic servants in Europe. Indeed, from one point of view, the Eastern slave is in a better position than the Western servant. The latter can be thrown out of employment at any moment. […] Cases are frequent of masters who would be glad to get rid of their slaves, but who are unable to do so because the latter will not accept the gift of liberty. A moral obligation, which is universally recognised, rests on all masters to support aged and infirm slaves till they die; this obligation is often onerous in the case of those who have inherited slaves from their parents or other relatives.’ (Lord Cromer, Modern Egypt, New York, 1908, II, 496-7.)
In its portrayal of the positive aspects of polygamy and slavery, Veiled Women was calculated to shock. It was, perhaps for this reason, one of his least popular works.
During the same period Pickthall contributed to the New Age, the fashionable literary magazine supported by Bernard Shaw, sharing its pages, almost weekly, with Ezra Pound, D.H. Lawrence, and G.K. Chesterton. As a literary figure, if not as a political advocate, he had arrived.
Veiled Women gave him the fare to Istanbul. Lodged with a German lady (Miss Kate, Turkicised to Misket Hanum) in a house in the quiet suburb of Erenköy, he gathered material for his dramatic but sad With the Turk in Wartime, and his The Early Hours, perhaps the greatest of his novels. He also penned a series of passionate essays, The Black Crusade. During this time, despite the Balkan massacres, Christians went unmolested in the great city. He recorded a familiar scene at the Orthodox church in Pera one Easter Friday: ‘four different factions fighting which was to carry the big Cross, and the Bishop hitting out right and left upon their craniums with his crozier; many people wounded, women in fits. The Turkish mounted police had to come in force to stop further bloodshed.’ It was a perfect image of the classical Ottoman self-understanding: without the Sultan-Caliph, the minorities would murder each other. The Second Balkan War, which saw the victorious Orthodox powers squabbling over the amputated limbs of Turkey, looked like a full vindication of this.
Pickthall returned to an England full of glee at the Christian victories. As a lover of Turkey, he was shattered by the mood of triumph. The Bishop of London held a service of intercession to pray for the victory of the Bulgarian army as it marched on Istanbul. Where, in all this, was Pickthall’s high Anglicanism?
It was the English mood of holy war which finally drove him from the faith of his fathers. He had always felt uncomfortable with those English hymns that curse the infidel. One particular source of irritation was Bishop Cleveland Coxe’s merry song:
‘Trump of the Lord! I hear it blow!
Forward the Cross; the world shall know
Jehovah’s arms against the foe;
Down shall the cursed Crescent go!
To arms! To arms!
God wills it so.’
And now, in a small Sussex village church, Pickthall heard a vicar hurling imprecations against the devilish Turk. The last straw was Charles Wesley’s hymn ‘For the Mahometans’:
‘O, may thy blood once sprinkled cry
For those who spurn Thy sprinkled blood:
Assert thy glorious Deity
Stretch out thine arm thou triune God
The Unitarian fiend expel
And chase his doctrines back to Hell.’
Pickthall thought of the Carnegie Report, which declared, of the Greek attack on Valona, that ‘in a century of repentance they could not expiate it.’ He thought of the forced conversions of the Pomaks in Bulgaria. He remembered the refugees in Istanbul, their lips removed as trophies by Christian soldiers. He remembered that no Muslim would ever sing a hymn against Jesus. He could stand no more. He left the church before the end of the service, and never again considered himself a Christian.
The political situation continued to worsen. Horrified by the new British policy, which seemed hell-bent on plunging the Balkans and the Middle East into chaos, the Young Turks strengthened their ties with Berlin. Meanwhile, the British government, driven by the same men who had allowed the destruction of Macedonia and Thrace, marched headlong towards war with the Central Powers. In August 1914, Winston Churchill seized two Turkish dreadnoughts, the Sultan Osman and the Reshadiye, which were under construction in a British yard. The outrage in Turkey was intense. Millions of pounds had been subscribed by ordinary Turks: women had even sold their hair for a few coppers and schoolboys made do with dry bread in order to add to the fund. But the ships were gone, and with them went Pickthall’s last hopes for a peaceful settlement. The hubris of nationalistic Europe, the tribal vanity which she pressed on the rest of the world as the sole path to human progress, was about to send millions of young men to their deaths. The trigger was the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist, on the streets of Sarajevo.
The war had broken Europe’s ideals, and the machines of Krupp lent new efficiency to her patriotic hatreds. The Hun reached the Marne, and English dowagers strangled their dachshunds with their own hands. It was no time to be a Turcophile. But Pickthall had found a new source of strength. The pride of human autonomy had been shown a lethal fantasy; and only God could provide succour. But where could He be found?
In 1913, Lady Evelyn Cobbold, the Sutherland heiress and traveller, tried to convert him during a dinner at Claridges, explaining that the waiters would do perfectly well as witnesses. He politely demurred; but he could marshal no argument against hers. What he had seen and described, she had lived. As an English Muslim woman familiar with the heart of Asia, she knew that his love for Islam was grounded in much more than a Pierre Loti style enjoyment of exotica. And so, on 29 November 1914, during a lecture on ‘Islam and Progress’, he took the plunge, joining countless others of his kind. From now on, his life would be lived in the light of the One God of Islam. Muriel followed him soon afterwards.
The war ground on, and Pickthall watched as the Turks trounced the assembled British and colonial troops at Gallipoli, only to be betrayed by the Arab uprising under Lawrence. Like Evelyn Cobbold, Pickthall despised Lawrence as a shallow romantic, given to unnatural passions and wild misjudgements. As he later wrote, reviewing the Seven Pillars of Wisdom:
‘He really thought the Arabs a more virile people than the Turks. He really thought them better qualified to govern. He really believed that the British Government would fulfil punctually all the promises made on its behalf. He really thought that it was love of freedom and his personal effort and example rather than the huge sums paid by the British authorities and the idea of looting Damascus, which made the Arabs zealous in rebellion.’
While Europeans bloodied each others’ noses, and encouraged the same behaviour in others, Pickthall began to define his position in the British Muslim community. The Liverpool congregation had lost its mosque in 1908, and Sheikh Abdullah had gone to ground in the Turkish town of Bostancik, to return as the mysterious Dr Henri Marcel Leon, translator of Mevlevi ghazals and author of a work on influenza. There was a prayer-room in Notting Hill, and an Islam Society, a Muslim Literary Society, and also the eccentric Anglo-Moghul mosque in Woking. In all these institutions Pickthall assumed the role of a natural leader. He had no patience with the Qadiani sect (‘I call myself a Sunni Muslim of the Hanafi school’, he said in self-definition), but when Khwaja Kamaluddin, suspected by many even then of Qadiani sympathies, returned to India in 1919, Pickthall preached the Friday sermons in Woking. ‘If there is one thing that turns your hair grey, it is preaching in Arabic’, he later remarked, perhaps recalling the caliph Umar II’s words that ‘mounting the pulpits, and fear of solecisms, have turned my hair grey.’ He preached in London as well, and in due course some of his khutbas found their way into print, drawing the attention of others in the Muslim world. In addition, he spent a year running an Islamic Information Bureau in Palace Street, London, which issued a weekly paper, The Muslim Outlook.
The Outlook was funded by Indian Muslims loyal to the Caliphate. The Khilafatist movement represented a dire threat to British rule in India, which had previously found the Muslims to be less inclined to the independence party than the Hindus. But the government’s policy was too much to bear. On January 18, 1918, Lloyd George had promised Istanbul and the Turkish-speaking areas of Thrace to post-war Turkey; but the reality turned out rather differently. Istanbul was placed under Allied occupation, and the bulk of Muslim Thrace was awarded to Greece. This latest case of Albion’s perfidy intensified Indian Muslim mistrust of British rule. Gandhi, too, encouraged many Hindus to support the Khilafat movement, and few Indians participated in the Raj’s official celebration of the end of the First World War. Instead, a million telegrams of complaint arrived at the Viceroy’s residence.
Pickthall was now at his most passionate:
‘Objectivity is much more common in the East than in the West; nations, like individuals, are there judged by their words, not by their own idea of their intentions or beliefs; and these inconsistencies, which no doubt look very trifling to a British politician, impress the Oriental as a foul injustice and the outcome of fanaticism. The East preserves our record, and reviews it as a whole. There is no end visible to the absurdities into which this mental deficiency of our rulers may lead us. […] Nothing is too extravagant to be believed in this connection, when flustered mediocrities are in the place of genius.’
This bitter alienation from British policy, which now placed him at the opposite pole from his erstwhile friend Churchill, opened the next chapter in Pickthall’s life. Passionate Khilafatists invited him to become editor of a great Indian newspaper, the Bombay Chronicle, and he accepted. In September 1919 he reached the Apollo Bunder, and immediately found himself carried away in the maelstrom of Indian life and politics. When he arrived, most of the Chronicle’s staff were on strike; within six months he had turned it around and doubled its circulation, through a judicious but firm advocacy of Indian evolution towards independence. The Government was incandescent, but could do little. However Pickthall, who became a close associate of Gandhi, supported the ulema’s rejection of violent resistance to British rule, and their opposition to the growing migration of Indian Muslims to independent Afghanistan. Non-violence and non-co-operation seemed the most promising means by which India would emerge as a strong and free nation. When the Muslim League made its appearance under the very secular figure of Jinnah, Pickthall joined the great bulk of India’s ulema in rejecting the idea of partition. India’s great Muslim millions were one family, and must never be divided. Only together could they complete the millennial work of converting the whole country to Islam.
So the Englishman became an Indian nationalist leader, fluent in Urdu, and attending dawn prayers in the mosque, dressed in Gandhian homespun adorned with the purple crescent of the Khilafatists. He wrote to a friend: ‘They expect me to be a sort of political leader as well as a newspaper editor. I have grown quite used to haranguing multitudes of anything from 5 to 30,000 people in the open air, although I hate it still as much as ever and inwardly am just as miserably shy.’ He also continued his Friday sermons, preaching at the great mosque of Bijapur and elsewhere.
In 1924, the Raj authorities found the Chronicle guilty of misreporting an incident in which Indian protesters had been killed. Crushing fines were imposed on the newspaper, and Pickthall resigned. His beloved Khilafatist movement folded in the same year, following Atatürk’s abolition of the ancient title. Although he effectively left political life, he was always remembered gratefully by Gandhi, who was later to write these words to his widow:
‘Your husband and I met often enough to grow to love each other and I found Mr. Pickthall a most amiable and deeply religious man. And although he was a convert he had nothing of the fanatic in him that most converts, no matter to what faith they are converted, betray in their speech and act. Mr. Pickthall seemed to me to live his faith unobtrusively.’
His job was gone, but Pickthall’s desire to serve Islam burned brighter than ever. He accepted the headmastership of a boy’s school in the domains of the Nizam of Hyderabad, outside the authority of British India. This princely state boasted a long association with British Muslims, and had been many years earlier the home of one of the most colourful characters in India: William Linnaeus Gardner (1770-1835), a convert who fought in the Nizam’s forces against the French in 1798 before setting up his own regiment of irregulars, Gardner’s Horse, and marrying his son to a niece of the Moghul emperor Akbar Shah.
