GeoffP: Evidence is such a bother, don't you agree?" Do your own research if you're sincere. Google "Dhahran Protestant Fellowship". I haven't time to overcome your prejudices for you. There are Catholic and Anglican groups active in Arabia that you can learn about also. You tossed in some other drivel insinuating that I believe that the Bush Administration was complicit in 9-11. I've posted enough on the topic for you to know my opinion, so please don't go distorting it.
Do my own research to support your claims...yes, that makes sense. Hype, "bring your truths if ye are truthful". As for this ridiculous comment: I point out that the first thing I noticed from the very first post of your thread was: Good god. How was I "distorting" your views, tiny, tiny brain? Are you really that much of a dullard that you think other people won't notice your dullardy?
Lo! and behold! I found some evidence of Hype's little charter group. So they do exist - which I in fact did expect, though I do apologize for pulling his chain quite so hard about its existence. For, you see, it would rather appear that they exist pretty much as I expected: Dhahran, you see, is a foreigner's preserve. Lo! and note: Note too: So, in other words: an isolated compound of extranationals. Did Daddy go outside the fence to preach? My bet is: nope. Did Mummy wear an abaya whilst little Hype was at school? My bet is: yep. So: as expected. Hype, your posts kind of smack more as a high school kid's experience of Saudi while Mum and Dad were out "preaching to the choir", as it were. So save your bollocky theories, and your nonsensical attempts to slide these Christian groups under the radar by saying they're "active" in Saudi: the truth is that those groups are illegal there, and that if caught, they face penalties. So in short: your dog doesn't hunt. Oh, and let me add: the tolerance of missionaries in Saudi is extraordinarily unlikely, given the penalties inherent in conversion even in moderate Turkey: Protestant missionaries face nine years for insult to Islam http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2482831,00.html We now return you to your regularly scheduled browbeat, entitled Reductio ad Mesopotamiam: Hype's Mystical Journey.
"Good god. How was I "distorting" your views, tiny, tiny brain?" Maybe you do it without realizing it, by reading and quoting me out of context. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of complicity. Maybe your interest in argumentation exceeds your interest in understanding. I'm not sure. "Hype's little charter group" has been in existence for decades, and holds meetings in the hundreds. "Did Daddy go outside the fence to preach?" He traveled around the kingdom for Fellowship events, although "preaching" doesn't really describe it. For the most part, activities were confined to ARAMCO and military compounds. Regardless, these activities do take place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. "Did Mummy wear an abaya whilst little Hype was at school?" Never. Since your bets and expectations are so far off, GeoffP, perhaps you will consider more honestly whether you know what you're talking about. "Hype's Mystical Journey" has been more tangible than yours. I've lived there. You have not. This simply means that I have considerably more experience regarding religious tolerance in Arabia than you. While you persist in trying to cast things in extremes, I have been offering you the chance to reconsider your sweeping assumptions. Among these assumptions is your tendency to consider those who raise contradictions to your opinions to hold views completely opposite to yours. I have not tried to defend the Saudi regime as some model of tolerance. Instead, I have tried to direct you to information you seem unaware of. Things are not as black-and-white as you like to assume.
Let's leave it at your last statement, unless you can illustrate otherwise. First you implicate the White House in 9/11, then you don't. Again: of expat Christians, not Saudi citizens. As the next statement illustrates: Regardless, they don't[/quote] take place with actual Saudi citizens. Ergo, my original point stands: other religions are not tolerated in Saudi Arabia. They're allowed in the ARAMCO clique because the Saudis need them for business, and that's it. Ordinary Saudis are not permitted apostacy. They are killed for it. That's pretty damned bad. Taking the opinion that "notable tolerance" by the Saudis for allowing expat Christians to breathe and pray in their Kingdom "has been largely overlooked" is akin to losing a leg to gangrene and then opining that, all in all, the gangrene wasn't so bad, really. It's laughable. I will say this, however: in my innate zeal I was perhaps too hard on Hype, who did indeed specify that they were all Westerners. Now, my instinct is usually to go for the jugular, and perhaps that was uncalled-for here. But to opine that the Saudis are really "ok guys" because they allow expat services strikes me as ludicrous and deceptive. How is death for apostacy not extreme? Pointing out Westerners - under the ARAMCO umbrella - being allowed to have private services is not evidence of tolerance, but of intolerance temporarily restrained. No, but I do argue hard against points I don't believe in. I don't consider Bells or Sam or Redarmy or several others as being in complete opposition to me. We merely feel differently about the same phenomena. Good! Then we agree it needs changing; in future, don't base your counter-argument on an obvious - and recognized - technicality just because you don't like me. You call me "prejudiced" because I recognize the same thing as you but happen to be more irate about it.
