Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

arniegang wrote:nice one DK,

and they are all going to say "ohhhh ok then lets all become as one in the name of Islam, and close our borders and lets elect one leader and share our wealth"

yer right

Inshallah...it will be reality soon...

Dubai Knight wrote:

arniegang wrote:nice one DK,

and they are all going to say "ohhhh ok then lets all become as one in the name of Islam, and close our borders and lets elect one leader and share our wealth"

yer right

Now is that Communism...or Facism?

Knight

I would call capatilism...fascism....because view benefit from capitilism..

Lionheart wrote:

arniegang wrote:nice one DK,

and they are all going to say "ohhhh ok then lets all become as one in the name of Islam, and close our borders and lets elect one leader and share our wealth"

yer right

Inshallah...it will be reality soon...

The only problem is that the countries of the Middle East could not unite as there are too many internecine squabbles and historical vendettas going on. Now don't tell me these were created by 'The West' as they have been going on for thousands of years, long before 'The West' knew where the Middle East was. If it happens, then great. It will be like the European Union: run by beurocrats, politically ineffective and still fighting the internecine squabbles, but at least it would be using a pen and a ballot box rather than a gun and a bomb.

Knight

You say that these have been going on for thousands of years before the West knew about the existance of the Middle East.

Interesting you say that.

The Middle East has been in the eyes of the West since the days of the Roman Empire and subsequently the Byzantine Empire.

You say the Arab world has been fighting historical vendettas for thousands of years and thats why it has never been cohesive...

Explain the Ummah that lasted over 800 years then.... Betcha can't since you argument is based on a fallacy.

Current divisions are a product of Western carved borders creating artificial states like Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, etc... States that never really existed in the historical books....

Only some Arab countries like Morocco or Egypt or Syria or Iraq have any historical basis and even with that, they were still linked in the Ummah in a sort of EU, except that this was a highly effective one.

These carved states were propped by the West through the installation of "friendly" leaders like the Kings/Sheikhs/Emirs of the Gulfs states as examples or our recently deposted "friend" President Hussein who was as Rumsfeld put it in the 80s "one of Americas best friends".

Liban, should Canada and the US be one because of their history? What is wrong with Lebanese wanting to be Lebanese, and Jordanians wanting to be Jordanians etc. Do all the people in the Middle East really want to live under one Ummah? Also, there are such things as regional groups, so it isn't just a matter of who officially made lines on a map.

the intentions of communism are good...the intentions of fascism are shown good but its pure capitalism. and one important thing Stalin had nothing to do with communism, he was a betrayer of communism. I would call his regime Stalinism. Nazis werent socialism like they said, it was just an excuse to get through people.

kanelli wrote:Liban, should Canada and the US be one because of their history? What is wrong with Lebanese wanting to be Lebanese, and Jordanians wanting to be Jordanians etc. Do all the people in the Middle East really want to live under one Ummah? Also, there are such things as regional groups, so it isn't just a matter of who officially made lines on a map.

Nation states in Arabic culture is a new concept and is destined to failure. Look at what is happening in Western created states throughout Africa and the Middle East...

Grasshopper, unless you are an Arab, you know little of what Arabs want. Ask Yshimy or Intimacy what their thoughts are on the Ummah and you will see that we are all brothers. Also we three come from three different countries, but we are all from the same proud nation and people.

Liban

Lets be totally frank here, if the reality was as you wish, it would end up with factions just kicking the shit out of each other and blowing themselves up on a daily basis.

Just 35 years ago the UAE were at each others throats.


It will never happen.

arniegang wrote:Liban

Lets be totally frank here, if the reality was as you wish, it would end up with factions just kicking the shit out of each other and blowing themselves up on a daily basis.

Just 35 years ago the UAE were at each others throats.


It will never happen.

You are a nay sayer Arniegang and it is sad.

The UAE were at each other throats... Interesting.... Thats why they became one... Right....

Only a learned individual can teach others Arnigang. Remember that.

They became ONE Liban because the UK govt, brokered the deal in 1971 i think.

arniegang wrote:They became ONE Liban because the UK govt, brokered the deal in 1971 i think.

Sure... God Bless the Queen...

Its remarkable you have lived to your age by seeing only black and white.

Liban wrote:

arniegang wrote:They became ONE Liban because the UK govt, brokered the deal in 1971 i think.

Sure... God Bless the Queen...