In the 1920s, Hyderabad resembled a surviving fragment of Moghul brilliance, and the Nizam, the richest man in the world, was busy turning his capital into an oasis of culture and art. The appointment of the celebrated Pickthall would add a further jewel to his crown. Pickthall’s monarchist sympathies were aroused by the Nizam, who had made his lands the pride of India. ‘He lives like a dervish’, Pickthall reported, ‘and devotes his time to every detail of the Government.’ It was his enthusiasm and generosity that enabled Pickthall to launch the journal Islamic Culture, which he edited for ten years, and which continues to be published in the city as one of the Muslim world’s leading academic journals. Under his editorship, a wide range of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars published on a huge variety of topics. A regular contributor was Josef Horowitz, the great German orientalist. Another was Henri Leon, now writing as Harun Mustafa Leon, who contributed learned articles on early Arabic poetry and rhetoric, on Abbasid medical institutions, and a piece on ‘The Languages of Afghanistan.’
Pickthall also directed the school for Hyderabadi civil servants, encouraging their attendance at prayer, and teaching them the protocols to observe when moving among the burra sahibs of British India. Prayer featured largely in all his activities: as he wrote to a friend, after attending a conference on eduction:
‘I attended prayers at Tellycherry. The masjids are all built like Hindu temples. There are no minarets, and the azan is called from the ground, as the Wahhabis call it. When I mentioned this fact, the reforming party were much amused because the maulvis of Malabar are very far from being Wahhabis. I stopped the Conference proceedings at each hour of prayer, and everyone went to the adjacent mosque. I impressed upon the young leaders the necessity of being particularly strict in observance of the essential discipline of Islam.’
In the midst of this educational activity, he managed to find time to write. He wrote a (never to be published) Moghul novel, Dust and the Peacock Throne, in 1926, and the following year he composed his Madras lectures, published as The Cultural Side of Islam, which are still widely read in the Subcontinent. But from 1929 until 1931 the Nizam gave him leave-of-absence to enable him to complete his Koranic translation. As he noted: ‘All Muslim India seems to be possessed with the idea that I ought to translate the Qur’an into real English.’ He was anxious that this should be the most accurate, as well as the most literate, version of the Scripture. As well as mastering the classical Islamic sources, he travelled to Germany to consult with leading Orientalists, and studied the groundbreaking work of Nöldeke and Schwally, the Geschichte des Qorans, to which his notes frequently refer.
When the work was completed, Pickthall realised that it was unlikely to gain wide acceptance among Muslims unless approved by Al-Azhar, which, with the abolition of the Ottoman post of Shaykh al-Islam, had become the leading religious authority in the Muslim world. So to Egypt he went, only to discover that powerful sections of the ulema considered unlawful any attempt to render ‘the meanings of the Book’ into a language other than Arabic. The controversy soon broke, as Shaykh Muhammad Shakir wrote in the newspaper Al-Ahram that all who aided such a project would burn in Hell for evermore. The Shaykh recommended that Pickthall translate Tabari’s commentary instead, a work that would amount to at least one hundred volumes in English. Other ulema demanded that his translation be retranslated into Arabic, to see if it differed from the original in any respect, however small.
Pickthall published, in Islamic Culture, a long account of his battle with the Shaykh and the mentality which he represented. He included this reflection:
‘Many Egyptian Muslims were as surprised as I was at the extraordinary ignorance of present world conditions of men who claimed to be the thinking heads of the Islamic world – men who think that the Arabs are still ‘the patrons,’ and the non-Arabs their ‘freedmen’; who cannot see that the positions have become reversed, that the Arabs are no longer the fighters and the non-Arabs the stay-at-homes but it is the non-Arabs who at present bear the brunt of the Jihâd; that the problems of the non-Arabs are not identical with those of the Arabs; that translation of the Qur’ân is for the non-Arabs a necessity, which, of course, it is not for Arabs; men who cannot conceive that there are Muslims in India as learned and devout, as capable as judgment and as careful for the safety of Islam, as any to be found in Egypt.’
The battle was won when Pickthall addressed, in Arabic, a large gathering of the ulema, including Rashid Rida, explaining the current situation of Islam in the world, and the enormous possibilities for the spread of Islam among the English-speaking people. He won the argument entirely. The wiser heads of al-Azhar, recognising their inability to understand the situation of English speakers and the subtle urgencies of da‘wa, accepted his translation. The former Shaykh al-Azhar, al-Maraghi, who could see his sincerity and his erudition, offered him these parting words: ‘If you feel so strongly convinced that you are right, go on in God’s name in the way that is clear to you, and pay no heed to what any of us say.’
The translation duly appeared, in 1930, and was hailed by the Times Literary Supplement as ‘a great literary achievement.’ Avoiding both the Jacobean archaisms of Sale, and the baroque flourishes and expansions of Yusuf Ali (whose translation Pickthall regarded as too free), it was recognised as the best translation ever of the Book, and, indeed, as a monument in the history of translation. Unusually for a translation, it was further translated into several other languages, including Tagalog, Turkish and Portuguese.
Pickthall, now a revered religious leader in his own right, was often asked for Hanafi fatwas on difficult issues, and continued to preach. As such, he was asked by the Nizam to arrange the marriage of the heir to his throne to the daughter of the last Ottoman caliph, Princess Dürrüsehvar. The Ottoman exiles lived in France as pensioners of the Nizam, and thither Pickthall and the Hyderabad suite travelled. His knowledge of Ottoman and Moghul protocol allowed Pickthall to bring off this brilliant match, which was to be followed by an umra visit, his private hope being that the Caliphate, which he regarded as still by right vested in the House of Osman, might now pass to a Hyderabadi prince yet to be born, who would use the wealth of India and the prestige and holiness of the Caliphate to initiate a new dawn of independence and success for Islam. Delhi’s decision to absorb the Nizam’s domains into independent India made that impossible; but the princess devoted her life to good works, which continue today, even after her ninetieth birthday, which she celebrated in January 2004.
In 1935 Pickthall left Hyderabad. His school was flourishing, and he had forever to deny that he was the Fielding of E.M. Forster’s novel A Passage to India. (He knew Forster well, and the charge may not be without foundation.) He handed over Islamic Culture to the new editor, the Galician convert Muhammad Asad. He then returned to England, where he set up a new society for Islamic work, and delivered a series of lectures.
Despite this new activity, however, his health was failing, and he must have felt as Winstanley felt:
‘And here I end, having put my arm as far as my strength will go to advance righteousness. I have writ, I have acted, I have peace: and now I must wait to see the Spirit do his own work in the hearts of others and whether England shall be the first land, or some other, wherein truth shall sit down in triumph.’ (Gerrard Winstanley, A New Year’s Gift for the Parliament and Army, 1650.)
He died in a cottage in the West Country on May 19 1936, of coronary thrombosis, and was laid to rest in the Muslim cemetery at Brookwood. After his death, his wife cleared his desk, where he had been revising his Madras lectures the night before he died, and she found that the last lines he had written were from the Qur’an:
‘Whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah, while doing good, his reward is with his Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, neither shall they grieve.’ sniper420 Lion Heart......I can understand u have heart of a lion and can tackle three Brits easily....but hey! Why r u wasting ur time cut and pasting or typing when u know some ppl here are just stubborn.....u can teach a person who would love to learn.......not just plain arrogant.... Chocoholic Of course Sniper, you'll know that Lionheart was the nickname of King Richard the 1st, King of England. Known as Richard the Lionheart! So I suspect he is in fact from the UK. Lionheart
The real Lionheart of the Crusade was none other than the great Salahoudin( may allah be pleased with him), not the coward who excuted in cold blood 5000 muslim prisoners. Chocoholic I'm getting really bored with the way you keep bashing the same people. Your views are one-sided and narrow minded. Grow up!
sniper420
yeah except he lived most of the time in France and knew French not Anglais! Richard was the only guy capable of hitting mUslims during the time of Salahdin, he even earned praise from Saladin.....I read the battle between them, both were fine and best from their culture...one of the best non-fiction have ever read Chocoholic Well I stand corrected. Nice one. arniegang
Very true Sniper Lionheart hasn't got anything to say for himself he just cuts and paste crap
:lol: :lol: :lol: Lionheart
Is not that I don't have nothing to say for myself, but rather people in here for some reason are bothered by facts that I post. I guess If posted articles that demonized the helpless muslims in Iraq or the Iranians as menace bent on nuking the world or if I had betrayed the greedy British/American imperlist in good light people in here wouldn't be bothered as much. arniegang FACTS :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Nucleus Lionheart, it is past and matter of opinion.... but what do you suggest we should do? And what about learning from our mistakes that doesn't include UK or any other foriegn elements? They deserve equal importance too. Lionheart
WHat do I suggest we should do?
For starters getting ride of puppet leaders in middle east and installing a Islamic government similiar to Hamas Government that serves the interest of its people rather than its own or the west....after this I would hope the governments in Middle east become self-dependent by taking their investment out of American and British markets and reinvesting that money into their markets or the markets in far east such as China, Indonesia, India, Iran, even Africa. Opening a Oil bourse or joining Iranian Oil bourse would help people in middle east be more self dependent in its Politics and in economically.
And what about learning from our mistakes that doesn't include UK or any other foriegn elements? They deserve equal importance too...
In order to learn from our own mistakes we have to be allowed to have governments that represents our interest..so that when they fail we are the onese to blame for their failures and their successes...but if we are not allowed to have government that represents our interest than how could we take blame for our problems... when most them are caused by western Interference do to greed and imperlism.. Liban Simply having an Islamic government like Hamas, as you said, is not the key. I fully support most of what you said in your last post except that part. I beleive we need to return to the root of Islam and have a system of governance as per the Caliphate era. While Sharia was the law, there was leeway. Christians and Jews and women were respected members of the community during that era and I fear that without such a return to the basic Islamic governance that we would have more of a Taliban system than a Caliphate one. kanelli I think that religion and government should be kept strictly apart, because that is the only way that people will not be persecuted and the only way they can live freely and speak freely. arniegang
I believe it is not just down to religion. The vast majority of the middle and far east Goverments are not democratic.
I agree K that religion and government should be kept apart, but in reality it cannot exist, more so in the ME. Lionheart
Agreed Lionheart
Muslims, especially people in Middle east have tried democracy, communism, and westernization last 100 years, and all have them have done nothing but to bring misery and corruption. Muslims were better much better of when Islam was the rule of law...matter fact there was less corruption, persecution under the Islamic rule than today. Muslims under Islamic rule were more tolerant to other faiths than they are today under democracy, communism, dictatorship and westernization. Chocoholic Sorry to say that many people today are not of the Islamic faith or have no religion at all, so what you suggest would leave them open to persecution. Plus living in an oppressive society where your life is governed by religious teachings is not practical or wanted for many people. Plus you also fail once again to look at the flip side. What of the preachers across Europe that would have European countries as Islamic states, are they not enforcing their opinions? Are they not trying to govern peoples lives? In countries which many of them are 'guests'! A place like the UAE has opened itself up to be multi-cultural and promoting itself as a destination for people of all backgrounds and walks of life, plus of course it wants as much revenue as possible from tourism and investment and the hard work of the expat community - is this not greedy? I've come to the conclusion Lionheart, that you do not live in the real world and fail to see past the end of your nose and your biased rose tinted glasses. Lionheart