I missed this pronouncement of GeoffP's on the first pass: "the truth is that those groups are illegal there, and that if caught, they face penalties. So in short: your dog doesn't hunt." Fellowship meetings are not clandestine. They are part of an arrangement for the well-being of expatriates in the Kingdom. The deal requires a considerable amount of tact on the part of Christians in Saudi Arabia, because embarrassing Saudi leadership would have political consequences. The perpetuity of the arrangement allowing these organizations also requires international tact, because the Saudi government is under intense pressure and scrutiny from domestic fundamentalists. If foreigners are perceived to be acting in such a way as to attempt the conversion of Muslims to another religion, then there would be repercussions. On the other hand, there are Saudi leaders who conform with the Quranic directives to allow other religions a certain latitude. I've brought these things up to inform you that there are moderate forces at work in the Mideast, and not only radical ones. With more sensitivity to such nuances, and with more patience, there is greater chance for positive reform in places like Arabia. However, if the "West" and Westerners persist in being pushy on this subject, then a reactionary cycle will cause a hardening of feelings and policies. As Iraq is illustrating all too well, too much force with even the best of intentions can be extremely counterproductive in the present situation. We are living in an era when an Islamic radical minority resonates a paranoia not unlike that of Islamophobes in the West. Solutions will require a lot of time, and even more understanding for the sensitivities of other cultures and creeds. It's important to recognize the moderates across the Mideast without provoking the radicals. It's important not to overgeneralize. Just as with trying personal relationships, this sort of sensitivity and patience represents a strength -not a weakness- of personal or national or cultural character.
"First you implicate the White House in 9/11, then you don't. " If you will go back to the thread that you quoted from, you will discover that I suspect that suppressed records are available as to the identities and training of the 9-11 pilots. This is a far cry from complicity in the attacks. To put it more simply for you, some people that the US government assisted in training may have turned around to bite us. This does not mean that any element of the US Govt wished to participate in perpetrating the attacks. If you would like to explore this further, please do so in that thread.
"to opine that the Saudis are really "ok guys" because they allow expat services strikes me as ludicrous and deceptive." Even so, it is an example of tolerance, if limited. "How is death for apostacy not extreme?" Please cite a reference to a death penalty imposed on an individual in Saudi Arabia for apostacy. As Sam and others have also discussed with you here, punishments for apostacy are controversial in Arabia and throughout the Muslim world. "Good! Then we agree [the Saud regime] needs changing" But we disagree significantly on how that change can come. By exaggerating the pervasiveness of the most radical interpretations of Islam, and by consistently pointing out only the worst, you contribute to the perpetuation of the worst. There will not come a liberalization of Islamic cultures through Western criticism and Western force. On the contrary, such provocation is proven to result in fundamentalist blowback. There is ample force for progressiveness and justice within Islamic and Arab traditions and societies, and within the human nature we all share- But it can't gain influence under conditions of the culture war that you are actively promoting.
I went back to review the thread from the top, and another impression struck me, relating to overgeneralizations, and to the sort of tact I'm appealing for: I saw no shortage of Bibles among the Christian expats in Arabia. They come and go from the country routinely with only a little respectful tact. Yet the thread began with the story of a Flight Attendant making an embarrassing fuss before even setting out for Saudi Arabia. Let's drop the exaggerations and step away smarter.
Too limited to be called only tolerance. "Enforced tolerance" might be appropriate. Ah - a little deception there. There haven't been any, recently, but the punishment is indeed death: The old "focus on radicalism makes more radicals" argument. It does not wash. If decrying radicalism makes more radicals, then the only room you leave is to wait, accept sharia and increasing dhimmitude in the hope - the hope, mind you - that islam will change. Was that true of the Soviet Bloc? Would they have simply calmed themselves down out of their aggressive stance by disarmament? And how are the 1 billion muslims in their own nations a "minority"? Why is islam so vicious where it is dominant? Illustrate where, and how. Describe what will occur, and in what timeframe. Name me five islamic "progressives" and their accomplishments. And under how many feet of earth are they buried? Again, it is not I promoting it. It is I reacting to it, for it predates me and you and this entire century - a point, I note, you have wisely chosen not to address. Your argument is akin to telling me the other guy will stop hitting me if I only put my hands down.
Indeed. The basic fact is this: there is almost no religious tolerance in Saudi Arabia, and little in the rest of the ummah. Why, and from where does this intolerance come?
From the same place whence came Christian intolerance. Had some Islamic superpower persisted in assailing "Christendom", we might still be stuck in the Dark Ages.
