Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 16th, 2013, 03:53 AM   #441

Ayazid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
- Ayazid, you're a bit too judgmental and accuse people of being too judgmental.....

I didn't suggest Bourgaiba of Tunisia had the intention of turning the country into an Atheist one....Nor the criteria for people in judging rulers is their stance on headscarves !! How can you just assume people are that shallow or narrow-minded....and you make accusations under an incorrect assumption...

Bourgaiba had many things going against him...he had corruption issues as well as many issues where he put limits on some Muslim practices, which is "Improper"....and that's what I mean when I said its improper for a proponent of secularism to go an impose things on Muslims while somewhere else he claim to be modern and open-minded...
Essa, I don't know which criteria exactly are the most important for you, but there are lots of people in Arab and Muslim countries who judge rulers according to their religious policies and opinions. People who are able to curse Bourguiba because of his secular reforms and praise Saddam as a hero of the Sunna and martyr. This is the state of the Arab world and how a not small part of its inhabitants view things.

There are great many Muslims who think that the Sharia gives to women all their rights and oppose any secular reforms which would challenge the religious law in this regard. For those people, rights of women is just a code word for immorality and indecency and there are lots of Islamic clerics who strengthen them in these opinions.

Let me to quote from a very interesting article by an Egyptian writter concerning this issue:

Quote:
It's no secret that in Egypt religious conservatism is growing. The only people denying this fact are the conservatives themselves, who tell us that we are on a path to hell in blind imitation of the west.

This conservatism has taken many undesirable forms, all of which highlight the disturbed psychology of the Egyptian people in recent years. Perhaps the most obvious symptom of this conservatism is the abnormal preoccupation with women, and I don't mean women's rights. The void left by lousy education and unemployment has been filled to overflowing with "religion". If that meant an emphasis on good behaviour, honesty, trust and hard work, we wouldn't have a problem. The sad thing is that there are human beings that think of nothing but the dos and don'ts that should supposedly apply to women and on gender mixing, in addition to the usual insistence on flaunting religiosity in the form of prayer callouses on the forehead, carrying prayer beads and spending exceedingly long amounts of time in the mosque where people can see you pray.

This is not an exaggeration. Consider for example culture minister Farouk Hosni's comments a few years ago that the increasing prevalence of the hijab was a sign of backwardness. Nobody bothered to ask him why he made those comments, but were content with demonising him. This was the main reason why most Egyptians were glad that he lost his bid to become head of Unesco, instead of being upset that an Egyptian lost out.
The fact that the scholars of al-Azhar University took the time to think about and issue a fatwa condemning "immodest" mannequins at women's clothes stores is in itself disturbing. Al-Azhar was formerly a beacon of Islamic moderation and enlightenment. That it has fallen to such ignorant levels is appalling.

When Mohamed Tantawi, grand imam of al-Azhar, said that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam, he was vilified by millions. For almost a month, the only thing newspapers, talk shows and people on the street could talk about was the niqab. Popular telepreachers on satellite TV bashed Tantawi relentlessly. One notable sheikh referred to niqabi women as pure and modest while those who dressed "immodestly" were designated as "whores".

Is this really all people can think about anymore? Walk into any bookstore or newsstand selling books on religion. Almost all the books are about women, such as how to be a good wife or how to please your husband or how to cook tasty food for your husband. There is an entire field called "women's fatwas" that goes to unbelievable lengths to debate the legality of praying and fasting during menstruation and pregnancy, the dos and don'ts of sex and proper Islamic attire for respectable women.
Egypt's chilling conservatism | Baher Ibrahim

As for corruption, there is a lot of it in all Arab countries, so I don't understand why that should put Bourguiba in a worse light (I am not talking about his successor Ben Ali, who fled to - Saudi Arabia). As for Muslim practices, I think that no core Muslim practices and rituals were abolished in Tunisia during his rule.

Quote:
- What you find in a code that is discriminating, people find it rightful and fair....I keep saying this: If people choose to life by the Islamic code why is necessary for them to be "Backward", that has nothing to with Islam !!...since both of you are supporters of a free mind and modernity, then why would you cast others as backward just because they abide by a religious code.....Its the same religion that their ancestors believed and made them among the top nations....So, what's the problem in people following that now !!