If countries population is overwhelmingly muslim and the citizens of those countries want Islamic rule rather western version of democracy, why not respect their wishes like you want people to respect your wish of living in country were politics and religion don't mix. I don't believe its right or sensible to impose Islamic law on population who is not muslim. I disagree with you on what constitutes oppressive society...in my opinion an oppressive society is society that holds nothing sacred...were god almighty is mocked/riddiculed...were prophets are insulted...were homesexuality is rampant..were children have no respect for parents and elders...were child abuse is norm...husbands kill their spouse, children and parents for insurance money...were money is more valuable than human life...were the purpose of life of average citizen is attaining wealth and fame rather worshippping the creator heaven and earth....To me this is more of oppressive society than the brutal Taliban regime.

Europe is Christian, so why would I wish to impose Islamic state or rule on them and I don't think I ever said to... I think you are confusing Middle east which I believe should become one big country stretching from Maurtania to Iraq...and this possible since all the countries inbetween with exception of Iraq are overwhelmingly majority Sunni Muslims and also these are lands Sunni Caliphat's(the Umayyad,Abbasids, Ottoman) ruled in the past.

Choco...I could be reasoned with...but you and others here unfortunately can not be reasoned... shafique Lionheart, Your description of 'oppressiveness' of western societies in relation to lack of morals etc has very little to do with democracy or form of government. You cannot legislate for morality. I was shocked when I went to Saudi Arabia to hear that there is a problem of paedophillia there - to the point where my host would go and collect his teenage sons from school rather than have them travel home by themselves! They commented that Dubai was far safer in terms of sex crimes BECAUSE of the presence of prostitution!! This is to illustrate the depravity of the society there now, where rape is not uncommon and the perversions have moved to kids. This is DESPITE having strict 'Islamic' or rather 'Wahabistic' laws. Morality begins at home, society cannot take responsibility for bad parenting and bad values. You cannot have it both ways - if democracy is bad because it has led to 'loose morals' in your view, then by extension you should also denounce the Saudi model for making it unsafe to let young boys walk around by themselves and have women going round in fear of being raped (by Saudis, I might add). And this is what is reported - what goes on behind closed doors would make Hugh Heffner blush! As for the question of Muslim unity and your view that a Caliphate is the panacea for the ills of the Ummah - I admire your idealism, but have to prick it with the reality of the politics of current muslim population. They can't agree on a joint general approach on the question of punishment for Apostacy (which isn't death, btw), let alone sort out the theological differences between all the sects. If the muslim ummah can't agree on the dates of Eid within a country, what hope is there for choosing a world-wide Caliph? The Islamic model does not allow for multiple religious heads, but one leader. You seem to exclude Shia from the position of leading the muslim world, so even in your model there would be some separation. But leave this to oneside - in the Sunni sphere, who would you suggest would make a good (ok, lets just settle on Credible for now) leader? Wasalaam, Shafique Chocoholic Excellent post Shaf, I was also going to say that eveything Lionheart mentioned which in his opinion describes an oppressed society is rife in the UAE and Middle East! You only have to look at the papers over the last week for evidence of everything he mentioned Once again Lionheart you're totally oblivious to the world around you. Nucleus
What do you suggest how should we do this (get rid of puppet leaders)?

What makes you so sure that China won't be as bad as the "west"?
Second, is it possible without establishing investment friendly enviormnent?

I agree to certain extent, but we don't need to first have a govt. that represents for every mistake that we can learn from and change.
[color=green]
- Verily never will Allah change a condition of a people until they change what is within their souls [Quran 13:11]
- And thus We subjugate some oppressors to other (oppressors) due to their doings. [Quran 6:129]
(There are various views to this ayat; Hazrat A'amash's view is that when people's actions become corrupt, then Allah appoints the most oppressive people as leaders over them.)
[/color]
[color=brown]
- Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) states:
The nation that is involved in misappropriation of trust (embezzlement), Allah will fill their hearts with terror for their enemies. The nation that is engaged in fornication, will experience great numbers of death. The nation that cheats in measure, will have their sustenance curtailed. The nation that legislates against the truth and justice, will experience great bloodshed and the nation that breaks it's contracts, will be subdued by the enemy. - Mishkaat
- Ali r.a. once responded to a complaints by the people that were questioning why they were facing so many problems under his rule that were not apparent at the the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, r.a. by saying, "When they ruled they had people like me to rule over whlile I have people like YOU"
- Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihi wa Sallam) said: Just as you are (your actions are) so will your rulers be.
- In one hadith it is reported: Do not engross yourselves in cursing and abusing your rulers; in fact you should gain the proximity of Allah (through obedience) and make dua on their behalf, Allah will turn their hearts towards you in mercy and kindness.
- A pious person once overheard someone cursing Hajjaaj (the notorious tyrant). He prevented him from this, saying: Whatever is happening is the result of your own actions. I fear that if Hajjaaj is deposed or expires, monkeys and swine be made rulers over you.
- In another hadith, it is reported:
I am Allah, there is no deity besides Me, I am the King of Kings and the Master of Kings, the heart of Kings are within My control; when My servants are obedient to me, I make their rulers kind-hearted towards them; when they disobey Me, I turn their rulers against them with anger and tyranny, they then oppress them severly. Therefore, instead of cursing them, turn towards me in remembrance and submission, I will protect you against their tyranny[/color]. Nucleus "If the muslim ummah can't agree on the dates of Eid within a country" In Islam it is not necessary to agree on dates of Eid... unity doesn't mean uniformity. Caliphate is a very complex issue and I wonder whether average muslims know what exactly is a caliph, how one is elected, and the classical governing system under caliphate? shafique Nucleus, In one area there cannot be two dates for Eid, no matter what logic you use (unless, of course, there are 2 different versions of Islam)? As for the Caliphate - it is not complex, Khalifa means successor and in Islam means the sole leader of the whole community. Any other definition is a man-made fabrication derived to justify the status quo at the time. Bottom line is that there is no unity because people are following personalities and having ego trips rather than being humble and worshipping God and following His commandment to love mankind, do good works and help the needy. Wasalaam, Shafique Lionheart

Shafique... I have never used Saud Arabia as example of just and fair Islamic society... I have always spoken out against Saudis and other rich Gulf Arabs who hide behind Islam, while abusing it in the worst possible way...Although I have never lived in Saud Arabia personally... I have friends who live in Saud Arabia and have told me about the pedophiles, the abuse maides( mainly Phillipino, Indonesian), the wife beatings, the child slavery, and many other things that would make the stomachs of muslims around the world sick.
For the last 1000 years muslims have had disagrements over interpretation, differenceses on how to implement laws...but none of it stopped them from establishing the Ummah across the muslim world. Today it's not as much as differenceses in interpretetion of the deen, but rather the nationalism, race issue introduced by Western colonist that exist across muslim world. Sahaba worked to eliminate borders and racial differenceses to bring brothers together, while today's muslims are doing the opposite...by creating more borders and engaging more racial discrimination against fellow muslims.

Shafique.... I excluded Shia, because shia don't want to be ruled by Sunnis and vice verse Sunnis don't want to be ruled by Shias. Shias were never part of the Ummayed, the Abbasid and Othoman khilifah...they always had a seperate Ummah in Persia...If shias want to be part of the Ummah than they welcome to join the Ummah...
Who would make good leader in the Sunni sphere?
I don't know...I think Allah(SWT) is the only one that knows right know...but inshallah I will pray I live long enough to see the leader of the Ummah. Lionheart

If Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitese, Emerites,etc could go all the way to Afghanistan to fight against superpower the USSR or Iraq to fight against another superpower Americans...than don't see why they cannot fight against their oppressive governments to bring about change..

For starters China minds its own business...China is closer to Mid east than Europe or America...Mid east and China have been doing business far longer than Mid east and the West... China is not the one arming and protecting Isreal...etc sniper420
hehehe, that's the most funny thing I have read. Do u know Y are they quite? Their silence doesnt mean they are sympathetic for Mideast cause. A country which can brutally oppress it's own ppl & suppress the freedom of it's citizens then it is a matter of time it will show it's real color.
Ahem, wasn't Americans with Arabs during Iraq-Iran war, during war with Afghanisthan etc......Dude it's politics- it's a complex algorithm which even today's superpowers can't compute & it's matter of time that the snake that u fed will change sides and give u a stinging bite....it's politics. Lionheart

I never said they are sympathetic to Mid east nor do I want want their sympathy or anyone elses sympathy.
Atleast they are oppressing their own people, rather than going around the world oppressing and imposing their political Idealogy on foriegn lands like the AMericans/British.

Iran stood up against American and Isreal imperlism in MId east while Arabs kissed ass...that is the reason why America support Arabs. They did not support Arabs, because they like you or consider you a friend.
Afghanistan was fighting against USSR the only other Superpower at the time...so basically Afghanistan was doing America a favor weaking the USSR.
Snipers...If AMerica is such good friend to Arabs than why don't they allow Arabs to develop Nuclear weapons like Isreal...why don't they sell Arabs the same weapons they Isreal..why don't they allow Arabs to control their ports like they allow Danish, British, Chinese, etc to control their ports.... Why are their policies always pro Isreal and anti Arab??? sniper420
I never said they are sympathetic to Mid east nor do I want want their sympathy or anyone elses sympathy.
Atleast they are oppressing their own people, rather than going around the world oppressing and imposing their political Idealogy on foriegn lands like the AMericans/British.
Iran stood up against American and Isreal imperlism in MId east while Arabs kissed a#s...that is the reason why America support Arabs. They did not support Arabs, because they like you or consider you a friend.
Afghanistan was fighting against USSR the only other Superpower at the time...so basically Afghanistan was doing America a favor weaking the USSR.
Snipers...If AMerica is such good friend to Arabs than why don't they allow Arabs to develop Nuclear weapons like Isreal...why don't they sell Arabs the same weapons they Isreal..why don't they allow Arabs to control their ports like they allow Danish, British, Chinese, etc to control their ports.... Why are their policies always pro Isreal and anti Arab???
well dude u r so short-sighted. can't u see China harassing Taiwan and supressing non-chinese pop in Xinjiang or Urghys? They are not getting involved cos they may loose support of Americanos and Europeans which are markets for Chinese goods which is building their economy swiftly. If they reevaluate their yuan, Americans are gonna be in great problem...but aside from that China if it is commuist and bcomes strongest superpower 2morrow......it shall b far worse than Americans........far worse..atleast u do hear ppl protesting war in Iraq in states but u will only hear this statement from China "The Chinese ppl are 100% +- 0% with the Chinese gov" - From press of People's Republic of China.......
Now did u ever play a game call risk? or any strategy game like rise of nations?...there comes a time where I have to unite with my enemy A to defeat another stronger enemy B...but it gives me a view of the strength of enemy A and I make sure when enemy B is done , enemy A is vulnerable and can be dealt with same is the case here if Americanos gives Arabs nukes ...BAM....game over...now there wont be any fun...so they need a common ememy of arabs so they can show up in middle east and pretend to solve the problems by so called "cease fire" which has been going on for past 40 yrs.So u have to play politics...about the port read the topic Port deal seal. kanelli Some excellent posts here people! Lionheart, are you listening to anything anyone is saying? It is great that you want to have Muslim society that is ideal, but realistically, there is no such thing and will never be such a thing as a Muslim Utopia. Power, politics, money, influence - all corrupt, no matter what the nationality or religion. This has been proven throughout history. Remove one dominant oppressing power and another just fills its place. What I hear from you is that you prefer a Muslim power, but is that any better? Liban
Who are you to say it will never happen? kanelli Has it ever happened? People are people - flawed, corruptible, prone to group-think. When has power NOT corrupted? Look at history Liban... so sad but true. I'd like a utopia, but there is no such thing. Liban I don't want to be construed as idealistic, however I beleive something must be said to the fact that one cannot say "x, y or z will never happen" :) kanelli Well, I don't like to say it either, but a long history has provided only depressing records of conduct - so I'm becoming more pessimistic perhaps :) Lionheart
We are not looking for Muslim Utopua..we are seeking the what we had before the British came divided Muslim lands into countries..we are seeking a the Muslim Ummah prophet Mohammed(pbuh) and the Sahaba worked hard to bring together... arniegang Dream on Lionheart - it will never happen, yea all the middle east will combine into one government and give up their borders pmsl get real :roll: :roll: Lionheart
By the will of Allah almighty it will happen...The Ummah will rise again and no one...not even the imperlists will stand in the way of the Ummah... Not only will the Middle east be one big country..but the whole muslim world will be one big country.
sniper420
after the get together whatca are they gonna do? Wat about ppl like Liban who think Arabs are superior...? Handle em first :lol: arniegang pmsl @ Lionheart It may well be the will of Allah matey, but it wont be the will of all the Royal Leaders in the ME. Lionheart
Racial superiority and Ignorance has no place in Islam... Lionheart
I don't think I ever said I want to see China as the next superpower..The only superpower I would like to see and support is the Islamic Ummah and right know its not China that is interfering and standing in the way unity between the Ummah..its United States/Britian. Also China is not the one invading and occuppaying muslims lands in Mid east...its America/Britian. As far I see China has done nothing to poor people around the World, while America has waged military and economic war against poor people around the world...Ex. Central America, Mid east and of course the people in Vietnam. shafique Lionheart, You say you want to go back to before the British came - but wasn't that the Turkish empire? The muslim world was hardly united then and, if anything, the Arabs were marginalised in the Ottoman empire. There wasn't a single religious head that the whole muslim world relied on - there was only a Caliph in name, but not authority. Is this view of history correct, or did you have another model of 'pre-British' muslim world order that you were referring to? Also, the British brought some order to the Hijaz Penninsular - for instance the pilgrims to Mecca were routinely robbed by the local Arabs until the British put a stop to this. Wasalaam, Shafique kanelli
I doubt that he can answer this because he likely only reads propaganda he gets from Islamic websites or groups. They blame everything on the West instead of realising that things were not perfect before and in fact, Arabs have collaborated with the West to get things that they wanted from the deal. We all know that imperialism is bad and the West has screwed people over - but they are not the only ones to screw people over. Groups of people are always collaborating with other groups of people to achieve aims - that is the way the world works. To give the impression that Arabs have always been innocently sitting in their villages and cities while being ravaged by the West is false and just plain ignorant. Lionheart
"Arabs were marginalised in the Ottoman empire"
I don't think Arabs have ever been marginalized, taken advantage of the way they are today. Its kind of amazing how history repeats itself, 1000 years ago Arabs in Abbasid Caliphate were feuding over small things and gave the Crusaders opportunity to take control over Jerusalam...fast forward 1000 years, Arabs are at again...but this time Arabs allowed a Christian power to divide the Khalifia. The sad thing is that the Christian power they trusted more than their muslim brethren the Ottomans.... gave Jerusalam which muslims died for 1000 years earlier to get back to Yehuds. Arabs fought, but they were humiliated in a 6 day way by the Yehuds...a humiliation that still goes on till today.
"There wasn't a single religious head that the whole muslim world relied on - there was only a Caliph in name, but not authority."
shafique... Compare the Muslim world under the Muslim Caliphat to todays muslim world under democracy, communism, dictatoriship, Nationalism, and Westernization?
Is this view of history correct, or did you have another model of 'pre-British' muslim world order that you were referring to?
Simple model ....There are no borders between muslims, No nationality exists between muslims, no racial differentiation between muslims.. the only thing that counts is Islam.. Lionheart
Kanelli... Before you call my source propoganda take a deep look at the Western media that you listen and watch...if you don't see that as propoganda than I don't see why you would call my source as propoganda.
By the way if you don't want us blame the West...than there is simple solution to this problem...don't interfer with our affairs, don't tell us what rule of law we should follow, don't try imposing your political ideas on us..because it won't work...don't stand in our way of seeking unity in the Muslim world... arniegang You need to seek medical help urgently to remove that huge "chip off your shoulder" Lionheart :lol: :lol: kanelli Lionheart, has the West also forced some Arab countries to have Johnny Rockets, Starbucks, Ford, McDonalds, Chilis, TGI Friday's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Hard Rock Cafe, Pepsi, CocaCola, Planet Hollywood, and Applebee's etc. etc. What about all the television, movie and music that comes from the US and the West. If Arab people are really that concerned about the US or other Western countries being an evil power - why gobble up so much Western culture? Westernisation happens because many Arabs let it happen - they like aspects of Western culture. Even bad government policy doesn't seem to affect the taste for all things Western. Lionheart, you have yet to present a balanced view of anything. You claim that all of the Western media is propagandist, but you are taking sides with the Arab/Muslim propagandists. Propaganda sucks, no matter which side it comes from. SheikhaS Lionheart, sorry, Ive just been reading a few of your posts and have a question for you.............
Arent there lots of Muslims in the "West"?
:roll:
Does that mean you are against those Muslims because they are western?
Just wondering?
Dont send me to Hell for asking!! :shock: Lionheart
Arabs could replace the western products with product made by Muslims, mattar fact by replace western products with products made by their citizens...Arabs improve their markets, so my friend the West is not doing Arabs or anyone in the third a favor by selling western products in Arab world or anywhere in third world. They are actually benefitting from global market. Cocacola, Pepsi, Starbuck, Mcdonald's, etc wouldn't be as wealth as they are without the large market in Mid east or the third world. Like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuala, Western Movies and music could easily be replaced with local production and Music.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in free trade with the West or anywhere in the World..but what I don't believe or like is unfair trade practised by Western Capatilism against countries in Africa, Asia, South America and its not only me who is against this unfair trade balance..there are billions of people around the world who are also against this unfair balance of trade against the poorest countries in the world.