"Which same place is this? I'm most curious to hear." It's the solar plexus of humanity, where insult leads to injury. (self quote)"There is ample force for progressiveness and justice within Islamic and Arab traditions and societies." GeoffP: "Illustrate where, and how. Describe what will occur, and in what timeframe." Consider Iran, where the United States have nearly exhausted our leverage. Nevertheless, since the Islamic Revolution there, moderate voices have been steadily gaining ground. Ahmadinejad is one exception now falling from democratic favor. Mohammad Khatami is widely considered a progressive leader. In the popular-collective American psyche a myth often surfaces that it was the Ameriphile Shah who made Iran progressive and world-savvy, and that since his immaculate reign the barbarians have taken over. I often encounter the misconception that there's no hunger for rapprochement with the West among (mostly Muslim) Iranians today- which is utter bullshit. Iranians are a manifestly progressive and outward-looking people. Compared with the apathy and herdism of the contemporary post-9-11 American public majority, today's Iranians are heroic democrats such as haven't held sway in the USA since our own revolutionary days. Being no prophet, I can offer you no future time-frame in Iran's evolution. But clearly, Iran is on a popularly-powered path toward greater openness in government and international relations, and they are raising up leaders that express this popular ambition. Iran is a smart, young country that is noticeably tiring of the Qur'an-thumpers. All we in the West have to do to encourage a progressive new Iranian revolution is to suspend our paranoia and insecurity, and leave Iran alone. As for the rest of the Muslim World, the US could make historic strides by simply putting Israel on a shorter leash. It would not be necessary to undermine the existence of Israel, but only to demand and immediate halt to new illegal zionist settlements, and to demand an end to Israeli apartheid. Such actions would speak much louder than words, and would greatly empower moderates throughout the region. "Name me five islamic "progressives" and their accomplishments." Must you put the concept of progressives in quotes in association with any Muslim? That's very sad. I suspect you could benefit from some broader exposure to the world. Here in no particular order are a few examples of Muslim progressives for your attentive consideration: Louay M. Safi Nadia Yassine Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim Tariq Ramadan Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani Kamal Nawash Khaled Abu Fadl Abu Mazen Faezeh Hashemi Ahmed Rahim Farzana Hassan-Shahid Salam Al-Marayati Salah Choudhury Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
"Again, it is not I promoting [culture war]. It is I reacting to it, for it predates me and you and this entire century - a point, I note, you have wisely chosen not to address." You don't have to be the genesis of a culture war in order to contribute. "Your argument is akin to telling me the other guy will stop hitting me if I only put my hands down." How can you be so certain that de-escalation has no reward?
You know, this gets said over and over, without any justification: and yet, there seems really to have been no sweeping reforms in over 1400 years. When will the grandiose effect occur? Will it be before or after "true" communism is attained? Oh, possibly: because, of course, they recognize the strains of Arabic supremacism in islam, and don't much appreciate them, being Persian. There is even a small Zoroastrian movement there. But the Ayatollah is still the Ayatollah, and there is still sharia. You may postulate changes; give me a call when they amount to anything. Well, this is odd: are we to keep our noses out and let them sort things out, or not? You seem to be switching sides now. Perversely, I seem to be less invasive than you, because I'm not necessarily arguing fulmination of revolution, but merely separation. Ah, euphemisms. Define "Israeli apartheid". Well, the oddest thing is that as Israel engages in rapprochement, a great many islamic terrorists see it as weakness. Tell me: what kind of moderate upsurge is possible when the stated aim of Hamas and the rest is to drive the Jews into the sea? Straw man, ad hominem. There have been numerous "progressives" held up over the years as evidence of the goodwill and honourable doing of political islam - Tariq Ramadan is one, the MCB and MPACUK others, the English convert who was going to give a "muslim Christmas address" in the UK still another, and, of course, Cat Stevens - and numerous of them (i.e. the forementioned) fail the test of reasonability. This has, of course, not prevented them from being institutionalized as symbols of peace even to today. So my consideration of new "moderates" is frequently quite skeptical. I will indeed observe them, but you must forgive me if I examine them, as a rational person might do, with a skeptical eye, and if I accidentally - what is the phrase? "Fast boat" them? - you must forgive that too, as I forgive your oblique Fisking. For my democratic rights are in skepticism, and healthy investigation. Similarly, Fisk as you will. I might add: for every moderate you present, I seemingly have a hundred immoderates. Here's one: And here are a few of those things he rejects, incidentally: Have a good day.
