An Arabic lady talks sense about the conflict between East & West

[plekhanov]

Palestinians had a genuine grievance against the Jewish settlers who stole their land. Of course it's become a war between religions now.

As with many conflicts religion helps define the battle lines and aggravate things but the Israeli Palestinian conflict is still at base about land.

 

Zionism is a secular ethnic nationalist movement not a religious one consequently the ‘right of return’ law only requires that prospective citizens be ethnic Jews not practicing ones and many Israelis are secular. A significant minority of Palestinians are Christians and the PLO is largely secular, though it has recently been rather overtaken by Hamas of course.

[purdyamos]

Purdy, when you get off your political bandwagon and is ready to listen and not hold up your battle armour. I will be here, with a cup of tea, okay?

 

If you took some personal timeout, and really understand where I am coming from on a personal basis, then maybe what I say will and do make sense.

 

 

Don't patronise me, Bago.

[LordChaverly]

I never said the civil war was fought over religion but that ‘the two sides in the Sri Lankan Civil War civil war are defined by religion’.

 

There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, conflicts in which the belligerents are largely defined by their religious affiliation and, on the other, conflicts in which one or both sides are motivated by adherence to religion and by a fanaticism deriving from it. The Northern Irish and Sri Lankan conflicts are examples of the former - i.e. they are not 'religious conflicts' at all.

 

Islamic terrorism, of the kind we have seen in the UK and elsewhere over the last decade or so, is something very different. The 'cause' of these 'jehadists' springs not from a particular territorial grievance. Rather they look for specific territorial grievances to justify their 'cause', which is a Manichean belief in the struggle between 'Islam' and the rest of the world (in particular the 'West', which is viewed by them as 'un-Islamic' and hostile to their beliefs) . Because of their belief in the global 'umma', any conflict anywhere in the world involving muslims and non-muslims is likely to motivate them. Conversely, any conflict involving muslim factions (e.g. Darfur) is of no interest to them at all. This is why Islamic 'jehadism', of the kind which motivated the UK suicide bombers or would-be bombers, is very different from other so-called 'religiously inspired' conflicts elsewhere in the world.

[SleepyHead]

All I see is something very simple with that video. A woman tries to talk about Islam as if she knows the religion itself, but when rebutted by the priest, she does not listen and still carried on.

 

Well she does mention that she's not religious - given that, why should she want to listen to someone who simply wants to quote the Q'ran at her as if simply quoting a book settled an argument which extends beyond the bounds of the book?

 

She is definitely sprouting a lot of crap

 

Such as?

[Bago]

Well she does mention that she's not religious - given that, why should she want to listen to someone who simply wants to quote the Q'ran at her as if simply quoting a book settled an argument which extends beyond the bounds of the book?

I thought that it was a two-way conversation. What is the point of her being on tv, if all she sprouts are crap? So, she wins, but the opposite person does not?

 

I thought that the priest (actually who is he?), wanted to talk about the religion, cos she made references to the book. Yet, when asked if she believes or not, she did not answer. If she is open-minded and is aiming for a win-win situation, then why is she throwing insults, and putting blame across?

 

Such as?

The things which were crap are the comparative comment about Islam and Judaism. She also compared the people, and quantify how someone should believe a religion. The Holocaust happened because of many reasons. The Zionism movement. The follow-up anti-semitism era.

 

Priest: "If you are a heretic, then there is no point rebuking you, since you have blashphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...There are personal matters that do not concern you."

 

Lady: "Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me."

 

Just because some individuals took action into their own hands does not mean everyone who follow this religion will do the same, and follow suit. Isn't she being deliberately obtusive by branding everyone the same? Because she had done this, she is probably being branded as a non-believer in its truest sense who have a cause to damage the religion itself. What exactly is the point of her actions ?

[SleepyHead]

OK. Well here's the text of the discussion ... I'll post some comments after.

 

 

Woman: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilisations, it is a class between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilisation and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilisations: Civilisations do not clash, but compete.

 

Man: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

 

Woman: Yes, that is what I mean.

 

Man: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilisations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind ...

 

Woman: The Muslims are the ones began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilisations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for 'takfir' and fighting the infidels. My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilisation on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names they did not choose for themselves? Once he calls them 'Ahl Al-Dhimma', another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's Wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

 

*edit*

 

Woman: I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

 

Man with hat: Are you a heretic?

 

Lady: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural ...

 

Man with hat: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran ... These are personal matters which do not concern you.

 

Woman: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs

 

*edit*

 

Woman: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced thw world to respect them, with their knowledge, no with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We haev not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down and embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

[SleepyHead]

Seems this lady caused quite a stir.

 

There are references to this piece of footage in several locations, including:

 

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&size=A&art=5619&geo=11

http://monado2.blogspot.com/search/label/secularism

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050

 

I won't bore you to tears with a full textual analysis of what she said - have a google for the full references to the Qu'ran if you're interested.