Okey, I will admit that I was wrong in lumping all Western journalist as propogandist. There are abviously some Western journalist who are fair and balanced about the issues they report. Look I don't mean to offend you or any other Western citizens...I'm just reacting to what I see and hear from some Western Media outlets and the actions of Western powers in Mid east and other parts of the muslim world. Lionheart
I'm not against the West or anyone for that matter...what I'm against is western involvement and interferrence in Mid east or anywhere in the World. I'm pretty sure Westerners would not like Middle easterners telling them what type of government they need, or whether they should be allowed to have weapons to protect itself.
I don't oppose westerners living and doing business in Mid east or anywhere in the Muslim world as long as they respect laws of the land...the same way muslim who choses to live in the West is expected to respect the laws of the land he lives.
"Dont send me to Hell for asking!! :shock"
I'm an individual and I'm no way of judge you or anyone...God is the only that can judge you. I'm not an ignorant fanatic that believes his way of live is the only... I'm very much tolerant to other believes and cultures. Lionheart
I think you are the one who needs mental examination "arniegang"....... Lionheart Simple question.... Would Westerners tolerate if the roles were reversed... in that Muslims are the one liberating, bringing Islamic laws, bringing freedom, etc to the West? arniegang Mr Chip on Your Shoulder. This may come as a huge surprise to you but i live 100 mts from a Mosque. In the UK we welcome and embrace all faiths. Lionheart you need to get your head out your arse and look around. Bringing Islamic laws to the UK. :? Why? We have a parliament and our elected representatives that make our Law. Why should we accept Islamic Law in a mainly Christian Country. The ME in the main governs itself and the laws are relevant to your culture, we do the same. Whats your problem? Please be specific in telling us which muslim / Islamic countries where a western government has enforced its own laws. Lionheart
You percieve me as having chip on my shoulder for what...wanting unity between muslim brothers, wanting to live in peace without being threatened with invasions, wanting to seek the ability to defend muslim lands from invasiond and threats, wanting to better the lives of disfranchised muslims and citizens in Mid east and Asia.
"In the UK we welcome and embrace all faiths."
Its good that you welcome people of all faiths to your land..know give us the same opportunity to welcome and tolerate people of other faiths like the old muslim Khaliphate...let us remove the intolerant dictatorship in Mid east and replace them with Khaliphate that seeks uynity and tolerance.
Lionheart you need to get your head out your arse and look around. Bringing Islamic laws to the UK. :?
You twisted my words...especifically stated that what if the roles were reversed... and it was the muslims imposing Islamic laws and culture on Westerners...like British/Americans have done in Iraq.. Would westerners tolerate this?
"We have a parliament and our elected representatives that make our Law. Why should we accept Islamic Law in a mainly Christian Country."
I could ask you the same question... Why should MUslims in Mid east except democracy and capatilism, when they have Islamic which is greater than any other laws...besides most of middle east is muslim.
"Please be specific in telling us which muslim / Islamic countries where a western government has enforced its own laws"
Wasn't Iraq invaded for the sole purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq...like British/Americans have claimed. arniegang Mr Chip
I call you this because that is the personallity you portray on here. Maybe you need to read back over your cuts and pastes and look at the replies.

i didnt twist your words. You said "what if the roles were reversed" well they arn't, and gramatically you insinuate by role reversal that this has happened in the ME.
You mention Iraq, im not going there with you, because you are so fixated in your opinion, it matters not what anyone says, that does not fit in line with your thoughts. One point though, the laws havent changed in Iraq, the Troops are just enforcing Law and order, mainly to stop mulims killing other muslims.

Helloooooooo anyone there, wakey wakey
There is no democracy in the ME, like Kanelli said they accept capitalism because they want it.

Lets take Iraq out of the equation - please answer the question. Lionheart Mr Chip

What personality should I exhibit?...a personality of a servents dog like puppets Mid east. All the articles and pictures I posted are genuine facts that the so-called balanced fair western media has ignored... Arniegang instead of accussing me of posting propoganda, why not proof to me what I post is propoganda...Isn't that how democracy and free speach or are you ignoring your own values and believes.


I know they aren't..that is why I said "what if". You don't want obviously muslim imposing laws on you...so why would you want to impose your values and believes on people in Middle east..and when they fight back you call them terrorists, fanatics.

NO I'm not fixated...I could compromise and tolerate different opinion...but you like other Westerners can't seem to tolerate the idea of muslim uniting and abolishing borders inbetween them. Look I have no problem with Europeans seeking unity..so why do you have problem with the simple idea of muslims uniting to build a better community and future for their children.
arniegang... Iraqis new constituation was drafted by Americans..is every way and shape American/British constituation rather than Iraqi. I don't understand what law and order the occuppiers are enforcing..when Iraq is total chaos... the only thing the occuppiers are enforcing is their supremacy over the Iraqi people.


Hamas and Irans leadership was democratically elected by their people...but unfortunately west won't except them, but will except corrupt the brutal regim Husni Mubarak as democratic and dictators and self proclaimed royals in the Gulf....