No, but in order to survive, one must resist. Or so I keep hearing. Maybe it's that some resistance is obstinacy, and other resistance not. Is that the kind of glass through which we ought to view things? Frankly, too, the islamic faith itself tells me - as the moderate interpretation of Sura 9 goes - that I am quite justified in defending myself if attacked, and forcibly changing muslims from their religion or demanding that they pay an exorbitant tax if they surrender. What could be better than judging another faith by their own rules. Surely you could not object to such a position? It is the very height of cultural imperialism to suggest that we should treat other cultures by our own rules, no? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Historical precedent. You might cite Ghandi; but Ghandi faced down an empire with a self-lauded humanitarianism. Where has de-escalation worked in the face of islamic expansionism, precisely? I add this, too, from aforementioned site. Of course, the merest fact that one can find dozens and dozens of these sites, and none of the 'other' kind that Hype searches for with a hopeful eye, means nothing, I'm sure. Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred.
"When will the grandiose effect [reform] occur?" As you know, it's a gradual process and not a rapture. You're apparently introducing such nonsense, and cold-war baggage, to distract. Strawman, ad hom. yourself. "are we to keep our noses out and let them sort things out, or not?" Keep our noses out. "Define "Israeli apartheid"" Israel- a country in the Western Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west. Apartheid- A policy or practice of separating or segregating ethnic groups. "what kind of moderate upsurge is possible when the stated aim of Hamas and the rest is to drive the Jews into the sea? " Again, you are assigning extremist rhetoric much too broadly. "and numerous of them (i.e. the forementioned) fail the test of reasonability. " Please describe this test. "Fisking" Please define. "for every moderate you present, I seemingly have a hundred immoderates." Seemingly.
Illustrate this straw man. Where is the ad hominem in the last post? But you just said we should subvert them! Which is your final choice? And the latter is, in all cases, wrong then? Borders separate ethnic groups. Are these also examples of apartheid? And in which sense: good or bad? Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism, that employs suicide bombers and random rocket attacks on your civilian population, or that terms all your citizens above the age of 18 "legitimate war targets"? And the ghettoization of the immigrant Israeli community in the early 20th century by the Arab natives: was this also apartheid? How about dhimmitude via sharia: does this also represent a form of apartheid, since it restricts the rights of non-muslims? And here I thought Hamas had won an election or something, seeming almost to "represent" Palestine. I agree however that intelligent discussion with you is unlikely. I think that the "test" would be reasonably obvious to the reasonable. It sort of consists of common sense and a modicum of investigation, which some are loathe to do about any subject. For example, one might investigate a notable islamic "moderate", such as Tariq Ramadan, and find out that he has a connection to Yassir Arafat, or that he and his equally idiotic brother gave lukewarm support for "lapidation", which is to say stoning to death for adultery - or at least for its "temporary ban" while "appropriate authorities investigate". Or how about CAIR, whose upper echelons (to say nothing of the founders) is rife with terrorism supporters and supremacism speech. Hype, I suggest you take a moment to educate yourself by investigating a woman named "Ayaan Hirsi Ali". She is a convert from islam, having to flee the Netherlands under death sentence from the same tiny minority of extremists that killed Theo van Gogh, and she, too, was in Saudi Arabia, although her experience of that country does not appear to conform to your own, since she was an actual cohabitant with the general population rather than an overglorified tourist. Buh. Look it up yourself. Well, perhaps you can find a way to sugar-coat their baser nature. I imagine they would appreciate that. And yet you previously were of the opinion that there were indeed moderates and, indeed, immoderates, who could be discerned, seemingly. Seemingly.
"What could be better than judging another faith by their own rules. Surely you could not object to such a position?" I do object because that's ridiculous. Law (even Islamic law) exists in order to establish common standards, but it's a matter of agreeing on interpretations. Search out Judaic law, pull directives from Leviticus if you like, but this has nothing to do with how disparate cultures can coexist. "It is the very height of cultural imperialism to suggest that we should treat other cultures by our own rules" But it is not cultural imperialism to agree upon common rules for the purpose of governing inter-cultural matters. "Ghandi faced down an empire with a self-lauded humanitarianism." Ghandi also faced down Muslim radicals, by appealing to their common values, and they backed down. "I believe in the fundamental Truth of all great religions of the world. And I believe that if only we could, all of us, read the scriptures of the different Faiths from the stand-point of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom, all one and were all helpful to one another." "Where has de-escalation worked in the face of islamic expansionism, precisely?" Where devout Muslims live satisfied and meaningful lives within multicultural societies, they are the living repudiation of whacko notions of an Islamic world Khalifa, or the politicization of their faith. So by welcoming and recognizing the majority of Muslims who live lawful lives in compatibility with people of other faiths and people lacking faith, "Islamic expansionism" in the political sense has no footing. If you are agonizing over the human potential to voluntarily accept Islam irrespective of politics, then that's your problem. I'm not afraid of Muslims, and I suspect it's because I've had the privilege of personally knowing more of them than you. "Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred." Exactly whom are you accusing me of hating?