- I called for a balanced approach between Secularism and Islam that can blend both....because I do recognize what place religion occupies for Muslims and at the same I share with you guys the need not have these religious ties hinder a nation's progress....By this logic, you'd come to understand why I said Ataturk's example is not feaible for Arabs...
The problem is not that some people choose to live as devout Muslims, but when they try to impose their vision on the rest of society and hinder its development. I never said that a devout believer of some religion, whether Islam, Christianity or anything else, is necessarily backward, but when he defends laws which curtails rights of women, people of other religions, atheists etc. because of what his religion teaches, then yes, I would call him backward and ignorant and it's of little consequence if his ancestors saw the things in the same way as he or not.

Again, as I wrote before: Ataturk or Bourguiba were not liberal secularists, but more like 18th century enlightened absolutist rulers. They had the vision that one day their countries could become open-minded and modern, but understood that democracy was not the way how to achieve that in an uneducated and heavily religious society. Had their approach been: "let's be gentle and tolerant and not mess with the Sharia and status of religious establishment", they would have never been able to push through any significant reforms.

Last edited by Ayazid; January 16th, 2013 at 03:59 AM.
Ayazid is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2013, 03:56 AM   #442

Ayazid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
Well, Yeah I feel actually sorry for this....

I don't know if anything from these sites were preserved before its destruction....the thing is, if some artifacts is there then it might be kept in secret by the authorities. But, if the sites are mere graves then the expansion of the Prophet's Mosque and is justified, because those graves are never decorated, the Prophet and his companions were burried like any Muslim, in a humble way....and the state wants to prevent any sort of idol worship....which is a problematic issue ! some people actions there is just pathetic and out of Islam !
This is a real insult to Islam and Muslims around the world, not niqab bans, Youtube movies or silly cartoons:

Click the image to open in full size.
Ayazid is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 04:05 AM   #443

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,830
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
This is a real insult to Islam and Muslims around the world, not niqab bans, Youtube movies or silly cartoons:

Click the image to open in full size.
apparently saudis care about nothing but the kaaba. bulldoze everything (including mountains and caves!) and make a religious las vegas. strange thing is that no one really cares about this destruction. instead, they all get riled up against some other trivial things.
infestør is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 04:20 AM   #444
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Constantinople
Posts: 2,248

Saudis do worship an idol and it is called money. Islamic corruption and hypocrisy at it's best. The muslim masses of course will not protest against Saudis. They need first their US-puppet leaders to order them and something like "human rights" is much more appealing theme for them to protest against.

Essa can you give some examples on how Islamic rituels were banned in Tunis? I'm sick of muslims crying on how they can't live their religion then they go to their Muslim banks with no interests but something special, something that has the same interests rate but called differently. As if they are trying to cheat God. It's main right wing conservative hypocrisy I see all the time.

We got that a lot in Turkey. Like rightist nationalist-muslims attacking leftists and praying towards the American fleet. Which is the biggest hypocrisy because those leftists were the ones fighting in Palestine while they were beating teenagers in campuses. Oh but right Palestine didn't deserved help until they elected terrorist Hamas right?
Farinal is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 07:08 AM   #445
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
What you said here has a lot to do with a fantasized view on the Harem....

The Harem during Arab dynasties is different than how the Ottoman Harem is depicted in the West.....As I said, the Harem contains wives and ex-wives of the Caliph + their servants + Their sons/daughters + their servants + Concubines....Besides, the term "Harem" means forbidden, which signifies their importance to household they're serving....

Islam permitted Concubines ONLY at the condition when the Muslim nation is at War, as part of the main category of "Slaves".....It was a solution by which Islam intends to preserve society as well as the captured ones from hardship inflicted by wars, which may lead captured men to be killed or captured women to fall into prostitution.....

- The Concubines (as also the Slaves) has many rights and Islam was very strict in highlighting their treatment with dignity and fairness, the Master is considered sinful if he misues or mistreats a concubine....He may not approach her (whether its sex or anything) without her consent, and if they have intercourse and the woman conceives a child, she's automatically considered out of the "Slave" category and is treated like any of the Master's wives, even with similar rights of heirship....

So, the Harem are of many purposes and not only for pleasures, Arabs sometimes refer to their own daughters as "Jariya" (the same naming that is given for their Harem)....The Harem also serves as an education for the Master's children....and they're were not restricted in a certain place....during the Caliphate there is a long of mention that ladies Harems go to markets and conduct services...

