It's a rallying cry and the last words that cross many muslim's lips as they prepare to die. Including those who blow up their own people (or the opposite faction of their own people).
This was from the Washington Post. It was buried in an article about how Sunni clerics are shutting down their mosques because they want to undermine the new government. Meanwhile Shiites (the ruling party now) are being accused of torturing and killing Sunnis (many view it as reprisals for the brutal treatment of Shiites under Saddam's Sunni-led rule). Of course, the suicide bombers attacking Shiite, US, and Iraqi government forces are thought to be mostly Sunni-supported.
So, I noticed these simple words from a man who reminded me of all the Arabs I have met so far in my life:
quote:"I wish they would abolish these words of 'Sunnis' and 'Shiites,' " said bookstore owner Mohammed Hindawy, another Shiite worshiper. "I appeal to wise men on all sides to calm things down or we will see a blood bath here."
I pray for this man, and the millions like him. He doesn't care about the factions, he just wants to live his life as best he can. He lives in a world where others use violence to make their points and he's stuck in it. He could leave and lose everything he's known so far in his life. Or he can just hope that sense prevails.
Okay, I'm projecting. But I have met (and known personally) many middle Easterners in my life. Not one of them was in any power position, of course. But they are just like us. Tired of the fighting. Don't want their children to grow up in danger. But they don't have the structures in place that would allow them to make decisions on how they are governed. Those decisions are always made by the people with the weapons, or the bully pulpits.
I also hope, for the fate of the US' reputation in this region, that a bloodbath is not the eventual outcome of the Sunni/Shiite rivalry. Especially not in Iraq, where we will (at the very least) be viewed as the catalyst.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But they don't have the structures in place that would allow them to make decisions on how they are governed. Those decisions are always made by the people with the weapons, or the bully pulpits.
Keep in mind that a pretty big reason for this is how hard the colonial powers screwed them after the First World War, not to mention the mucking about America has been doing in the region in the past number of decades. You don't need to look any further than Iran to see that -- remember the Shah?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember it quite well. We, as a nation, along with the Brits and the French and Russians, have a lot to answer for over the years. Not all of it is long-dead history either.
But...my point wasn't to lay blame. There's plenty to go around. My point was to remind us all that buried amidst all this insurgency and counter-insurgency are a mass of good people who just want to live life, enjoy their family and friends, and have a bit of peace and security.
Knowing that is the only thing that makes me support our taking action in Iraq and Afganistan. Sadly, I think we have a high probability of mucking things up even worse, or forcing to the surface things that were better left repressed.
There's no way to know, of course. And the world is better off without Saddam. Whether the Iraqi people will be better off depends on who survives and what kind of government flourishes when all the dust settles and the foreign troops go back home.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm just cynical, and I'd love to be proven wrong, but given the history of Western intervention in the middle east I am extremely sceptical.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, Fahim and the rest of the Muslims and former Muslims I've met are like that, too. Just want to mind their own business, cause no harm to anyone else, and just be left alone to live life their own way. Granted, none of these Muslims are from the Middle East - they're all either Sri Lankan or Malay.
But I think the important point is that that's what most of the average, normal people are like everywhere.
I'm in with the praying and hoping.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is short sighted to blame the west for the muck in the region, after all it would be a worthless backwater of no value to anyone if the west had not needed the oil in the sand. What was the stable population of the Palistinians befor the restoration of Isreal, 25,000? Now it is in the millions.
Sure it is bad here, but power that we will not or cannot learn to use effectively is useless to us. We have a small window to make our mark on the world before we lose the unique place we hold in history, I am glad we finally have the courage (51% of us anyway) to do so!
posted
The history of everyone's intervention in the Middle-East-including Arabic intervention-is riddled with tragedy and stupidity.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
History everywhere is riddled with tragedy and stupidity, just as every people in the world have at one time or another been slaves. It is not a Middle East problem it is a human condition. The default state for man is one of barbaric stupidity, tribalism.