 

Overall I'd say this debate seems to be more-or-less the same debate that's raged between Jews and Christians, Jews and Muslims, and Jews and Christians for the last 1,000 years or so. We call them names, based on what religious founder X has said, they call us names, based on what their religious founder has said and we all keep going round and round in an idiotic circle all calling each other names and getting progressively more and more wound-up until someone can bear it no longer and decides the best way to "sort it all out" is to do violence to someone else.

 

I'd say the lady in question doesn't do herself any favours by getting the "clash of civilisations" thing wrong - she misidentifies Muslims as the people who first used this phrase, but it's actually the presenter who's right (it was Samuel Huntingdon who coined it first). And she contradicts herself - she says there's no such thing as a "clash of civilisations" and then goes on to discuss this non-existent clash at some length later on.

 

The bloke in the hat gives the standard religious leader's response "You don't believe, so you can't criticise us" - which is both tiresome and irritating because (although I have no evidence to support this) he no doubt believes he's alright to cricitise the heathen.

 

I'm not entirely happy with some of the comments she makes towards the end concerning the peacefulness of the Jews. I agree that not all Jews are alike, but Israel - the world's only Jewish state - has been at more-or-less permanent war with its neighbours for the last 50 or so years, and has spawned a few violent politicised groups over the same time-period (but apparently nowhere near as many as Muslim states). She's on slightly firmer ground with her assertions about Buddhists.

 

Re: her comment that "Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists." I think that's overstating the case slightly.

 

Overall then? Both sides could do a bit better; if they were to stop calling each other names, and actually do their research before wading in with their big boots on they'd probably all get on like a house on fire.

[Bago]

I have typed it out as well, and was going to post it up before the numerous replies to my firts post, but I will await your response as well. I have also read up about this lady, and I now realise who those people are in the video. Apparently, this little snippet of video has circulated the world over, and it is quite famous, and the woman is now capitalising on it and writing a book, since she has now moved to the US.

 

I was not wrong in thinking that it has association with the Israeli conflicts.

 

She claims to be a muslim, but now has renounced that. Yet, she came from an "Alawi" family who is part of the Shi'a Sect of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi

 

She is a "secular activist [1] and vocal critic of Islam"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan

 

So, why would she listen to what that guy said? The woman is rejecting her heritage, which is fine and dandy, but do so in a private matter, and not use the world as her stage and rant. She is hardly a diplomatic, and is seen as an extremist in her own right, with her own goal.

 

The men in that clip was, host Faisal al-Qassem, and with Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli. The book they were going on about is by, Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory. The wonders of Wikipedia...

 

IMHO, I'd throw the book away.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations

 

The Clash of Civilizations thesis may also be regarded as an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The ideas of Huntington and Bernard Lewis were already influential among American neoconservative figures such as Vice President Richard Cheney prior to September 11, 2001; Middle East scholar Gilles Kepel (2003) reports that many radical Islamists in the Middle East likewise viewed Huntington's thesis approvingly. Therefore, the fact that U.S. policymakers and radical Islamists have confronted each other in a certain way may be an indication that people on both sides were interpreting events according to the thesis, rather than that the thesis itself was especially prescient.

 

Research and quoting flawed materials upon materials spring to mind.

 

[Added] Oh, you beat me to my posting.

[LordChaverly]

I have typed it out as well, and was going to post it up before the numerous replies to my firts post, but I will await your response as well. I have also read up about this lady, and I now realise who those people are in the video. Apparently, this little snippet of video has circulated the world over, and it is quite famous, and the woman is now capitalising on it and writing a book, since she has now moved to the US.

 

I was not wrong in thinking that it has association with the Israeli conflicts.

 

She claims to be a muslim, but now has renounced that. Yet, she came from an "Alawi" family who is part of the Shi'a Sect of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi

 

She is a "secular activist [1] and vocal critic of Islam"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan

 

So, why would she listen to what that guy said? The woman is rejecting her heritage, which is fine and dandy, but do so in a private matter, and not use the world as her stage and rant. She is hardly a diplomatic, and is seen as an extremist in her own right, with her own goal.

 

The men in that clip was, host Faisal al-Qassem, and with Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli. The book they were going on about is by, Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory. The wonders of Wikipedia...

 

IMHO, I'd throw the book away.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations

 

 

 

Research and quoting flawed materials upon materials spring to mind.

 

[Added] Oh, you beat me to my posting.

 

 

You are maligning Huntington's book unfairly. It is a very thoughtful, thought provoking and (like Huntington's other works) very well-researched. I suggest you get hold of a copy and read it. His arguments are much more sophisticated than his critics give him credit for - indeed, the latter tend to parody his arguments rather than carefully examine them.

[SleepyHead]

Judging from the televised carry-on I'd say she was probably "creating a need for her product in the marketplace". Whipping up the crowd so she can sell them her brand of snake oil, IOW!

 

IMHO, I'd throw the book away.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations

 

Yes, it sounds like a typical political thesis - light on content, heavy on theory. Seems the main problem is that the notion of "Civilisation" isn't really clear enough to warrant some of the assertions he made.

 

I've just noticed something else. I stand corrected by wiki (assuming it's accurate on this occasion!):

 

"The term itself ["Clash of civilisations"] was first used by Bernard Lewis in an article in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled The Roots of Muslim Rage"