Lets take Iraq out of the equation - please answer the question.
How about Syria, Iran who west threatens with sanctions, wars...just because they refused to do Wests biddings...I also believe Bush administeration especifically said they would bring democracy to Mid east and the rest of the World......The same government that wished to bring democracy to mid east refused to recognize the only two home grown democratically elected governments in Mid East, Hamas and Irans leadership... hyprocricy Chocoholic Lionheart, You say that you want to be given the chance to be tolerant and to welcome people of all faiths and backgrounds? Commendable, but the sad truth is many Islamic nations are constantly proving themselves to be intolerant of anything other than their own ways of life. Take the Afghani man who converted to Christinanity, they wanted to execute him, and now he's found asylum in Italy, there's uproar as people are saying the Government wimped out and went against Sharia Law etc etc and he should have been put to death - this is not tolerant! The Iranian whinges and moans about people investigating their nuclear programme and says it's all lovely and why shouldn't they have it and it's only for their own use - yet in the same breath wants to wipe and enitre nation off the face of the planet - this is not tolerant! You have fanatical Islamic clerics living in western/christian countries sponging off the tax payer and living the life of riley and they're calling for people to murder 'infidels' and crying for thoser countries that have given them shelter, food and a way of life to be disrupted and commending bombings and the killings of innocents - this is not tolerant! Dubai Knight Lionheart, it's all a question of 'Law'. The Iraqi new constitution is NOT a totally US/British invention imposed upon them without their wishes. The international community (I would stress that the peacekeeping forces in Iraq are made up from many different countries such as Japan, Spain, Germany, Poland) is working to see a democratically ELECTED government in Iraq. Elected by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people instead of a dictatorship (Saddam) or a religious dictatorship (Taliban) that ignores the basic human rights and would persecute one or multiple sectors of society. In order for this to take place, someone has to uphold the basics of international law and order. The interim Iraqi government is not able to do that. Until the elected government (the process and meaning of democracy means that everyone has the right to vote and therefore the government is the appointed body approved by the majority of Iraqis, not the US government) can make mandated decisions, then who will stop the extremists from trying to influence the people of Iraq through terror and violence. You? The Iraqi police? The model intorduced by the US just happens to be one that has worked for many centuries and also proved itself to be fair for everyone. It has being modified to take into account the specific requirements of an Islamic state, but that modification has been done by the Iraqi government themselves. Until it can be implemented, law and order must be maintained. For your information...the middle east does not constitute a particularly large profit area for many of the western companies operating here. There are far bigger markets out there. It is supply and demand. People in the Middle East want western products, therefore the demand is there. You can supply products from within your own market, if you made them. That takes time and expertise to learn how. Who makes cars in the middle east? Without Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Tata and General Motors where would you be? Knight Liban
Congratulations! Now have a bone. kanelli Great post Jedi Knight. Liban, you really lose credibility when all you can discuss from arnie's post is the one-liner you just gave. Arnie was pointing out that he lives amonst Muslims in the UK - that Muslims and people from many religions are able to practice their faith there. This is not the case is many Muslim countries. What do you find objectionable about that? Liban Lemmi answer you. He makes it look like he is so special. "Ohhh look at me, I live by a Mosque, I am so cool..." Does he mention how most mosques in the UK are under surveillance??? No! You know in all Muslim countries, except Saudi, Christians practice freely. Saudi is the host of the Holy Sites. How many Mosques are there in the Vatican?????? So your point is mute. kanelli
Actually, no that wasn't Arnie's point, only your interpretation of his point based on your own biases.
How do you know that people practising other faiths are not under surveillance in other countries? Are you claiming that all mosques in the UK are under surveillance? Also, is there a particular reason why mosques might be under surveillance rather than the churches or synagogues or temples?
Having your belongings looked through to check for too much religious paraphanalia when you move into a country, and having only limited or no ability to build churches and religious schools isn't entirely "free to practise". Look at some of the people in the UAE that complain over Christmas being in their faces every time they go to the shopping mall in November and December. Hardly tolerant. Interestingly, many of the business owners are Muslims who make good money off of all the Christians or Christian-heritage people who buy all of the Christmas goods. I have to say though, that it was wonderful to see so many Muslims posing and taking pictures next to the large Christmas tree and igloo that were in the Mall of the Emirates. They seemed to enjoy the decoration and festivity, which was cool.
What is your point about mosques in the Vatican? I never said that there should be a church located in Mecca, did I? Are there a lot of Muslims living near the Vatican, and are there a lot of Christians living near Mecca? arniegang
Liban
I dont for one second think it is cool to live near a mosque. I mentioned it in relation to Lionhearts constant bleeting about western intollerance to Islam.
You post with no possession of the facts. To state that all mosques are under surveillance is totally untrue. You use the Word ALL like you are very knowledgable. You arn't.
The only mosques that are under surveillance are those where known clerics and terrorist groups congregates. I just happen to live in an area that has a large muslim community.
Interestingly they dont have the same crap attitude you have, they are nice friendly people who have made a huge effort to integrate. They are welcomed with opened arms here. SheikhaS Arniegang, Im just trying to get my head around the "integrating" part of your last post. Im not being rude or argumentative, just think that its still in our minds that Muslims are different in a way. Just makes me wonder how a Muslim has to integrate?Apart from going to a mosque if available, and making sure that the food from Tesco is halal, what else is there to integrate? I would definately use the word integrate when talking about, say for example, a Pakistani regardless of religion, who has just moved to the UK and has to adapt to the way of life, but certainly not because of their religion. After reading all about the west and Muslims I just wondered how can you put the 2 in one context? I am a british Muslim(Anglo saxon!) and I certainly dont need to integrate or adapt to the West?! Isnt it better for us to talk of Muslims and Christians, and East and west?! Sorry going off topic, not pointing the finger at you Arnie in particular, but just made me think...... Oh and Lionheart, just for the record I dont agree with you. Everyone has their own opinion about the ME versus the "west" and lets just leave it at that. Oh and a question.......what does New Zealand and Australia come under?! West, east, off the record?, out of the argument?!!hee hee :lol: Dubai Knight You know in all Muslim countries, except Saudi, Christians practice freely. Saudi is the host of the Holy Sites. How many Mosques are there in the Vatican??????
So your point is mute.
All Muslim countries? What about the guy in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity and was under a DEATH SENTENCE!?? Is that practicing feely?
Knight arniegang Sheika Thank you for posting and entering into the debate, i dont take offence at your post in the least. You were most polite. I live in an area of the UK that has taken in many 000's of asylum seekers over the last 3/4 years. I meant no offense when i mentioned integration, but we have many refugees etc from Iraq, Bosnia etc etc that now live near us. They came here looking for shelter, support, work and safety etc. They have received housing, money and jobs and are now truely part of our community. It is this sort of situation that makes me angry when people like Lionheart and Liban continue to bleet on about Arabs, Muslims blah blah. We live in a true democratic multi cultural society and and everyone is treated with compassion and respect, irrespective of their colour, origin or faith. When the western chip on their shoulder brigade continue to go on on and on about Islam v the West etc etc etc, they forget it is communities like mine, that these poor people who have suffered come to to seek help. I dont recall the arab or muslim nations taking in hordes of their brothers, giving them money, housing and safety. Stange how all the vulnerable and oppressed come to countries like the UK. Ironic isnt it?? Chocoholic Really good points Arnie. Plus Liban, why would there be mosques in the Vatican? It's the centre of Catholisism. JUst as there are no chruches and Christians are not allowed to go to Mecca, so the same same - what's your point? SheikhaS Arniegang well typed reply!! Just got me thinking for a moment before about the real arguement. You are so right when you say that lots seek refuge in the UK a western country, and sometimes it has to be said, that the UK's own people sometimes suffer to give refugees the help they need. Anyway, Lionheart, dont you think that when the media portrays a bad image of Arabs or Muslims or whatever, you're just the type who makes things worse by "inciting racial hatred". Oh and just wondering.....what type of computer do you use to type on this forum? Mac? Fijutsu Siemens? Sony? :lol: kanelli
Sorry, forgot to put this in my previous post. The correct term is moot, not mute. Moot Point - Dubai Knight
Perhaps it is all about evolution?
We come from a society that has been through many of the trials and tribulations, the conflict, the civil war, the religious persecution and settlement, the development of people and country, the imposition of law and order, rules that everyone understands and obeys, a stable democratic political system that is sacrosanct from overt corruption and interference from an individual source, equality for all...every growing pain that many countries are going through right now. We have thousands of years of development behind our socio economic structure and, eventually, these will come to maturity in the middle east. We had the Industrial Revolution, here we are having having the Technological Revolution. It will improve the situation for all people living in the region, no matter what their religion, but it will take time. Unfortunately there are those who would either try to take it back in time to a darker age, or try to make it happen as if it were a roller coaster...neither will create a lasting, stable society.
I too come from a part of the UK where the population is made up of people from vastly different cultures. They have all integrated successfully and peacefully to the degree that, in an area the size of Bur Dubai, you can find 5 different denomination christian churches, a mosque, a synagogue, a hindu temple, Greek Orthodox and even a Buddist temple. There are no bombs. There are no sectarian shootings. The people mingle freely in the supermarkets and all tastes are catered for. Tolerance. Every one is free to do or worship how and who they please, as long as they observe the rule of law and do not try to impose their beliefs on anyone else. If any of the people posting comments on here have actually been to the UK, then maybe they would understand what tolerance really is.
The suicide bombers who struck London last year, were British muslims, not 'Arabs'. They were protected by our tolerant system until the moment they caused such terror and devastation. Did we burn down every mosque in the country in the aftermath? Someone said that all the mosques in the UK are watched. They are now. They were not before. This is the penalty we have all paid for terrorism.
Knight arniegang Great post DK. arniegang another interesting point i would like to add. I wonder how much of their salary the "chip on the shoulder brigade" give back to their Muslims brothers in need. Me, i dont know how much, all i know is, that i pay 40% tax here in the UK, and all i do know, is that a portion of that goes to help those in need for housing, food etc, and that includes all the chip brigade fellow muslim brothers. Do i complain ? Nope. Do i welcome these people here? Yup Chocoholic Excellent points guys. Plus just to pick up on the point made about resident people possibly suffering because more help is being given to those flooding to the UK looking assistance. This happened in Wales, which is where I lived before coming to Dubai. There was uproar because lots of council housing and funding was allocated to refugees and local people who'd been on a waiting list for years were just over looked. It put a lot of people out, parts of Wales still have very tight nit communities, there's even a village which you cannot live in unless you can pronounce it's name and speak fluent Welsh, it has 28 letters in it!!!! Things have since settled down and people just get along. I don't see many other European countries being quite as accepting. Spain, Germany and even France can be very difficult. The UK however has been branded a bit of a soft touch in the past and it is true to say that it is swamped with many facilities such as the NHS being stretched to breaking point. These are all things that need looking at. I really don't see many Middle Eastern countries being as accomodating or putting their hands in their pockets to help their 'brothers'. Liban OK OK OK, to please the Westerners here: Long live the West.... Down with the MENA.... Everyone happy now? Good. Dubai Knight
Sorry Lib, its not a question of trying to placate or please us, or for us to put down anyone, particularly the history and culture of the MENA region, we are trying to explain that the problems faced here are not new. They have been encountered before many, many times in history. One thing we humans are supposed to be able to do, as 'sentient life forms' is to learn from our experiences and adapt accordingly.
Having learned from these mistakes, we try to pass on the accumulated wisdom of centuries of experience but, like pubescent teenagers, there seem to be some who think they know better and will continue to make their mistakes and then try to find someone to blame (anyone but themselves!) when it all goes wrong. Keep this up and you destroy your own lives and those of everyone around you.
Look around. Learn from other cultures. Don't be narrow minded. Be more tolerant.
You have psychologically drawn a line in the sand in your own understanding of 'East' and 'West'. The world is a sphere. If you carry on going west...where do you end up? Here...in the east? To the people of Malaysia and Indonesia HERE is the west. The US is actually their East...it all depends on your point of view. Exactly like the political situation here dontcha think?
Knight Liban We need to learn from others??? Not quite. Other cultured built what they have today as a result of the Arab and/or Islamic culture. Modern science, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, etc.. all owe their existance to us. Thats a fact. The West needs to learn from us. Dubai Knight
Sorry Lib,
You need to check your historyand 'facts' a little more closely. 'Modern' science, mathematics, astronomy, medicine were in existence in one form or another from time immemorial. They evolved, they did not suddenly 'appear' with Islam. The Egyptians had a very thorough working knowledge of the human body and medicine, 6,000 years before the foundation of Islam. The Dogon Tribe of Niger, a subsistence level hunter gatherer culture many thousands of years old, are fully conversant with the workings of the solar system, even to the eccentric orbits of the moons of Jupiter, objects invisible to the naked eye and only visible through todays extremely powerful telescopes. Read 'The Silver Fox'.
The Greek culture was probably the initial founding point of medicine (Hippocrates) as was the first mathematical theory (Pythagoras' theory is as correct today as it was 3,000 years ago). Galileo was the first to map the solar system in the 1200's.
You cannot unilaterally claim that Islam and the Arab culture 'created' these studies and sciences. Yes, they may have made contributions to them, but they were most certainly not responsible for their foundation.
Once again, indoctrination and 'one sided' views can be damaging.
Open up a little and you may find there are more revelations awaiting you.
With respect.
Knight Liban Interesting how the word MODERN seemed to slip through when you were reading my post. Islamic science, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, etc... are the CORE of MODERN technics. This is indisputable. Sure these existed from the begining of man but the period from 800 to 1300 AD molded our modern version. Islamic scholars for example proved the world was round before the Western Galileo. Though most history textbooks are written by white Westerners which is why we rarely ever see innovation rewarded to the rightful owner of a race or ethnicity like blacks, arabs, latinos, etc... shafique It's a shame that despite the fact that despite the progress that was made in sciences under Islam, the current day Mullah's reject the study of science and espouse medieval views concerning science and the teaching of secular knowledge. Just look at what the Taliban advocated! Knight is correct that science was not 'invented' in the glory days of the Islamic empire (say the first 300 years of Islam), but was it not for the Islamic scholars, the knowledge of the Greeks and other civilizations would have been lost - in much the same way the knowledge of the Aztecs and much of the Egyptian empires have now been lost. However, it does a great dis-service to the great scientists and poly-maths that the Islamic era threw up to say they only transmitted the knowledge and did not discover new aspects of science (rather than evolve previous theories). There were +new+ discoveries in Mathematics, pharmacology, optics, astronomy, mettalurgy, anatomy, botany etc under Islamic scholarship. There were advances in the arts as well - poetry, music, caligraphy etc. Advances too in architecture, agriculture .. As I said, it is a shame that Muslim clerics seem to have lost sight of these facts and see a problem with secular learning. :( Wasalaam, Shafique kanelli Liban, you just don't get it. There were other cultures that were also advancing in science around the same time as others. Why don't the Mayans get any respect for their astronomy etc.? How dare you put down the achievements of others or claim ignorantly that Arab developments are the basis for all that the world's people now survive on. Extremely arrogant. Yes, the Arabs developed wonderful things, but they did not develop everything. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the West has done a great job advancing technologies, whether based on some ancient Arab development or not? Is it that hard to give credit where credit is due? Jedi Knight, I really think that there is no hope for some people on this forum. They are staunchly anti-West and think that there is nothing good about the West or anywhere else. Instead, they think that the world's best group of people are Arab Muslims and that the rest of the world and its people are inferior in every way - especially morally. I say it is bollox, propaganda, and over-patriotism. We Westerners that some of you dislike are here analysing all sides and admitting when Western governments or Western culture is flawed - but none of you listen. You just tune your ears to the part where we defend the West in some way and then pounce on us for that. Highly intolerant. Personally, I consider myself a citizen of the world first, but hey, that's just me. Liban