It takes effort to make a civilized man, and a good one. Duty is a concept that we all have tied to the nature of our loyalties, but how large that circle of duty grows depends on available energy, predisposition and indoctrinization.
We need to do what we can in the Middle East to increase available energy, and to teach duty to a Nation. I will leave the predisposition to prayer, for we can only have faith that men are much the same in the ability to grow.
I think your view of what has value is rather parochial. Just because we needed the oil under the sand does not mean that the place or the people had no value before then.
One might even make an argument that the indigenous culture would've been fine and the people better off if their exposure to modern Western culture hadn't been while learning of the need to protect their own interests from greedy outsiders hoping to screw them out of their natural resources.
But again, the point is not to assign blame, as there is plenty to go around.
But I hope to impress upon you that just because people are poor (by Western standards) that does not make them savages or their homeland a "backwater."
If anything, the clash of cultures is a significant source of many of the problems in the region. And it fuels the backlash into radical fundamentalism that we in the West find so irksome and wonder how people could ever want to live like that.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The history of everyone's intervention in the Middle-East-including Arabic intervention-is riddled with tragedy and stupidity.
Can you honestly blame me for focusing on the 20th century?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While we're blaming the Europeans for all the ills of the Middle East, let's remember that France and Britain were dominant there from the end of WWI to the mid 1950s, while the Turks ruled there from the time of Columbus till the end of WWI. And it wasn't a rosy democracy before that. Sheesh - you think the Europeans imposed all the ills of Arab society on them in half a generation? Read about the Ottoman system in the waning years of the empire and you'll find ALL the explanation you need of the culture of the Middle East. The European "colonial" days were a blip - and a vast improvement over the late Ottoman empire.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't trying to get into this side of the issue, but if people do want to bring it up, I suppose it is at least worth noting that hatred for the West could arise from a solid xenophobia learned from past exposure to all sorts of bad overlords. But it is certainly mixed with personal (or one generation-removed) first hand experience of ham-fisted meddling in the region by Europe and the US.
A demonstrated history of antipathy toward (or at least unconcern for the well being of) the Arab population is probably not helping either.
Not a person there needs to know the history of their own country in order to hate what Europe and the US have done. They only have to look to their own lives and the memories of their parents or grand parents to find enough to fuel any amount of hatred they'd care to internalize.
The fact that the Ottoman Turks were horrible doesn't excuse our behavior, certainly. Or that of our European "allies."
It's also worth mentioning, however, that the muslim "culture" itself is as much to blame for their current lot than any of the external influences. In many of the countries it is a solely male-dominated, religion-based hierarchy with allegiance to a priestly caste (actually allegiance to particular priests within the caste). It is primed for authoritarian rule. Prone to misrule and division.
And, the priestly caste has, in many places, not hesitated to organize their own militias and turned their forces on rivals within their own religion, if not within their own sect.
Repression is often brutal and when power shifts people generally wait to see how many will die and how many will just disappear.
The problems in that region vary country-by-country, of course. There are some that have thrown off the yoke of religious tyranny and moved toward (if not Democracy) a more secular leadership that can manage internal affairs and work well with other countries.
But that only works if the imams give up a measure of power. And that only happens if the people decide first that they're better off being guided or represented by a different type of leader to begin with.
As I mentioned, it is a mix.
I'm trying NOT to blame anyone. If you ask me, really, everyone who has had a hand in it is to blame. We're not absolved because we're late-comers.
We did the expedient thing at the time and are paying for it now.
The one main difference I see is that by virtue of coming late to the scene, one might've at least hoped that we'd learned from history, rather than use history as an excuse for our own misdeeds.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is it the Japanese say "Fix the problem, not the blame..."
Seriously, what weare trying to do is hold the door open long enough for the people to come inside. There are those who desperatly want the door closed, they fight and we fight and if we win the people will win. That is history in the making! Let the future learn from us.
posted
I think it's fair to say that the Arabs are responsible for at least some of their own mess-ups both in recent years and in the distant past. Interesting that this came up just when I have finished reading Irshad Manji's "The Trouble with Islam" - which is brilliant, by the way, and says everything I would say in this thread better than I would say it.