Its remarkable you have lived to your age by seeing only black and white.

Ok Liban you asked me to "start" in the other thread so i will.

There was no need for that sarcsm in your reply to my post. We were just talking about respect. Your post above does not even attempt to address my quite polite point regarding the formal formation of the 7 Emirates in 1971.

If you disagree with that, or have an alternative view point, it would have been nice to have read a post from you debating as such.

Also... The UK didn't broker any deal. It returned the Trucial Agreements back to the uniting Sheikhdoms. A treaty it imposed on them in the 1800s....

Thank you for demonstrating how little you know about a subject you try to get your nose into....

Think and learn Arniegang... You may just surprise yourself yet!

Serious debate is impossible with you Liban. You can be so disrespectful.

Arniegang, I am unsure how one can go around debating historical facts.

Its like someone debating whether or not the Shah was deposed in Iran in 1979....

I don't see anything disrespectful in me saying that you do not know much about UAE history. Its a fact and all I said is that you need only read up on it to learn more and that when you know little or nothing of something that its usually better not to speak of it for your own credibility...

Thats all Arniegang

With the greatest of respect Liban

If i appear to have my facts wrong or you disagree just say so without the personals and the sarcasm. I do not have a problem with either being corrected or enlightened, its how we learn.

when you know little or nothing of something that its usually better not to speak of it for your own credibility...

Credability is of no issue here, i come here to understand and learn as well as general chit chat.

You are a nay sayer Arniegang and it is sad.

This was uncalled for

Sure... God Bless the Queen...

Its remarkable you have lived to your age by seeing only black and white.

This was also uncalled for.

You see Liban like we agreed in the other thread, respect cuts both ways. If you want respect you must be respectful.

If we are to start aknew then like you said it will cut both ways.

I will start now Arniegang

My reading of the history of the Middle East in general and of the Arabs in particular is that there have historically been much in-fighting.

Prior to Islam, the Arabs were a warring nation with tribes fighting other tribes. There was so much disunity that the outside world looked at the peninsular with disdain and thought of the inhabitants and uncultured barbarians. This is pretty much undisputed as the Quran itself describes the state of the Arabs as dismal. Gambling, drinking were rife and women were no more than chattels with the practice of burying new born females alive not being uncommon.

Whilst many modern day countries do owe their borders to Colonial whims, to say that nations did not exist before is not true either. Liban rightly points to Egypt and Iran as ancient nations, but Syria also existed as a separate state as did other nations around Arabia. Within Arabia itself, there was no unity and only loose affiliations along tribal lines.

Islam brought a period of unity where allegiance was to the Islamic ruler – but this was relatively short lived as the power base moved from place to place (with each ‘dynasty’ – Fatimids, Ummayids etc), until there were rival and concurrent rulers and then finally the Ottoman empire was born. Even under the Ottoman empire there was not unity amongst muslims and there were still spheres of influence and nation states.

The glorious days of united Ummah (nation) of Muslims are in the distant past (unfortunately) – arguably this only lasted 2 or 3 hundred years after the death of the Prophet. It has to be remembered that even at the height of Muslim civilization in Spain, the Muslim empire was fragmented – when Al Hambra was built, the inhabitants owed allegiance to the local rulers and were separate from the Muslims of Iran or Iraq, say.

I have heard orators telling audiences of muslims that the answer to the ills of today is a return to ‘Khilafat’ and a unified ‘Ummah’. They unfortunately use these words with modified meanings, calling ‘Khilafat’ a system of governance rather than the literal meaning of following one spiritual and temporal leader (the Khalifa/Calif) – to get away from the prickly question as to who could fulfill this role given the hundreds of Islamic sects out there. Similarly the concept of ‘Ummah’ has no meaning without having unity of leadership – you can’t be one Ummah or Nation when you have allegiance to different heads.

Therefore these calls for unity are fruitless until and unless the issue of who should lead the muslims is addressed. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy past that didn’t really exist as they fantasise it did.

Just my 2 penneth worth..

Wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The glorious days of united Ummah (nation) of Muslims are in the distant past (unfortunately) – arguably this only lasted 2 or 3 hundred years after the death of the Prophet. It has to be remembered that even at the height of Muslim civilization in Spain, the Muslim empire was fragmented – when Al Hambra was built, the inhabitants owed allegiance to the local rulers and were separate from the Muslims of Iran or Iraq, say.