Not sure if its illiteracy, or willful ignorance, or what on Earth it can be but many of you seem to suffer from this.
I never said that nobody else contributed to the world. I am only saying that the Wests contribution is a minute on the 24 hour clock compared to other cultures.
But of course the pre-programmed minds of people like you Kanelli tend leap prematurely.
Also his name is NOT Jedi Knight but DUBAI Knight. READ Kanelli... It may do you some good. :lol: shafique Kanelli, The part where you say 'none of you listen' is a little harsh me-thinks. :) cheers, Shafique Liban
Its simply racism at work.
There are many closet racists here. They may not know it. kanelli
If the West's contribution is only a minute - that is one hell of a significant minute. :lol: Also, how would you compare the science and technology of other cultures compared to Arab discoveries? Are they only a minute each as well? Shaf made an excellent post about advances by Islamic scholars and what has happened since, but you don't touch Shaf's post. You don't have anything to contribute about that?
I know his name is Dubai Knight. There is a joke from another thread about him being a Jedi, so I now call him Jedi Knight. It is called CONTEXT and FUN - I didn't suffer from poor reading skills. Thanks for your concern anyway Liban.
Shafique, thanks for the interesting post. Why do you think that Islam today isn't valuing scientific scholarship as much as the past? Liban
The West's apogee has only lasted for about 500 years top max. Mankind has been doing ingeneous things since 10,000BC with the Phoenicians. So yes its about 1 SHORT minute. :)
Other cultures have a much bigger portion of the 24 hour clock. The Chinese have a few hours logged for example.
As for Shaf's post. I agree with the part on the modern Mullah's being quite backward in their thinking. So why would you want me to criticize him?
Kanelli, you are quite humorous in all your pouncing and leaping. You are like a hybrid panther/kangaroo!! :lol: kanelli
I said that there is a small group before that. The "none of you" refers to that small group. Shaf, you are not part of that group.
Liban, you are so racist against white people and Jews that it isn't funny.
How have my comments been racist? Please do explain. I say that other cultures including the West have made contributions and you say that only Arab Muslims have made significant contributions. Who is being racist Liban? kanelli Liban, how nice that you finally mention some other cultures. All of this trashing of the West and exhalting of the Arab Muslim world is so tiring. I'm really knocking my head against a wall. Disagreeing that the Arab Muslim world isn't the be all and end all does not make me a racist. And I don't think that the West is the be all and end all either, as many of my previous posts on this board prove. Dubai Knight
OK Lib,
So we are going to get pedantic here...If the existance of this planet, taken from the moment monocellular life appeared upon it until the present day, was illustrated as a 1 year period, then we: Homo Sapiens, the current incarnation of an ever evolving primate biped, are appearing in the dying microseconds of the 11th. hour. Written history, 'Western/Eastern/pre-historic cave paintings/hieroglyphs/and everything that has come since...are a mere millionth of a nanosecond before the the year ends.
The accepted beginnings of man have so far been traced back to the Rift Valley area of Kenya, however before the giant continents of Gondwanaland and Pangea split up, massive migration of species was possible across land bridges, spreading man's ancestors far and wide. The closest thing to an original culture that has been able to carry through to the modern day, are the Aboriginal and Maori tribes of Australia and New Zealand.
So in the whole scheme of things, the Arab culture AND the 'Western' culture you seem to belittle so freely, are both exceedingly new to the planet and have much to learn from the 'older' cultures. Perhaps I can suggest you spend a little time in the Outback eating bush tucker and communing with nature. Perhaps you may find a little reality in 'dreamtime'?
Incidentally, the avatar is an improvement! You really are an angelic little soul eh!
:wink:
'Jedi' (which you obviously missed the irony behind or did not read the post as it is a 'neutral' fictitious religion based on a galaxy Far Far Away...)
Knight Dubai Knight
Totally agree K (or should that be Y?) Ooops! KY?
The only thing I can see that we have as an advantage is the freedom of mind and freedom of speech allowed by out culture, to criticise ourselves as much as anyone else. I forget who said it, but there is a famous quote by a French philosopher:
"Monsieur, I may totally disagree with everything you think and say, however I will defend to the death your right to say it!"
:wink:
Nice Avatar! Have I started a fashion?
Knight
Bzzzzz! Bzzzzz! arniegang Liban Seriously not flaming, but can you make your definition clear regarding how you see some of us as racist please. Can you include specifics and/or examples please. The reason i ask is that my understanding of "rascism" seems to be way off the mark from yours. kanelli
Liban, I didn't ask you to criticize Shaf, I asked you to think about and comment on the content of his post. It isn't obligatory only to post when you disagree with someone.
Yes, I like to pounce about on here, just as much as you do :lol: Liban DK, on the 24 clock of human acheivement, I would give about 12 hours to pre-modern societies. Inventing the wheel was the biggest of all impacts. The industrial revolution, what the West is most known for, may not be a minute but perhapes a few minutes long. I conceed that much. The Chinese, Islamic, and Indian cultures have had a bigger impact. If it wasn;t for them, the West would not have had its rennaissance and industrial revolution at the points that it did. That is a fact. For others, as for my closet racist remark, you need look inside yourselves to know the truth. The internal Jihad in ones soul will reveal all. Open your hearts, minds, and of course, soul to seek the truth. shafique Phew - there is a little too much 'heat' in this thread! :) Kanelli - I think the reason why the Mullah's have an aversion to Science and the 'West' is down to the fact that they are losing their grip on society and are trying desperately to hold on. This phenomenon is nothing new and is just a part of a cycle of power - you saw EXACTLY the same thing in the so-called 'Dark Ages' of Europe where the Church had exactly the same attitude towards scientists. In fact in this period, the Church had a monopoly on thought, scripture etc - it was all a power trip to control people. This is, in my opinion, exactly the same reason why the Mullahs have this attitude to the West and Science. As for scientific progress in the past 150 years (post Industrial Revolution) - I have to disagree with Liban and say that the progress has been unprecedented in history. All other developments took a longer period to develop and is a period that will stand-out as unique in the development of mankind. Think of the world 200 years ago - no internal combustion engine, no steel, no electricity, no plastic etc etc. Now we talk about Moore's law and see it in action (computers getting more and more powerful by the week). None of this progress has had any real influence by the Islamic world - the credit for this lies squarely in the non-Muslim world. I hesitate to use 'West', for Chinese manufacturing and Japanese ingenuity have played their part, and we mustn't forget the Indian brainpower that is so prevalent in Silicon valley. The late Professor Abdus Salaam, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979, lamented at the lack of scientific progress amongst Muslim nations. He is notable for being the only modern day scientist of note that is Muslim that I know of. ( I know his sons, but did not have the privilege of meeting/speaking to him when he was alive. ) The theocracy in Islam has by and large become introspective - looking inwardly - and have this defensive attitude to the outside world now. They don't know how to co-exist in a world that is capitalistic and materialistic and cannot offer a form of religion that can happily co-exist in this environment. This is because they have closed minds and are worried about their authorities. The tragedy is that Islam can and does happily coexist in all these environments - in fact I would go so far as to say that Islam can flourish more in the UK, for example, than in many countries around the Middle East - there is more freedom of expression and religion in the UK, both of which are corner-stones of Islam. The hope for Muslims is that there are communities and leaders who are not introspective and are living Islam without compromise and participating fully in the world of today. I count myself as one of these muslims and seek to do my best spiritually and secularly, as did all the notable Muslims of the past. wasalaam, Shafique Liban All what we see today in the world. As an example current events and happenings and well as modern science, have been forecasted in the Quran. Shaf, as you have pointed out previously, Islam and modern science can go hand in hand and must go hand in hand for ethical reasons beyong the practical ones. Most Muslims today are not receiving the right kind of education to properly combine the harmony between the teachings of the Quran and "modernity". It is my hope, as is yours, that this will change. Chocoholic Just to point out that Egyptian scholars knew the world was round long before Galileo. Plus many of the ancient Greek scholars spent a lot of time in Egypt learning and sharing their thoughts and findings. Pythagoras in particular spent years in Egypt. Ancient scholars did not separate the sciences and arts, but in fact learnt them together as a whole in their studies, one complementing and assisting knowledge of another. It's also been theorised that there could have beena connection between the Incas and the ancient Egyptians. The Mayan, Inca, Greek and Egyptian civilisations were truly magnificent and contrubute far more to modern day civilisation. Liban
It would make sense because the Pheonicians are not only credited to building Carthage, but are also thought to have reached the far eastern shores of Brazil during their sea faring days when they were at their apogee.
The Pheonicians helped contribute much to the Greek and Egyptian civilizations so whats to say that they didn't have any interactions with the Incas.
They probably were the bridge between the two.... Chocoholic It's really interesting, I would love to go and visit the Inca civilisations. My boyf has done the Inca trail through Peru and Mexico and he said they way things were created are incredible. That at certain times of the day when the sun is in just the right position to hit carvings or spaces in the rocks, the most amazing images appear. All created on purpose obviously. It's all so mysterious, what happened to these great minds. Also sorry to blab on, but the BBC did a really intersting series a few years ago, where they tried to recreate one of the great Pyramids using only what the Egyptians would have had, plus todays technology and equipment, and they found it virtually impossible, even with the best architechs and astrologers, because the pyramids are all aligned to the sun and moon - amazing. Liban Their developments are on par with those Egyptians. They are truely wonders. No matter how much people can blabber about how advanced we are today, I would put my money where my mouth is in categorically stating that there is no way that ANYTHING built in these modern times will stand the test of time as items built by the Incas, Egyptians, Chinese, etc.... Chocoholic Absolutely, I totally agree with you. Although the myth of the Sphinx is still quite interesting, when the tested the age of that, it turned out to be something like 2,000 years older than the pyramids - weird. Liban Lemmi sound like Mulder on the X-Files.... They were all built by aliens.... hihihi.... :tongue2: Dubai Knight
You might like to read RaII by Thor Heyerdhal, who built a reed boat at the mouth of the Tigris River from the natural materials found there based entirely upon the archeological data of boats of the period. He successfully sailed it to the West Indes, thereby proving that it was possible for the early pre-christian societies to have communicated and traded. He also undertook the Kon-Tiki project and sailed a balsa wood raft across the Pacific, proving that the cultures of South East Asia and South America could also have traded.
The Plains of Nazca in Peru are a wonder of human achievement that can only be viewed from an aerial perspective. A team of scientists built and successfully flew a hot air balloon over the plains constructed entirely from materials available at the time of the Incas, based upon a temple carving of a 'God' ascending to the heavens astride a flaming cauldron.
The Pyramids are, in fact, arranged in complete symmetry with the star constellation of the Belt of Orion. Not just slightly...but exactly to 30 decimal points! The explanation of how Khufu, Khefren and Cheops, built over a combined period of over 2,000 years, were aligned to a master plan and then constructed using techniques that are subsequently lost, has yet to be solved. How the erosion around the base of the Sphinx, which Choc is correct in saying is considerably older than the Great Pyramids, was caused by water, rather than sand erosion has also yet to be explained as there is no evidence of the Giza Plain ever having been innundated.
The point is: There have been successive superior and less sophisticated civilisations on the planet. They come in fits and starts and whilst one is in the ascendency, then another will possibly be in decline. At the moment, the ascendent civilisation is not in the Middle East. Perhaps their time will come, but not in our lifetimes methinks? No one is denying that there was a time when many Middle East cultures were further advanced than others, and very possibly traded very far and wide, however they were contributary to the continual flow of historical advancement...not the inventor of it.
You say the Koran predicts the situation as it is now? Does it predict what will be the outcome? Some people claim that Nostradamus predicted the atom bomb, space travel, Hitler and countless other things...but these were only associated to his writings after the fact. If you read the actual text, they are like a horoscope: vague and open to multiple interpretations. Its easy to have 20:20 vision in hindsight.
Thankfully, there is a human condition that we are unique in posessing in the animal kindom...that of compassion. We have the choice to decide if we use it or not. Compassion comes from understanding, understanding comes from trust. If the people who would stick their heads in the sand and continuously spout religious dogma and clearly indoctrinated political diatribe were to stop and look...then maybe, just maybe they would see the bigger picture and be able to direct the future towards one of sense and reason and not violence and suffering.
Knight Liban What may I ask do you think the ascendant civilization is?
Please do not say the West. The West has reached a plateau and is on the decline on so many levels. No the least, socially.
The East is on the rise. Nations like India and China are going to become the next to rise. They were once great empires and it seems like they will regain their positions of power within our lifetimes.
As for the MENA region. The rise or fall of this area will depend on the leaders getting their act together. Their ego-centrical attitudes have contributed to the decline of MENA since the 1950s when signes were that things were going to get better.
The outcome you ask?
9/11 was forecasted in the Quran as the start of the end. This was the clincher that will introduce war after war in the Islamic world. These wars will grow more intense under a combined assault by the forces on darkness (practical terms, the US and Israel).
The day of armageddon will herald the End of Days. This shall be when the entire Muslim Ummah falls under sustained attack from outside. The day when even the holiest of sites are spared no mercy.
And so it goes on.
But I will stop writing about this as I can already see the nay sayers preparing their fingers to type their hollow words. Dubai Knight
I think I might finally agree with you on a point Liban!
Yes, the ascendant societies in waiting are potentially India and China as they have established a solid internationally competitive industrial, technological and manufacturing industry. They are also currently in a strong position to benefit due to a plentiful supply of lower cost and often very skilled labour. The Roman Empire imploded due to decadence and complacency and it is very possible that a global economic meltdown would turn the currently dominant societies upside down. It is part of the cyclic nature of history. Do I personally think it would be a good or a bad thing? Well enough of us have already said until we are blue in the face that we don't neccessarily agree with our own native political direction or leadership. Maybe democracy will force through the true leaders? That has happened before.
Again, I may actually agree with you that the leaders in the MENA region do need to 'get their act together'. The late Sheikh Zayed was a great statesman and leader and he made great inroads into unifying many of the nations, however you have to question the benefit to the process of such acts as the assasination of Rafiq Hariri...or was that another US plot? (don't rise to that one Liban, I am merely pointing out that it is easy to make an inaccurate and incorrect sweeping assumption)
Now I take issue. Who says the 'Forces of Darkness' are the US and Israel? Does the Koran make direct reference to a group or party? Could not the 'Forces of Darkness' be referring to extremists and zealots from within? After all, these are as dangerous, if not more so, than an obvious and blatantly easy target such as the US. These are the enemy you cannot see, the one that sneaks up from behind you in your own home is harder to spot and defend against than the one whose flags and banners are lined up against you in plain view.
I am seriously and honestly interested to hear your view. In the same way that the 'West' is only the 'West' depending upon the place you look at it from...then the 'Enemy' is also an amorphous term that has no specific reference to any particular body. What is your perspective?
Knight Lionheart