Oh and by the way, my understanding of Allahu Akbar is that it means "God is greater" not just "God is great." To me, that chimes with my understanding of the Qur'anic position on God - He is beyond human understanding, our limited minds cannot possess Him - so whatever idea we have of Him, He is greater than that.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
And the proper translation. I got mine from the Washington Post website -- can't trust them sometimes, but I figured at least they'd get the darn translation right.
I like your explanation.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But once we wipe out the difference between Sunni and Shiite, I suppose we can work on the difference between Christian and Muslim, Muslim and Jew? But it isn't just a matter of belief, there is a cultural, even ethnic difference between Sunnis and Shiites. And I'm pretty sure the divide between the two is maybe 30 years younger than Islam itself.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:While we're blaming the Europeans for all the ills of the Middle East
That's not what I said, and I don't see anyone else doing it either. But at least under the Ottomans the region was one entity; today's arbitrarily-drawn borders (that blatantly ignore ethnic boundary lines) are a pretty significant problem. Look at Iraq and Turkey.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Twinky, I can't blame you for that. Although why honestly was italicized I dunno...
My point is, though, that there is more wrong with the Middle East than what the West has done in a few generations. History and memories go back further than that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we were somewhat responsible for it. The people in the Middle East do have many legitimate complaints against the west mixed in with their illegitimate ones. They don't just simplistically "hate us for our freedom".
Building most things is a fragile enterprise. The power to destroy is so much easier and, in the short term, appears much more powerful. Building nations and new political orders is on the far end of the scale in terms of fragility. Trust is a necessity. Especially given our past history and the fact that we haven't appologized for it nor even really acknowledged it, I can't really blame people in the Middle East for doubting that the US isn't there to screw them or at the very least out for it's own interests with little concern for them. I'm not too sure of that myself.
---
The problem with those who really desire peace is that, y and large, they are mostly passive. Usually the initiators, the active people are those who have a real bone to pick with something or somebody. And they, far too often, are predisposed towards the power of destruction much more than the longer, less certain and comfortable powers of building.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess if we could all agree on what "it" is, it might be a question of apologizing and acknowledging it.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not really a matter centered on the apology. It's a matter of appearing trustworthy to the people you need trust from.
If a kid beats me up in first grade, tricks me into thinking he wants to help me out in second grade, but ends up screwing me over, then goes back to beating me up and stealing my lunch money from grades 3-5, I'm not going to suddenly trust him in 6th grade because he says he wants to help me.
Apologies are not about saying the words, "I'm sorry." They are about repentence and the demonstration that you're not giong to do that thing again. Part of that is being able to admit that you were wrong, which is where the "I'm sorry." comes in. The west hasn't even done that, let alone the other things we could do to show our transformation into being worthy of trust.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a great article in the army times today discussing the relative reactions in the west to murder and tourture of innocent aid workers and much beloved people helping over here, and the flushing of a copy of a book in the Middle East.
They are wound a little tight in the middle east no doubt about it. It makes me wonder if we will ever be able to trust this region no matter how stable we hold it. I can only hope for breakthroughs in science and engineering to alter the very nature of the region over time, redirecting all this rage into something grand.
quote: What was the stable population of the Palistinians befor the restoration of Isreal, 25,000? Now it is in the millions.
Are you talking about 1967? Because remember many Palestinians were refugees in the West Bank and were not - AND STILL ARE NOT - counted as part of the population. Between the River and the sea, including the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, all of the illegal workers, people about to do "`Alliah" and Egyptian prostitutes - we have between 10-11 million people. Figures say 6 million citizens only, or so.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Book of Mormon, there are two peoples - one a civilized, townbuilding type with a tendency to get rich and get snobby, and the other a tribe-based "warlike" society with an anceint grudge against their northern neighbors who they believe stole their birthright.
Over and over again, the religious leaders of the first group, the Nephites, stress the need to forget about money and fine clothing long enough to remember how to be decent human beings. They preach that the Lamanites, the warlike tribes, are better off for all their violent tendencies, because they are operating under the "foolish traditions of their fathers" and don't have acess to the information and democratic society that the Nephites have.