- The practice of "Fratricide" (killing own's brother to prevent civil wars) was ONLY an Ottoman practice and was never present during all Arab dynasties...Although it happened that two brothers went at war where one of them was killed (reference to Al-Amin and Al-Mamoun, sons of Harun Al-Rashid)....but that was an incident, not a "Practice"....From an Islamic point of view this totally unacceptable and a felony/sin....

Note : This is off-topic, if you need to discuss then let's do that in another thread.
As you noted this is off topic, but I don't see anyhwere in my original post talking about Arabs. I am talking about the Ottomans. The Sultans used to kill their brothers and in later times, locked them up for their entire lives in the harem. Eunuchs were also not mostly voluntary unlike China and Korea, those eunuchs in the Ottoman harem were slaves and forcibly castrated.

Last edited by deke; January 16th, 2013 at 07:16 AM.
deke is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 10:33 PM   #446

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,737

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
This is a real insult to Islam and Muslims around the world, not niqab bans, Youtube movies or silly cartoons:

Click the image to open in full size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
apparently saudis care about nothing but the kaaba. bulldoze everything (including mountains and caves!) and make a religious las vegas. strange thing is that no one really cares about this destruction. instead, they all get riled up against some other trivial things.
What is "exactly" that you find insulting ?

The razing of some sites is unfortunate but actually inevitable....Do you know how many people come to the pilgrimiage every year ?!! numbers are massive.....

As I said, I understand your point and share the same grieve if artifacts are lost, but the state also has a point.....they want to fight "Idol Worshipping" and any signs close to it, even after that its hard to do it ! Its an Islamic instructions that graves are to be humble (a simple rock on that place is enough) and not be decorated....this is intended not serve as "Shrines", because many many lay people misuse this and that will open the door for wrong practices....such as the visiting of people for these places for sake asking (as if the Prophet or throug the Prophet or the Companion)....

So they actually intend to prevent such actions which damage faith...and this is instructed by the Prophet himself and Companions....

On another note....I'm talking here from a Sunni perspective. Other Muslim sects like Shiite allow ddecorations of the grave and undergo certain visits and pilgrims to their holy places in Iraq (shrines of the 12 Imam's and the place where Imam Hussain was martyred)...

You guys have to be objective and not ONLY consider this before labelling this action by Saudi Arabia as "Insult".....as its the case, you magnify the negatives while never mention ay positives.....There are huge contributions that Saudi government made for Islam and Muslims, facilities, buildings, funds.....those contributions are monumental....
Essa is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 10:51 PM   #447
Suspended until August 16th, 2014
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Dhaka
Posts: 2,085

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
This is a real insult to Islam and Muslims around the world, not niqab bans, Youtube movies or silly cartoons:

Click the image to open in full size.
Something to agree on, at last.....
M.S. Islam is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 10:56 PM   #448

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,737

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
Essa, I don't know which criteria exactly are the most important for you, but there are lots of people in Arab and Muslim countries who judge rulers according to their religious policies and opinions. People who are able to curse Bourguiba because of his secular reforms and praise Saddam as a hero of the Sunna and martyr. This is the state of the Arab world and how a not small part of its inhabitants view things.

There are great many Muslims who think that the Sharia gives to women all their rights and oppose any secular reforms which would challenge the religious law in this regard. For those people, rights of women is just a code word for immorality and indecency and there are lots of Islamic clerics who strengthen them in these opinions.

Let me to quote from a very interesting article by an Egyptian writter concerning this issue:

Egypt's chilling conservatism | Baher Ibrahim

As for corruption, there is a lot of it in all Arab countries, so I don't understand why that should put Bourguiba in a worse light (I am not talking about his successor Ben Ali, who fled to - Saudi Arabia). As for Muslim practices, I think that no core Muslim practices and rituals were abolished in Tunisia during his rule.

The problem is not that some people choose to live as devout Muslims, but when they try to impose their vision on the rest of society and hinder its development. I never said that a devout believer of some religion, whether Islam, Christianity or anything else, is necessarily backward, but when he defends laws which curtails rights of women, people of other religions, atheists etc. because of what his religion teaches, then yes, I would call him backward and ignorant and it's of little consequence if his ancestors saw the things in the same way as he or not.