I have heard orators telling audiences of muslims that the answer to the ills of today is a return to ‘Khilafat’ and a unified ‘Ummah’. They unfortunately use these words with modified meanings, calling ‘Khilafat’ a system of governance rather than the literal meaning of following one spiritual and temporal leader (the Khalifa/Calif) – to get away from the prickly question as to who could fulfill this role given the hundreds of Islamic sects out there. Similarly the concept of ‘Ummah’ has no meaning without having unity of leadership – you can’t be one Ummah or Nation when you have allegiance to different heads.

Therefore these calls for unity are fruitless until and unless the issue of who should lead the muslims is addressed. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy past that didn’t really exist as they fantasise it did.

Exactly Shafique.

I can understand that a religion could bind many together, but the fact remains that one person alone ruling all Muslims across the Middle East sounds impossible. (What about the Muslims in the rest of the world?) There would always be jockeying for power based on the differences, like region, religious sect, language, culture, nationality, sub-group. There are too many to mention.

Liban wrote:If we are to start aknew then like you said it will cut both ways.

I will start now Arniegang

thank you

So did "Ummah " last exist under the Prophet (pbuh) ?

Arnie - the Ummah, or nation of Muslims, did indeed exist under the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.

His ministry lasted some 23 years - he received the first revelations at age 40. It was only in the last part of his life that Islam were the tribes of Arabia united. Mecca surrendered to the Muslims only 2 or 3 years before the death of the Holy Prophet, pbuh.

The Muslim world was pretty united whilst under the first 4 Caliphs, and predominantly unitied for a few centuries after..

I just did a search for a timeline and got this: http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/timeline.htm

It shows the ebbing and flowing of power amongst the Muslims.

Cheers,
Shafique

arniegang wrote:So did "Ummah " last exist under the Prophet (pbuh) ?

Not sure if I understand your question, but The Prophet did unite Arabia under Islam...

So,

After the Prophet (pbuh), did muslims have anyone to guide or lead them, or did they consider that no one could replace him ??

Also if this were hypothetically possible today, how could/would the muslim nation be able to select someone who was worthy to be a principle leader of their faith?

soz another question

why did "mecca surrender" as in too what and too whom?

arniegang wrote:So,

After the Prophet (pbuh), did muslims have anyone to guide or lead them, or did they consider that no one could replace him ??

Also if this were hypothetically possible today, how could/would the muslim nation be able to select someone who was worthy to be a principle leader of their faith?

The Caliphs guided the Ummah following the death of the Prophet. The Prophet was God's Messanger. He delivered the Message. The Caliphs made sure the Message was maintained.

The Caliphs were chosen by I beleive what can loosly be called a council of elders of sorts. It may be possible to do today, but Arabs indeed the greater Muslim Ummah (are only 20-25% of the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims worldwide) need to remove the cloak of the "personality cult" that governs most of our elders and leaders.

arniegang wrote:soz another question

why did "mecca surrender" as in too what and too whom?

Meccan surrender was peaceful. Muslims marched from Medina into Mecca on a pilgrimage. Not a single man, woman or child was hurt. Not a single home damaged in the slightest, not a single animal killed, not a single tree uprooted.

They surrendered to The Prophet and His followers. Even Hind, who was viruntly opposed to Islam became Muslim after the surrender. The Message of the One God, the True God, The Only God was the clincher. The Meccans realized their pagan ways were dead in the water in the faith of the Truth.

The Caliphs were chosen by I beleive what can loosly be called a council of elders of sorts. It may be possible to do today, but Arabs indeed the greater Muslim Ummah (are only 20-25% of the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims worldwide) need to remove the cloak of the "personality cult" that governs most of our elders and leaders.

dont understand in bold

arniegang wrote:

The Caliphs were chosen by I beleive what can loosly be called a council of elders of sorts. It may be possible to do today, but Arabs indeed the greater Muslim Ummah (are only 20-25% of the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims worldwide) need to remove the cloak of the "personality cult" that governs most of our elders and leaders.

dont understand in bold

Too many words for one sentence

In summary, I was saying that the Muslims of the world have leaders that are governing by personality cult (kind of like Saddam Hussein) or the leaders are meglomaniacs or simply power hungry.

Therefore with this attitude, obtaining a Caliphate system today would be hard, but I doubt it would be impossible.

Keep in mind that under the Caliphs, Christians and Jews enjoyed full freedom.

gotcha

thx for clarification