Often the Book of Mormon stresses that we apply its stories and teachings to us today. Who is worse off - a prosperous, free people who know better but in times of prideful prosperity turn into inhuman monsters who use torture and ridicule against their enemies, or a largely moral if combative society that is fighting not for money or for power but to defend the principles that they have been taught to believe are the will of God?
The Nephites finally come to terms with a group of the Lamanites when a Nephite missionary named Ammon travels to their land, not preaching, but simply serving. He impresses a Lamanite king with his physical prowess but declines an offer for a position of authority, instead busying himself with tending the king's horses. It is through utter humility and love for a people that have been warlike and hostile to him that he gains their trust and is able to teach them the principles of love and Christian charity that make them a freer and more stable society. This group of Lamanites takes a pledge to no longer take up arms against their enemies and become a generation of pacifists among a people who were traditionally taught to hate and fear their rivals.
Who is going to change things in a situation this complex? Is it the brilliant general that Bean Counter wants to see "secure" the region, or is it good, humble people who will set the example of how to act like a decent human being? Who is to blame in a clash of cultures? Is it the suicide bomber who is following the teachings of the only voice his country has ever allowed him to hear, or is it the cruel foreign soldier who grew up in a free and democratic society but humiliates and tortures others because he chose to follow the teachings of pornographic movies instead of the great minds that were available in his local library? If there is any sort of just and impartial God in the universe, who will stand to blame when the final judgement is made?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think that the "Great Man" theory can be a useful historical tool, I don't like the savior complex that some people bring to what could be the solutions to problems, especialy social ones.
I've always loved the one bit of dialog from Brecht's play Galileo:
quote:- Pity the land that has no hero. - No. Pity the land that needs a hero.
From where I stand, responsibility is the only sorveign specific. I volunteer with a Boy Scout troop and I am constantly pushing what I think is an important principle and one that is foundational to my experience with the scouts. That is, when something goes wrong or you run into a problem, it's not your job to figure out who is to blame. Your job is to do what you can to fix it. Later, we can determine why the problem resulted and what should be done, which may involve people realizing that they were to blame for it and accepting the blame and consequences, but adults (in this case, men) meet problems with action, not with whining and finger-pointing.
It makes me sad that there are so few places in our society (or in many others) where this idea is valued or even understood.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haloed, I asked Fahim, and he said that the original that was posted is correct, yours is not.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, amen to that. I think Frankl is amazing and it'd be wonderful if everyone was at least as familiar with his work as they seem to be with the popular conceptions of Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quids, I know your husband is Muslim, but does he read/write Arabic? Because I'm inclined to go with something between Haloed and the title.
Nevermind. I can't find my Arabic copy of the Quran. But the hua is a separate word meaning "he is". Few people speak Quranic or even standard Arabic, so it is probably a phrase that works in most dialects.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
These languages lacking vowels are particular tough for me. I tried learning Arabic back when I had some friends visiting from Palestine. It was incredibly to learn more than a few simple parroting of phrases. For me anyway.
I never did get the hang of actually writing anything.
I'm good at accents (although Dana doesn't appreciate my deep Southern accent or my various British accents) so I'm pretty facile picking up simple speech in other languages. But writing them and translation (transliteration) is way beyond me.
I think all those neurons got used up in punning.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, he reads/writes/speaks Arabic. According to him, all good Muslim children learn Arabic because, of course, all prayers are in Arabic, etc. etc. He also suggested you do a Google search and you'll find plenty of references to it, which I did, and I did.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ran across this looking for an ROTS thread. The man says it is definitely Allahu Al Akbar. (which is what I thought I remembered, but I only got my minor in Arabic- he had Arabic as his major + 4 years experience translating for the military. So I'm not sure why the other usage is so common.)
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh? Anyway, I'm sure the variance is from it being transcribed into English. After all, there is the belief that it isn't actually God's word if it's not in Arabic.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