Again, as I wrote before: Ataturk or Bourguiba were not liberal secularists, but more like 18th century enlightened absolutist rulers. They had the vision that one day their countries could become open-minded and modern, but understood that democracy was not the way how to achieve that in an uneducated and heavily religious society. Had their approach been: "let's be gentle and tolerant and not mess with the Sharia and status of religious establishment", they would have never been able to push through any significant reforms.
- Well dude, its the Middle East, some people are mostly on the extreme and emotional. Its frustrating and unfortunate that extreme religious people and extreme secularists continue casting others and don't find middle grounds....

I find it excessive when Islamists push to impose their well on others, and equally absurd when secularists claim that following Islam is a backward thing....

- The curse of the Bourghiba and prasie of Saddam are not based on the same reasons....you have to take care here....Bourghaiba is critisized for secular aspects, correct.....But Saddam is not praised for Islamic reforms or following Islam, he's rather praised for political reason: that he prevented internal conflicts in his country and because he fought Iran...
Essa is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 11:58 PM   #449

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,737

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinal View Post
Saudis do worship an idol and it is called money. Islamic corruption and hypocrisy at it's best. The muslim masses of course will not protest against Saudis. They need first their US-puppet leaders to order them and something like "human rights" is much more appealing theme for them to protest against.

Essa can you give some examples on how Islamic rituels were banned in Tunis? I'm sick of muslims crying on how they can't live their religion then they go to their Muslim banks with no interests but something special, something that has the same interests rate but called differently. As if they are trying to cheat God. It's main right wing conservative hypocrisy I see all the time.

We got that a lot in Turkey. Like rightist nationalist-muslims attacking leftists and praying towards the American fleet. Which is the biggest hypocrisy because those leftists were the ones fighting in Palestine while they were beating teenagers in campuses. Oh but right Palestine didn't deserved help until they elected terrorist Hamas right?
- You may hate Saudis, that is a right for that I respect, although I disagree....I just hope you dislike them for objective or justified reasons....

You say Saudis worship Money, yet the facts about their support and contributions for many nations and Muslims are overwhelming, but you choose to ignore....

And you're very critical about them affected by American policy....and I ask you who's not ?!! Besides, Saudi Arabia is a major regional player and is not strictly "An American Puppet" as you said, they're not followers of American government, otherwise there would still be wars in the Middle East...

- All Islamic instructions with regard to Finance colsely follows what interpretations of Shariah is saying.....before approving any Islamic product it goes through a panel that approves it structure from a religious compatibality point of view, and such panel is mainly of religious scholars and experts....this is present in every bank/institution....

- Examples of Bourghaiba's reforms that conflicted Islam was:
(1) Prohibition to polygamy (2) Supression of "Waqf" (religious property endowment), and Waqf represent a vital support for Muslims not just in the field of properties. (3) Prohibition of headscarf (4) Prevented a return of a husband to a wife that he divorced 3 times (5) Prohibition on Fasting (namely using excuses such as jobs and economic development for not fasting).

He's found by most historians as a Dictator and tyrant....he assassinated even his own comrades who stood with him during the struggle for Independence, there were many riots against him where he killed many people, the main ones was against the Labor agency and one against fragments of the people, sparked by a rise at the prices of bread....he extended women's rights but he prohibited the establishment of women's rights foundations or institutions...(that's the hypocrisy you're talking about !)....

You see, the ones mostly related to religion was the prohibition on polygamy and headscarf.....if he's open-minded then he should not made all people (believers or non-believers) abide by a single instruction, he should've been flexible to allow Muslims what they believe, not restrict them....The fasting prohibition shouldn't come at the first place, because Islam already recognizes that and excuses the traveller, the sick, women under manustration from fasting....that doesn't need his intervention...
Essa is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 12:00 AM   #450

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,737

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
As you noted this is off topic, but I don't see anyhwere in my original post talking about Arabs. I am talking about the Ottomans. The Sultans used to kill their brothers and in later times, locked them up for their entire lives in the harem. Eunuchs were also not mostly voluntary unlike China and Korea, those eunuchs in the Ottoman harem were slaves and forcibly castrated.
I didn't mean to accuse you either...excuse me for that...

I just needed to clarify the difference and mainly the point on Harem...
Essa is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
arab, backwardness, black, image, islam, middle east, turkey


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image of Vikings: True ? Mohammed the Persian European History 16 January 6th, 2013 12:34 PM
Image - Adenauer Bam Bas Bat History Help 6 February 3rd, 2010 01:38 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.