Islamists/Secular inevitable conflict

Post Reply New Topic

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/n ... cists.html

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/n ... /20/a.html

Fascism seems to have made its mark on the Middle East long after it has left Europe.

Adolf Hitler would be immensely popular today were he to reappear and set himself up in the Middle East. (The popularity of Nazi and antisemitic books bears this out.)

What does 'secularism' mean in a MENA context? Secular fascists versus religious fascists? Lots of fascism to go around.

The whole Arab culture seems deeply poisoned by this "strong-man" attitude. I bet I know who was the originator of this attitude and culture.

^ half of Europe was fascist and antisemitic too, so?

Who?

^ he means prophet mohammad, he's saying that even secular Arabs are influenced by Mohammad. It could be, but I say they may be influenced more by the iron-fist dictatorship rules, hence why it was necessary for the dictators to fall in order for Arab societies progress further. I've seen the islamists vs secular conflict coming before the fall of Mubarak/Bin ali/Ghaddafi (ask user anna_banana ) , and I am sure if Assad falls the FSA and Jubhat el Nusra will probably kill each other.

I bet the upcoming decade won't be golden for the Islamists, in northern Africa at least, less and less Muslims are trusting them, and the secular movements are learning from their past political/electoral mistakes.

Europe still is antisemitic. Jobbik in Hungary, Golden Dawn in Greece? Not to mention the antisemitism of eastern Europe and in Austria?

Antisemitism has been a feature of European life for millennia, and this is down largely due to the Catholic Church. Consider the expulsion of Jews from various European countries (including my own), often for centuries at a time, the slayings of Jews and their repression on persecution. Antisemitism is a stain on our culture that won't die, no matter how hard we scrub it away.

Arab antisemitism has been influenced heavily by European antisemitism. The difference is that, after World War II, most of us are ashamed of this culture of hatred. In Arab countries, Khaybar will soon be broadcast to huge, appreciative audiences.



[i]Islam's Prophet Muhammad, not mine.

Religious indoctrination is very effective, even it seems on those that are non-believers and that have left the religion like yourself.

Fascinating article by Israeli Arab/Muslim journalist Khaled Abu Toameh on Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians:

Yeah, I'm sure Lebanon can fit them all no problem.

By the way, who expects the Lebanese government to do anything right? They don't even respect the Lebanese people. You expect something better for the Palestinians?

The idea (excuse) behind these discriminitive laws is to avoid Palestinian integration into local society, hence forgetting the Palestinian cause; if Palestinians get good professions, they would settle for good, they would drop the cause and won't even return to any future Palestinian state (like the Armenians here, they're not returning to Armenia). The Armenians faced similair laws in the past but they haven't cause much troubles like Palestinians did, the Armenian community is well liked by others and productive.

I think Palestinians today are paying the Arafat policies in lebanon and the involvement of their fathers in the civil war against the local Christians. No wonder they would be treated better by Isrealis like the US treats well the Native Americans; this is the "invader's guilt" (US/Israel) both deep down are aware they stole whole lands from natives; while in Lebanon the Palestinian militias behaved as *invaders* and attempted to steal lands from its natives, that's a big difference.

Lebanese Christians parties are still against giving citizenship and rights to Palestinians due to secterian reasons (would mess up the Muslim-Christian balance) and due to past grudges and lack of trust. And Assad's arming to Palestinian militias even after the civil war didn't help either.

Its a far more basic thing than that. The peoples which currently live in the arab world and compromise the bulk of Islamic population come from ancient societies that, up to this day, remain tribal in nature.

This meaning that despite them speaking the same language (in their local regions), looking the same, sharing similar customs and laws...they maintain a separate socio-cultural identity layers. Guy A is from X tribe as layer 1, he is also X version of Islam follower (aka Sunni or whatever) as layer 2, he looks like me as layer 3, he follows the same religion as layer 4... and finally as the least important layer, what country he is from.

The first layer has been present since far before Islam or Christianity existed. Warlords and their tribes used to kill each other nonstop no different than they did in any other part of the world. Over time the stronger tribes subdued the weaker ones to form polities but they were very different from those of other parts of the world (except Africa and some Asian regions..more on this later) since they were more of a federation of suppressed tribes. This system has remained in place up to the modern era (the UAE is a prime example). This tradition resisted and prevented the formation of nation-statehood in the general populace...for them they belong to a tribe first and that tribe is somewhere in a subservience ladder to other tribes.

Islam was 'born' and 'raised' to exist and cater to this socio-political structure... which is why perhaps, Islam spreads relatively easily among societies that have similar structures: African (100% tribal-loyalties based societies) and Asia (the asian nations that are predominantly Islamic were the ones with the strongest tribal structures).

Islam has not spread to China that much because the Chinese had for many centuries unified their tribes into larger polities yet even today the different regions of China identify themselves not as 'tribes' but as 'nations' within China. Aka Cantonese people are composed of many different tribes that all identify themselves as Cantonese as their 1st layer of identity. Within such nation-based identities Islam has trouble spreading... my best guess is because its easier to convert a small amount of peoples one at a time than a large group where higher resistance is met.

^^^^ The majority of muslims are not Arabs.
And I don't think tribalism is a good term for the situation in Syria/Lebanon/Iraq. Seems more like sectarianism to me. Especially in Lebanon, where the whole political system is based on sectarianism.

Exactly; if Palestinians are integrated into society (like the 700,000 Jews kicked out of Arab countries by marauding Muslim mobs) they will forget about wanting to kill Jews. So they must be kept miserable and blaming Israel for everything, when really almost all the blame for their situation falls on countries like Lebanon.

We all know that the Palestinian cause is a bunch of horses**t - how much agitation was there from the West Bank for a Palestinian state in the 19 years when Jordan held sovereignty? - and even other Arabs don't like Palestinians.

The Arabs failed to commit genocide against the nascent Israeli state in 1948 and again in 1967. It's time they acknowledged this fact and moved on and dropped the savage blood vengeance nonsense.

Every society that has made things bad for Jews (or any ethnic group) is not a society worthy of respect.

You can do better, Boo (and I'm aware of the immense anti-Israel propaganda in your country). Lebanon can do better. Arab countries and peoples will do better in time. Israel isn't going anywhere; making peace with it is in the interests of everyone who considers themselves human.

It's going to take a long, long time for Arab countries to change their mindset. Maybe centuries, I don't know. But it's all part of coming into the modern era.

Islamist is a colloquial term coined by journalists post 911. A bit like the so called Bedroom Tax....

The western media misunderstood / misrepresented the Arab Spring. It was not about Islam vs secularism, and it certainly wasn't about democracy vs dictatorship. It was mainly about the standard of living being so bad and how the citizens had concluded that there was no chance that it would improve under the old regimes. This also explains why the Arab Spring had failed to take off in the Gulf States where living standards are much higher despite the governments being run by dictators who are secular at heart. The success of the new governments is all down to whether they can provide materially for the citizens.

^ you logic is too one-sided and flawed, I see no point in debating this.

.

So the Europeans aren't worthy of respect too lol.

No, but they share the same space. Even non-muslim arabs have the same social/cultural background (from pre-Islam)...religion doesn't come into play until past the first layer.



In this context sectarianism and tribalism is the same thing really. At the core of it all is the many different tribes (or communal groups people identify with over that of being part of X nation). What is the problem in Iraq and Afghanistan? In Lybia? Syria? Take a good look at who the people in power are and what group they belong to. A tribe is aligned with a religious sect (sunni or whatever) but the conflict isnt religious, its that the guys in top levels of power all belong to the dominant tribe and their cronies belong to the tribes/groups that support them out of self interest.