I'm sorry I was to busy to find time to respond yesterday....But anyway I think you have misunderstood me... My intentions are not to incite racial hatered...but to ask the same question the average muslim around the world is asking...questions like unity between Muslims..having borderless Mid east...determining who our leaders are without Interference..determining our future without Interference... I said plenty of times I have nothing against particular race or religion.... What I'm against is Western Interference in the Mid East... arniegang
It could even be interpreted as the Islamic "Brotherhood" based in Egypt, or Al Queda. Liban Forces of darkness are the ennemies of Islam. arniegang That is your interpretation Liban, you may think that, i could not possibly comment. :P Lionheart

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)
Today's the so-called Islamic nations are intolerent to other muslims just because they happen to be from different race, or happen to poor refugees...so intolerence against Jews or Christian in many muslim so-called countries is problem.. I admite and I'm ashamed of it..because Islam teaches tolerance toward other people of the book. You could see this tolerance in Muslim Ummah's before Western influence in muslim world...Rights of Jews were better protected in Muslim societies than in Christian Europe...this lasted up until the Jews betrayed the muslims by establishing Isreal in 1948...In Bagdad, Damascus, Cardoba during the rule of Ummayad, Christian schoolers, Jewish schoolers and Muslim schoolers studied side by side without the threat of intolerance or persecution...When Christains went on their Crusade to Jerusalam they massacred thuasands of Muslims, Jews and orthodox Christian and their are even cases were they eat flesh of muslims they killed...when Muslims recaptured Jerusalam they did not take revenge against the Crusaders, nor did they destroy their places of Worshipe....only thing Salahuddin( may allah be pleased with him) was to ask the Crusaders to leave Jerusalam..the Orthodox Greek Christians and others where allowed to stay and worshipe as they have done before. So as you can see Intolerance in Muslim countries today did not exist before western Influence, nationalism. When muslim had unity..no borders and were ruled by the Ummah than dictators and ignorant Sheikhs..they were more tolerant.

I spoke against it...and I don't think this law has anything to do with Sharia law. Islam clearly says that there is "no compulsion in religion"..whatever this man chooses to be is between him and god.

Is this the same nation that has occuppied, oppressed, evicted Palastinian from their own land...the same nations that broke 67 Un resolution...the same nation that threatens its nieghbors with the blessing of the West...the same nation that disrespects the soveriegnty of its nieghbors by attacking, assisinating citizens of its nieghbors..the same nation that was behind the push to invade Iraq....the same nation that stockpiled 200 nuclear weapons without Interference,inspections from the West... The same country that has leaders who refer to Palastinians as lice that must be exterminated...
Iran on the other hand has never attacked or threatened its nieghbors...It has been attacked by Saddam by the blessing of US...It has been threatened by the US/Isreal for over three decades...

If they don't respect the laws of your land than ask them to leave.. Lionheart
Forces od Darkness are none other than US/British administration who have destroyed a whole country... for their own lust for greed.

Lionheart

Iraq is occuppayed land..so any constitution written under the occuppation is imposed on Iraq people.

I agree with you any government Iraqis vote for should be respected by everyone... Even if it happens to be a Taliabn style of government.

If Middle east does not constitude a large market than why is the west in particulary the US so interested in the MIddle east...Why not wage war, occupay China, India the largest markets in the World... Chocoholic Liban, you say that things are predicted in the Koran. But ever heard of the Bible code? In the original text, Aramaic - I think - it was discovered that events in history were predicted down the the tiniest detail. Sadly scholars have only managed to find the details after the event has happened and haven't yet cracked the code which would enable them to predict future events. kanelli Lionheart, humans and other animals have the instinct to stick to their own kind. All across the world there is division because of regionalism, nationalism, racism, classism, religion etc. To say that the West is the cause for this in the Middle East is false. Once again, the West is being blamed for everything. :roll: Liban
In the Quran, the specifics are in code. When the event happens and you re-read the section in the Quran dealing with such events, it all becomes clear, down to the minutia of it.
You refer to the dead sea scrolls? The real original bible was destroyed 1000 years ago. Liban
What you perceive as interpretation is mere fact. Sadly, blindness has become you. kanelli Liban, tread carefully. You might feel that the Quran is superior because of the state of the old books or writings, and the fact that it was in Arabic and not translated e.g. like the Bible was from Aramaic; however, the Bible is a sacred text for Christians and Christians have a relationship with their god, so don't underestimate or disrespect that. Liban You are asking me to tread carefully... That is interesting considering the higher than thou attitude you possess. In any event, I never said that the Bible is not sacred to Christians. Nor did I ever say that the original Bible was not the word of God spoken through His Messanger Jesus Christ (peace). So once again, I ask you to stop jumping around young grasshopper and to relax. 8) kanelli
Please explain how I have a higher-than-though attitude? You are the one who constantly posts about how Arab Muslims are the cream of the crop and the next world power once united. Many of your posts ooze moral superiority and arrogance.
I never said that you said the Bible wasn't sacred. In a few posts in various threads you made it seem like the Bible and other texts that Christians hold sacred are lesser than the Quran for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. All I asked was that you tread carefully with that. Chocoholic Chill guys. Ah Kanelli I can't help but smile at the thought of yuor little old Yoda jumping around like a grass hopper though - he's cool! But Liban, She is right though, sometimes the things you say can be a little demeaning and I think we're all guilty of that at times, myself included. Liban
You always think you are right when it is so blatantly obvious you are not. I do not claim Arab superiority, but rather that the Arabs have significant clout and can become a power to be reckoned with is they get their act together.
Also, making something seem a certain way, doesn't mean things are a certain way. We are all God's servants. And the People of the Book are to be respected. So says the Quran and so said The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) in his Hadiths. kanelli
And you are right all the time Liban? All I can do is analyse the different sides of an issue, poke holes in faulty assertions, and present my own opinions. While it is always nice to be right, there are few occasions where anyone can say they are right and someone else is wrong - it is just a matter of interpretation.
Liban, do you really respect all the things that the Quran tells you to respect? Many of your posts on this board seem to say the opposite. Liban
Nobody is right all the time. All I am is logical and I respond to what are incorrect statements. I agree with you in saying it would be nice to be right 110% of the time, but thats not possible.
As a Muslim, I strive to respect the Teachings of God and also try to follow the teaching of The Prophet to the best of my human abilities. As for my posts, you know little of the Quran, so I will not comment on your last sentence. kanelli
Liban, I know you are trying respect the teachings of your religion, and that is admirable.
Actually, I am learning about the Quran and people have quoted the Quran here as well. Don't forget, there are also Muslims on this board who have told you that you have been behaving in a non-Muslim way. I don't expect you to be perfect, but you should try to practice what you preach, or don't preach at all. Liban I will give my right arm if those same people are themselves behaving in a Muslim way like the "Ashab al Rassoul" (loosly translated into The Prophets friends/first followers). Dubai Knight Liban, I know you are trying respect the teachings of your religion, and that is admirable.
Actually, I am learning about the Quran and people have quoted the Quran here as well. Don't forget, there are also Muslims on this board who have told you that you have been behaving in a non-Muslim way. I don't expect you to be perfect, but you should try to practice what you preach, or don't preach at all.
In order to preach, do you not have to be a 'preacher'? Liban, are you a Mullah?
Knight Liban
This is a misconception.
1) Mullahs are what Shia preachers are called. In addition it is an Iranian term. In Arabic the Shia preachers are referred to as Imams. For Sunnis, in Arabic we call them Sheikhs. A Sheikh is not just a monarch but can be a village elder or a religious authority (as in this sense).
2) To preach in a mosque, it is preferred that the honor be given to a Muslim theologian if one is available in the area, if not it is the most learned Muslim. Outside, it is not called preaching but discussing and educating people on Islam. It is the duty of all Muslims to do so to the best of their abilities.
I am honored that you call me a preacher, but alas I am not. I do try my best to spread the message so that Inshallah, one day, the world can become a better place for all God's servants. kanelli Actually, he didn't call you a preacher Liban, so there is nothing to be honoured about. Are you a born-again Muslim? This means that you previously didn't follow Islam, e.g. maybe didn't pray, ate pork, drank alcohol, etc. I'm just curious. Many born-again religious people tend to be very vocal about their faith compared to religious people who have always been faithful. Liban
Young grasshopper, you seem to possess many personalities. Do you think you are DK?
The born again statement is mute. Yes at a previous point I didn't pray 5 times a day, but many children do not pray.... In any event it is not until the onset of puberty that Muslims are obligated to follow their faith if they are to be true practicing Muslims.
In Christianity, born-agains are vocal... In Islam, all Muslims are obliged to speak of their faith and educate others, so there are no differences between practicing Muslims who were born into the faith, or converted, or refound their faith.
I hope that helped educate you a little more young grasshopper. arniegang You would do your faith more justice and get your message across Liban, if you spoke and debated in a manner befitting to your faith. And we would learn more. This is why Shaf in his short time here ,has earned the highest respect from forumers. You give respect, you get respect in return. Its not that difficult. Liban In that case, if you feel you deserve respect, then speak in a manner that would have me respect you. So far, I see little attempts on your part (as well as a few others). arniegang It always cuts both ways. Liban
I agree. Thats what I was saying.
So you may start. arniegang No, i insist, after you. :wink: :wink: Liban
No please... Age before beauty... arniegang ok i have, read the other thread please. Liban
Sorry Arniegang, may you please tell me which other thread you refer to? :? arniegang This one &start=15 Liban
Thankyou.
I responded by the way.... :wink: kanelli
Moot Liban, not mute - did you ever read that link I gave you! /yoda the grammarian goes back into his hole :wink:
So, it was only the praying 5 times a day that you didn't do? :wink: Actually, I have found that born-agains of many faiths are more vocal because they have found a new meaning in their life and can see that others who have not previously been faithful can change their ways. This is because they have lived as both an unfaithful and faithful, unlike a person who has always been faithful from the start. Therefore, I disagree with the statement that only Christians are like this. Liban
Thank you for your help MAster Yoga....
Yes grasshopper... We don't eat pork and, well, not many kids drink alcohol either... Fasting isn't mandatory until puberty either.
As I said before grasshopper, in Islam, it is ones duty to be vocal no matter how he has lived his life in the past or how he lives in the present or will be living in the future... danielmex2010 Hello Folks, This is my first post as I recenty joined the club. I have read all of the posts with regard to the subject matter and I have a few comments to make. All of you have been trying to win arguments, and the more argumens one wins, less friends he will make. If you guys continue like this, you would develop some sort of syndrome. Every one of you reflects his/her background and no one dares to even think or consider other's view point could be reasonable as well. I think its sort of addiction to participate in these forums. Lionheart started it and if he meant others to only listen and agree to his comments then why did he start the thread in the first place, he is the initiator and he should write less and listen to others more, atleast thats what I would have in my mind if i want to start a thread, while reading the thread it gave me sort of impression that some times he goes on and on with his postings and did not even bother to look what other people are talking about and suddenyl he wakes up and respond to an old thread. He is sort of showing off that he is pure, no need to paste those pictures. You can't force your view point and expect others to listen only, they would react and your job is to wisely reply to them with calm and patince. I liked one thing in his threads that he does not distinguishes between an arab muslim and a non-arab muslim, which is lacking a bit with Liban. He was not able to reply effectively when some one asked about the things which were developed by west and muslims are using them in their daily life. He should understand that GOD created humans who excel with time be it from any culture. God even gave examples in Kuran of old civilisation who excel in every walks of life, they were more stronger, build houses in mountains and yet were destroyed because they did not accept the message of GOD. Liban literally choked when he made some silly remarks and tried to defend em, he should have accepted and thats the end of that. If you ask arni or kanelli, the comments by Liban was offensive enough. I do not understand why muslims have become so in tolerant and so touchy about their religion yet they always claim that in islam there is no force yet they deny that in every action of their daily life. Do you think all ills of muslims are caused by west, well in that case I think you are so dumb to be eaily manipulated, put the blame on west and sleep. Your leaders are corrupt because you yourselves are corrupt, GOD will put the same kind of leaders to a nation that the nation deserves- no offense please. What you should be doing is by your action of great manners, preach islam so that the people who do not know about islam can really leran from your actions. I do not think that you chose your sperm yourself to be born in a muslim family. I belive its better to be a muslim or christian by choice then by birth. And I also belive if some one truly without any prejudice seeks the truth GOD will for sure open his heart and he will be on the right patch, GOD is not un just, otherwise whats the meaning of hell and heaven if people are to follow a religion just because he was was born in a certain religion family. I belive every one of us in our lives have been guided by GOD in some way to seek the truth. arni , knight and kanelly did try their best to reason with both liban and lion heart, thanks to them for participating in the thread. At times, they went biased as well, closing their ears on some of the nice things said by liban and lionheart. You should not see who is saying the righteous words but see what he is saying and take the good part and leave the bad or which you do not like. At one point some one from these people even pointed to liban or lionheart that they are reading Kuran and yet they have been told in essence to stay away as they do not know about kuran, as if liban or lionheart were born with the wisdom. I therefore invite arni, kanelli and knigh to please cont reading Kuran and I pray that one day they will become muslims and true muslims. In the early days of islam the worst people who were opposed to islam became the defenders of islam later. So you never know whats the ending of a person before he dies. I am sorry if I hurt any one from my remarks. Cheers arniegang Thank you for that post 2010, it does put things in perspective for me very well, and has made me stop and think. I can only speak for myself, but i am here to learn, in addition to having a laugh and make fiends with people of different nationalities and faiths. I hope that with this understanding i will become wiser, more tollerant and enjoy re- discovering things i was taught at school ( as in religion). It is coincidental your post arriving today, because some of us have, i hope reached a better understanding about tollerance and respect. Thank you Dubai Knight I therefore invite arni, kanelli and knigh to please cont reading Kuran and I pray that one day they will become muslims and true muslims. In the early days of islam the worst people who were opposed to islam became the defenders of islam later. So you never know whats the ending of a person before he dies.
I am sorry if I hurt any one from my remarks.
Cheers

Welcome 2010, and to support Aniegang, thank you for this post. It's nice to read someone who has taken the time to read all the rantings that go on here from both sides and try to put some sense or reason to them. You are right, we do sometimes get on our relative soapboxes about certain things, but then isn't that the nice part about having a point of view on a subject and being able to express it? We try to reason from an objective point of view, but we are sometimes the victims of our own cultural upbringing.
Personally, I believe that everyone has the inalienable right to worship who or what he believes, however, wherever or whenever he wishes, without interference from anyone else. Its called 'Denominational Freedom'. In the same way, no-one should try to force their own personal religious beliefs upon another as we should all be free to decide if we want to worship or not.
I have already stated in other posts that I claim to be 'Jedi', purely as it is a fictional and fantasy term that people can relate to, as an example to show that I do not have any particular 'side' or preference for structured or intitutionalised religion. I like to think I am therefore 'neutral' as far as I can be and speak more from the overall point of view of humanity and the planet. The marketing expression is 'Thinking outside the box' I prefer to refer to it as 'Thinking outside the known universe'.
Try this little exercise, it's great fun! Imagine you are from an alien planet and are sent to observe the goings-on of the civilisations on planet earth. You have to write a totally objective report and submit it back to your superiors on...planet 'Zog' (a name that came to mind for the sake of the exercise). Remember, you are not influenced by ANY of the things on this planet. Start by describing, in the clearest and simplest terms possible, the workings of say a TV set and the typical content that it contains. Don't worry about the technical working of how pictures and sound appear, just describe it as you would see it...for the first time ever.
Once you have done that, try to explain the simplest human emotions, love, hate, physical relationships between men and women. After that...try and explain the reasons why nations argue and fight and why. You might have a great time doing it and it certainly opens one or two peoples eyes to the often ludicrous nature of our society. It can be hilariously funny and painfully sad all at the same time.
Once again, thank you for your post and I am sure Arniegang, Kanelli, Liban and Lionheart will join me in congratulating you on having the courage and moral turpitude to bring us all to task with just your first post! Don't worry about hurting anyone's feelings either, we are all pretty thick skinned in here!
Keep it up! Maybe we have another Moderator in the making? Enjoy playing the alien game!
:wink:
Knight sniper420
a bit.......!!! hell no he believes only arabs have licence to get houris in heaven..... :x Liban
When the hell did I ever say either that there are whores in heaven or that Arabs have "a liscence to get whores in heaven"... :? Liban DK.... Seriously dude, your Sci-Fi wet dreams are too much :lol: kanelli I really appreciate your post danielmex2010. Sometimes it is very helpful to have an outside person comment. Far too often the same group of us are discussing in these hot topic threads and our behaviour is predictable to each other. We might be closing our ears or falling prey to biases more often than we should be. Thanks for having the courage to contribute to this thread! Lionheart, I meant to mention earlier that I am happy to see more of your voice coming out in this thread rather than cut and paste from other sources. (If only we can get you to remove that huge picture signature you have at the end of every post!) Dubai Knight
Yeah, but did you try it? Go on! Dare yah! You may find out how much fun it is to be an real alien! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Knight Liban
OK people, I think you all should be sitting when I say this. Have a glass of water ready too incase you need one.
Here is goes....
*deep breath*
I...uhhh....err...umm...ag...agr....agagag....agree with you K-k-Kanelli....
*deep breath once again*
*ahh that water tastes good* Liban
Ummm... sure.... OK....
Coo-Coo... :lol: kanelli
Ooh, I'm going to keep this post for posterity! :lol: Liban
:lol: Dubai Knight
That sound you all heard in the background, was the thud as Arniegang fell off his chair!
There is a flag flying high over SZR!!!
Now all we have to do is get someone to agree with Sniper and the world will be complete!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Knight Liban You missed the army parade and the fighter flyby parade by the air force... World leaders have been calling from all over to present their good wishes.... George Bush even shook Saddam Hussein's hand and embraced Ahmadjeddin of Iran... And who can forget the hugs and kisses between Olmert of Israel and Assad of Syria to bless this great day... :lol: :lol: :lol: I need to wake up now... kanelli Feel free to agree with me anytime you like Liban. :lol: Liban
Of course....
I ask the same of you also :) arniegang
Sorry for the delay in replying. DK was in fact correct i fell off my chair and banged my head in shock.
Oi Liban why cant you agree with me and Knight as well, fekin favourtism that you have singled K out
:lol: :lol: :lol:
K copy off the post and stick it on yer wall behind yer computer. Next time Liban and you seriously disagree you will have something to throw your darts at.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Nucleus Sorry for the late reply; I'm very busy these days. I'm back to developing my software, and actually these may be my last replies on the forum.

What are you suggesting here... physical fighting? Extreme solutions generate extreme results, esp. in the case of failure... I don't think it is worth the trouble. Why not simpler solutions like demanding more transparency, accountability, and democracy?

It it is dependant on prevailing politics... doesn't really matter who it is, it could be US, UK, China, or even a Muslim country.
I'll say, it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I don't mean any country named in this discussion is darkness. Liban Mahathir Mohammad had it right. Muslims should use brains over brawn. Inshallah we will apply this soon!



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy