Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Hi,

Just a silly thoight, However It would be interesting to know the outcome of this poll. In your opinion, which country can best lead all other islamic countries provided all of em agree to have such a motion?

Cheers

I voted for Saudi Arabia

None of the above should have been an option - I would have selected that.

Saudi is far from my view of a exemplary Islamic state in many regards.

I agree with their abhorence of anything approaching idol worship - amongst Muslims and others, but I think they have gone too far and in some respects are not following the Sunna (practices of the Prophet) - I'll give you two examples:

1. Women can't drive - we know from Islamic history that the wives of the Holy Prophet, pbuh, rode and controlled their own camels. Aisha, r.a., even led an army! Therefore, there is nothing in Islam that justifies this treatment of women.

2. No churches are allowed in Saudi. The Holy Prophet, pbuh, met with a delegation of Arab Christians from Najran when he was in Medina. The bishop requested a place for them to offer their Sunday service - the Prophet, pbuh, insisted that they use his mosque (the same mosque where his grave is today) for them to offer the service. This was accepted. Non-muslims were excluded from Mecca, but not from anywhere else.

Of the other countries, I guess only Iran would hold itself up as a theocracy - and one which holds elections. However they are Shia and would not gain Sunni approval.

Wasalaam
Shafique

Thanks for replying.

I did not include "None of the Above" option for the same reasons you have given as I wanted to know which is the nearest to have qualified for the role.

Just because women can not drive is not a good excuse, because I know many women would want to drive here, it is the culture here and not because it is fobidden in islam to drive. I reckon in couple of years from now things would change a lot in this country, it has started already. In short what I would like to see is despite all the issues muslim countries have, which one is most suited for the role.

About allowing churches in Saudi Arabia, well who would want to allow such a thing in a country which hosts Makkah and Medina, besides a handful, majority of the muslims would not like that.

However this is another debate about churches being allowed in Saudi arabia. I would personally support your argument that Islam is a religion of Co-Existence with christians and jews and with other religions. However when you quote these incidents, you should also quote the following incident with the christians of Najran for which there is a verse too in Quran which pretext that incident:

http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/infallible1e.asp
Among the messages which the Prophet (s.a.w.) sent to kings and heads of state inviting them to Islam, was the one addressed to the Christians of Najran in Yemen. On receiving the letter the Christians refused to accept Islam but however decided to come to Medina to challenge the Prophet and to defend their deviated belief in the divinity and purification of Prophet Jesus (a.s.).

In Medina, the Prophet presented them with proofs and facts about Islam's eternal truth, citing references from the previously revealed Scriptures, but the Christians irrational obstinacy prevented them from seeing the manifest truth. In the end the two parties decided to meet at an open place and invoke divine curse and punishment upon the lying side. Allah thereby ordered His Prophet to take along with him his immediate family to the meeting ground for the Mubahala (means to invoke Allah's curse upon the lying side when two parties are contesting for truth).

"And whoso disputes with you concerning this after the knowledge that has come to you, say: Come now, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then let us earnestly pray for Allah's curse upon the ones who lie." Holy Qur'an (3:61)

The Christian elders came to the venue with their whole flock, and the Prophet as ordered by Allah came with his immediate family-members, namely: daughter Fatimah, son in-law Ali and their two children, Hasan and Hussain. Never had the Christians seen such enlightened visages before. The moment the Chief-Priest beheld Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) and his noble family, he was filled with awe. He realized that without doubt truth was with this blessed group of five and most surely Allah will respond to Muhammad (s.a.w.) and his family's invocation if they choose to curse and destroy the Christians of Najran. Thus the Christians backed away from the challenge of Mubahala, and wisely came to terms with the Prophet, pledging to pay an annual tribute to the Muslims.

On Iran I agree with you as the near Candidate and I can vote for it as well. I have several shia friends and to be honest I did not find anything wrong in them except a few which I have discussed with them.

Thanks

so what is the "cultural" reason for females not being able to drive in Saudi?

I am not sure I can answer your question in the best possible way, however there is a debate going on in many newspaper here about this issue. I can assure that with many saudis i have talked to they never claim or quote ant verse or hadith that women driving is "Haram" or anti islamic. It is more of tribal culture issue.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section ... =10&y=2007

However all such laws have to be passed by Soura council here which will take some time.

In my personal opinion, the example is like that of covering your face in islam for women. Islam teaches modesty, however some have gone to the extreme that women should cover their faces in the strict manner, even hands and her voice etc. This is not islamic but the culture that is spread here for many years.

I can give you another example that some of the tribes here do not allowmarriages outside of their tribe. I have a friend (by the way he is very nice fellow) who can not marry a woman outside his tribe and even then he is not allowed to see or meet her before marriage, just that he will only be allowed to see her picture if he is lucky.

Shoura council here are also recoganizing the needs to address these issues in appropriate manner. What ever you hear from extermal media about saudi arabia being so strict is not entirely true, few examples are taken out of the context and in general sense about saudi which is not ture. Westerners live in compounds here and are not mixed with the local population, not becuase of religion only but there is a cultural conflict but trust me saudis are very hostipitable and few bad apples should not be allowed to portray the whole nation as backward and prejudice .

Cheers

network issues cause double posting

Agree with Daniyaal that not allowing women to drive is tribal in essence.

However, the fact is that Islam came and corrected the tribal practices of arabs of the time - which included the abhorent practice of burying female babies because they did not value women.

Arab women had no rights under pre-Islamic tribal laws - but Islam gave them rights of inheritance, rights of divorce and a large say in the marriage.

Tribal customs of Arabs were of womanizing and drinking - both to excess. Islam civilised the Arab tribes.

That the Arabs were the lowest of the low and an uncivilised bunch is acknowledged in the Quran, and is actually one of the proofs of the divinity of Islam - that a pure and perfect teaching could come from a society that was so backward in civilised virtues, is a miracle. It took Islam to unite the warring tribes of Arabs and bring civilisation to a backward people (this is what the Arab historians themselves say).

The tragedy is that the Saudis are reverting to some pre-Islamic prejudices.

Saudi women, according to some I have spoken to, are being supressed because if they were given the freedom their sisters enjoy elsewhere, they would not allow the dictatorial regime to continue. The authorities are suppressing their women in order to stay in power, the argument goes.

The ruling powers rule by fear, not by love or devotion. The history of the Saudi ruling family, their rise to power and which world powers support them is an interesting read.... and it makes them an interesting choice for the leadership of the Islamic world!

Daniyaal - is there any reason why you excluded the Muslim country with the biggest population - Indonesia? I think they should lead the muslim world as they have the largest number of muslims.

Cheers,
Shafique

On the question of Churches in Saudi - you seem to say it's ok because it is not something most Muslims in Saudi want - whilst this may be the case, it is not what Islam or the Prophet, pbuh, preached.

Muslims got on well with Christians - they were given shelter in Ethiopia and the country was never invaded by the Muslims.

At the time of the Prophet and his Khalifas after him, all allowed Christians to keep their churches and all preached freedom of religion (as the the Quran teaches).

The Quran says that Muslims need to defend Churches and Temples etc - and should fight to protect these.

Therefore the Saudi practice of banning Churches is both against the Sunnah (practice of the Prophet) and the Quran itself.

It is therefore quite a leap say they are the best leaders of Islam when they disregard a central precept of Islam - 'La Iqra fi Din' i.e. there is no compulsion in religion - religious freedom is God's order.

Please let us not have the world judge Islam by the conduct of the Saudi regime !

Dear Shafique,
Is it only the driving reason that you have concluded saudi arabia are going back to pre islamic period or there are others. If there are other reasons then are those problems not also exist in other islamic/arab countries?

I wish I could add Indonesia and bangladesh too in the poll based on their population, how can i edit it now?

The only reasons I did not add those is that I thought Pakistan and Bangladesh as one and Indonesia and Malaysia as one group and I selected one from each for no prejudice reasons but of more reasons in world policitcs nature.

Cheers

shafique wrote:On the question of Churches in Saudi - you seem to say it's ok because it is not something most Muslims in Saudi want - whilst this may be the case, it is not what Islam or the Prophet, pbuh, preached.

Muslims got on well with Christians - they were given shelter in Ethiopia and the country was never invaded by the Muslims.

At the time of the Prophet and his Khalifas after him, all allowed Christians to keep their churches and all preached freedom of religion (as the the Quran teaches).

The Quran says that Muslims need to defend Churches and Temples etc - and should fight to protect these.

Therefore the Saudi practice of banning Churches is both against the Sunnah (practice of the Prophet) and the Quran itself.

It is therefore quite a leap say they are the best leaders of Islam when they disregard a central precept of Islam - 'La Iqra fi Din' i.e. there is no compulsion in religion - religious freedom is God's order.

Please let us not have the world judge Islam by the conduct of the Saudi regime !

I agree with your statements and believe me am not judging islam from saudi perspectives. I wish that all christians and jews see the light of islam not by force but by choice and by good example set my good muslims so that they may accept Islam and be saved.

Cheers

daniyaal wrote:Dear Shafique,
Is it only the driving reason that you have concluded saudi arabia are going back to pre islamic period or there are others. If there are other reasons then are those problems not also exist in other islamic/arab countries?

Let me clarify - many Saudis are pious and well meaning Muslims. Many disagree with the regime in power. My issue is with the ruling class and their implementation of the Sharia. I give them credit for what they have done in Mecca and Medina in terms of constructions and facilities for pilgrims (although I still think it sacriligious that there are McDonalds and KFCs in Mecca - but that is just me !)

That said, the culture in Saudi is one where there are many s.e.x. crimes now in the country - not just against women, but to the point where children are abducted and abused. I was shocked when I visited on business and the business men I visited would pick up their teenage boys from school in the afternoon and drive them home, for they would not allow them to walk home by themselves out of fear of abductions by s.e.x offenders.

We heard that there were secret parties where all depravities took place. It is well known that many princes are big playboys - and this is openly displayed when they go to London (drinking and gambling are common place).

Extreme suppression has actually made things worse, for it has driven many vices under-ground.

Not allowing women to drive is just a symptom of the general treatment of women that is not part of Islam. Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE etc all show how women in Islam can and should play full part in all aspects of life - from Politics to Medicine, from the business rooms to the classrooms.

For me this is a big part of the problem of Wahabism (as practiced today, I suspect that Abdul Wahab wasn't as puritanical as modern day Wahabists)

Wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

daniyaal wrote:Dear Shafique,
Is it only the driving reason that you have concluded saudi arabia are going back to pre islamic period or there are others. If there are other reasons then are those problems not also exist in other islamic/arab countries?

Let me clarify - many Saudis are pious and well meaning Muslims. Many disagree with the regime in power. My issue is with the ruling class and their implementation of the Sharia. I give them credit for what they have done in Mecca and Medina in terms of constructions and facilities for pilgrims (although I still think it sacriligious that there are McDonalds and KFCs in Mecca - but that is just me !)

That said, the culture in Saudi is one where there are many s.e.x. crimes now in the country - not just against women, but to the point where children are abducted and abused. I was shocked when I visited on business and the business men I visited would pick up their teenage boys from school in the afternoon and drive them home, for they would not allow them to walk home by themselves out of fear of abductions by s.e.x offenders.

We heard that there were secret parties where all depravities took place. It is well known that many princes are big playboys - and this is openly displayed when they go to London (drinking and gambling are common place).

Extreme suppression has actually made things worse, for it has driven many vices under-ground.

Not allowing women to drive is just a symptom of the general treatment of women that is not part of Islam. Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE etc all show how women in Islam can and should play full part in all aspects of life - from Politics to Medicine, from the business rooms to the classrooms.

For me this is a big part of the problem of Wahabism (as practiced today, I suspect that Abdul Wahab wasn't as puritanical as modern day Wahabists)

Wasalaam,
Shafique

Honestly I did not think that you were talking about the people of Saudi Arabia.

If you think McDonalds and KFCs as sacriligious, then what about other western products/commodities in those cities coming from the West?

The way you pictured crimes suggest that I should pack my stuff and with my family head back home right now You are over reacting and exadurating in your analysis of Saudi Arabina society.

At the end you have come to the point which I think you wanted to say from the beginning which is the issue of Wahabism. In actual face many have questioned me about it since I have been here for quite some time.

Could you please enlighten me what is your view of Wahabism? and about Abdul Wahab? not taking into accounts what is being practised by saudi religious police on here, but purely from academic point if view I would like to know your viewpoint on the the two subjects?

Cheers

Basically I disagree with the practices of Wahabism that go against the Sunnah and Quran. I agree with the teachings of Abdul Wahab that we should stay away from all forms of idol worship (shirk) and agree with this philosophy (I am a Sunni muslim, so agree with him in this regard as well).

As for the social ills of Saudi - I was shocked to hear of the extent of the crimes in Riyadh where my colleagues were and where they would not allow children to roam freely.

Cheers,
Shafique

daniyaal wrote:Dear Shafique,
Is it only the driving reason that you have concluded saudi arabia are going back to pre islamic period or there are others. If there are other reasons then are those problems not also exist in other islamic/arab countries?

I wish I could add Indonesia and bangladesh too in the poll based on their population, how can i edit it now?

The only reasons I did not add those is that I thought Pakistan and Bangladesh as one and Indonesia and Malaysia as one group and I selected one from each for no prejudice reasons but of more reasons in world policitcs nature.

Cheers

I can edit your poll to include these 2 countries if you wish?

I am still foxed by both your answers regarding the tribal issue in regard to females driving cars.

Are you saying with the advent of the car in relatively modern terms in the grand scheme of things that this is really "a tribal issue". If we were talking camels and or horse and carts i could see the point but cars

I found it interesting that technically you were both unable to actually give a difinative answer other than "we think its a tribal thing". There must be some form of published reason surely?

Arnie - good point, I don't know the official reason for not allowing women to drive in Saudi, daniyaal can you look this up for us?

Yes indeed I will find out what is the main reason. Right after the EID hoildays, I will discuss with my saudi colleagues at work and see if i can get a reasonable answer.

I read somewhere that when Telephone system was introduced here long time back, it was taken as the devil himself was speaking on the other side and so it was initially rejected by the extremes. There are so many other events too in other muslim countries, for example when USA landed on moon, extremes in Pakistan rejected the claim and said it could never be possible. (Although there is already a conspiracy theory of USA actually landed or not but thats nt the context here)/

What I mean to say is that Islamic civilization had its ups and downs, there were times when it flourished in art and literature and in science as well, yet at the same time religious figures were also wise. Take an example of famous Sufi Rumi whose books are translated in so many languages and are taught in several universities around the world and indeed his books are based on Islamic concept at the heart of it, not that they are secular in nature. But those people were given the wisdom by Allah Almighty becuase they wanted to learn. These days some religious extrmes either do not want to even try to understand the things happening around or that they have shut down their ears and eyes completely from the glorified past muslims have had.


Cheers

My vote is Malaysia for a couple of reasons but mainly because I like the idea of the Islamic Dinar.

I vote for none of the above and would suggest the creation of a union representing each Islamic country to lead should a leader by required.

There is no way, Saudi can be considered for example to make decisions which impact such a huge number of people when their knowledge is on such a small group.
Even during the days of the Caliphate when muslims were small in number and relatively local (Umayyads believing Islam was for Arabs only, where no one else enjoyed equal rights even if they converted) there were still disputes amongst tribes, small in size. How do you please 500+ million in current day South east asia?

Asia/South east Asia has the highest concentration of Muslims in the world, so if democratic ideas were followed the votes would direct there. However i do not for one moment believe that the arabs would entertain being led by any non arabs, regardless of how progressive their society is - such as Malaysia or Indonesia, while Pakistan, Bangladesh, regions in India all have large Sufi influences which is not always recieved well by the Arab countries. classic example ebing the Ottomans who faced problems soon as they ruled over Arabia.

Iran creates its own complications, their setup would appear more for political process as opposed to a religious base.

So you will encounter prejudices and egos , cultural disputes mixed with religion and iultimately costly disagreements.

As it stands, i vote against Saudi - as Shafique says certain laws are just silly - Women driving for example. Regardless if its unislamic or not or whether it changes in future, it exists today and as the poll is based on current instances not future, it would mean Saudi is not ready.

Turkey although democratic, had an effective empire which ruled over a long duration. Currently its Military has too much influence so that would rule them out.

my 2 cents

good post RVP

As much as I wanted to agree with RVP, the fact of the matter is that in the islamic history such an idealistic situation has never been materialized so far and I doubt it will become tangible in the near future. We already know the fate of OIC which has become a laughing matter to be honest. The same goes for Arab League and perhaps GCC (where recently I read an article that a unified currency target is not likely to be delayed).

Majority does not matter in Islam and this has been proved from its history and even when the first four caliphates were nominated, and that is one reason where western democracy of counting heads can not be applied in its true essence in islam.

I would therefore not consider population as one of the major driving factor, south asia would not have such a huge muslim population if handful muslim arabs did not travel across that region and brough islam there. I am not into Arabi and ajami debate as islam reject it clearly.

I would still hope in future that the reviaval of true islamic movement will start with a handful people in beginning and the rest of muslim ummah will follow, off course there will always be discrete cases. In the UN muslims countries top in no of seats, hoewver their say does not count at all. Even the UN expansion does not include a single convincing muslim country to be allowed to attain a permanent seat with a veto power.

Cheers

daniyaal wrote:As much as I wanted to agree with RVP, the fact of the matter is that in the islamic history such an idealistic situation has never been materialized so far and I doubt it will become tangible in the near future. We already know the fate of OIC which has become a laughing matter to be honest. The same goes for Arab League and perhaps GCC (where recently I read an article that a unified currency target is not likely to be delayed).

Thats very defeatist. Lets face it, the only thing Saudi has in its favour is that it hosts Islams holiest places. That doesnt give it automatic authority as many arabs are led to believe. the Groups you mention above are more political than Religious process - hence you cannot compare the two.

A single body to promote identity and act as ambassadors of Islam as a faith and provide leadership is what lacks. What you have are "Islamic countries" acting individually.
Call it fantasist, idealist or whatever - it is what is needed in my opnion.

25 or so million saudis are not well placed to impose laws on for example 200 million Pakistanis who have their own cultures and practices different to them. There was only one group in asia, the Taleiban who did try follow the wahhabi code, and although they enjoyed initial success during a turbulant time, their decisions to act in banning things too quickly back fired and hence meant a lasting civil war in the country.

daniyaal wrote:Majority does not matter in Islam and this has been proved from its history and even when the first four caliphates were nominated, and that is one reason where western democracy of counting heads can not be applied in its true essence in islam.

when the four caliphates were at play, Islam was mainly centered around Arabia and remind me... werent they also assisinated? this proves there was hardly hegemony even while the numbers were small. The Phenomena you have now, are large groups of people with complete different ways of life, different races, cultures. You cannot possibly have a selection process while neglecting the majority - that would just be asking for disaster and further isolation.

daniyaal wrote: south asia would not have such a huge muslim population if handful muslim arabs did not travel across that region and brough islam there. I am not into Arabi and ajami debate as islam reject it clearly.

Actually, the most influential muslims were not Arab at all - they were Sufi Muslims of Turkish and Persian origin. They brought Islam to Asia defeating Hindu Kingdoms in the process and created what it is today. But that is a debate for another day.

daniyaal wrote:I would still hope in future that the reviaval of true islamic movement will start with a handful people in beginning and the rest of muslim ummah will follow, off course there will always be discrete cases. In the UN muslims countries top in no of seats, hoewver their say does not count at all. Even the UN expansion does not include a single convincing muslim country to be allowed to attain a permanent seat with a veto power.
Cheers

While Muslims may hope for such a saviour, i do not believe one or two people will create it for the rest to follow. It needs to be a collective effort.
Arabs need to drop their supremacist views and superiority complexes over their non-arab muslim brethren for a start. That attitude started during the days of the caliphs and still prevails today.

Regarding the UN, as i mentioned above, religion and political process are different things.

Good posts RVP

Cheers,
Shafique

Dear RVP,

After reading your comments, I am shocked and sad to see that the Arab and Non-Arab supremacy/infreriority complex/issues prevail so much into our thinking that people have almost generalized their perceptions about the other party based on arab-ajam lines. There are good and bad people on both sides(I would not call them sides but since you simly divided muslims as arabs and non-arabs) and if there are arrogant arab muslims who took south/east asian muslims for granted, that is not because they are being biased towards them on basis of religion, it is all to do with economics. I wonder if the similar financial blessings had been showerd on for example muslims in pakistan, how much they would go forward and share it with other muslim countries.

It is better for example to keep your mind clean of these thoughts and listen to arab muslims as well. Why then the south asian muslim countries did not help Egypt in its war with Israel 1956/1973, then there is palestinian issues which is not well supported from south asian muslim countries except lip service. Who helped Jordanian govt in crushing Palestinians uprising inside Jordan?

I think we have so much political issues within all muslim countries and you can not associate these political issues with arab-ajam concept which islam denounce in the firtst place.

I am not an arab by the way as you may have noticed by now, however i would not generalize arabs muslims as you have done so.


Perhaps Shafique can throw some light on the issues which RVP has raised and what can be done to neautralize it.

Regards

the arabs nations dont even help the arab nations !!!!

the arab nations do nothing at all for the palestinians!!!

the arab nations consider themselves superior to persians........

and so on, your points re Egypt daniyaal is totally irrelevant. you may be sad that you think arab/non arab supremacy/infreriority complex/issues prevail, but at the end of the day if you feel like this, why did you feel the need to mention the Egypt conflict and sight the south asian muslims?

The fact of the matter is the GCC nations to an extent, do consider themselves superior in all matters of Islam.

Found these 2 articles from the Guardian and Al Jazeera

Associated Press in Riyadh
Tuesday February 14, 2006
The Guardian


Saudi Arabia's non-elected parliament said yesterday that it was not entitled to debate the kingdom's long-standing ban on women drivers.
"What has been decided on by religious edict is not within our authority to debate," said Saleh bin Abdullah Malek, the secretary general of the Shura Council, an advisory body appointed by the king.

In 1990 the Supreme Council, the top religious body in the kingdom, declared that for women to drive would be a violation of Islam. However, last October King Abdullah said he believed "the day will come when women drive" in Saudi Arabia.



and from Al Jazeera.net ............



Saudis debate ban on women drivers



A Saudi man's call to lift a decades-old ban against women driving - the only prohibition of its kind in the world - has been met with death threats and opposition.

Saudi Arabia is the only country that prohibits women drivers



Mohammed al-Zulfa's knew his proposal last month to Saudi Arabia's appointed advisory council, of which he is a member, would stir controversy. Even so, he was taken aback by the reaction.

Some people said he should be booted off the all-male Shura Council, which has the power to change old laws and draft new ones. Another made death threats against him and his family.

The step would be almost revolutionary for the kingdom's conservative and segregated Muslim society.

"It's as if I am calling for women to take their clothes off on the street," he told Reuters. "I was only asking a normal question, about a normal issue."

Conservative Saudis say that allowing women to drive would expose them to strange men, and encourage young people to date - which would be anathema to the traditional practice of arranged, or at least closely supervised, marriage.

Those in favour of lifting the ban say the accepted practice of hiring foreign drivers to get around it is even less compatible with Islamic social norms. It also places a heavy burden on Saudi families who cannot afford such a luxury.

Zulfa says if the 150-member council does not vote on his proposal, it would be the first time it does not follow its own procedures.

The laws have gone to an internal committee and when they return for a vote, he will find out if it can be included.

"I am still hoping and waiting. I think it's the right place and time for this matter ... to be discussed and I hope my colleagues will be brave enough not to resist," he said.

Regardless of the outcome, the issue he raised is being debated more openly than ever before in newspapers, by important officials and the public.

Social, not religious

A top official and a senior cleric have made significant public comments on whether allowing women to drive is an act that breaks faith with Islam.

Interior Minister Prince Naif characterised the ban as a social rather than religious issue, which in theory means that if society wanted to see it lifted, there would be no obstacle.


Saudi women often have to wait
for their drivers to pick them up

The catch is whether Saudi society - which follows an austere doctrine of Islam - really does.

Shaikh Abdullah ibn Munee, a member of the Council of Senior Ulema - Saudi Arabia's highest religious body - lent some support to Naif by saying scholars had not discussed the issue, but that it was not religiously forbidden for women to drive.

"We never said it was haram (sinful) for women to drive. We do not say it is haram, but we say that it is for the good of our daughters not to drive," the Arab News quoted him as saying.

Such comments may have encouraged a member of a 1990 women's driving protest that shocked the kingdom to again speak out.

Fawziah al-Bakr, a 37-year-old university teacher spent a night in jail alongside 47 other women for taking part in the protest drive 15 years ago.

She said lifting the ban was a matter of conditioning people in a society where demonstrations are virtually unheard of and questioning religious tenets unthinkable.

"People had to get used to the idea of education for girls; they can get used to the idea of women driving. It is of course not the most important issue, but it is an important expression of freedom, mobility and access for women," she said.

Local newspapers have been filled with debate and editorials on the issue. One showed a photograph of a Saudi woman driving her car in the desert. A piece in Arab News newspaper carried the headline: "Let Them Be at the Helm."

Expensive drivers

Many among the country's liberal minority hope the time could be right for Saudi authorities to lift the ban, which they believe is in the interests of the country's economy.

"People had to get used to the idea of education for girls, they can get used to the idea of women driving"

Fawziah al-Bakr, university teacher jailed for a protest drive in 1990

Foreign drivers cost the kingdom more than 12 billion riyals ($3.2 billion) a year, according to Zulfa's estimates.

"It should be obvious to us all today that the future growth and prosperity of our country depends largely on women and their equal role in society," said oil consultant Hassan Yassin.

"We can ignore it and delay it all we want, but we cannot stop this from happening. With courage and confidence we should grab the initiative and take those steps which are in the interest of our country and economy," he said.

Saudi women, who support the cause, say the government should give them the option, whether society approves or not, in the same way that the late King Faisal imposed education for girls on an unwilling public in 1960.

"I think ... the government should take the initiative. If people don't want to do it (drive), it's up to them. But this is getting silly; it's giving Saudi Arabia a bad image. I feel sad about this, it's humiliating," Bakr said.

arniegang wrote:the arabs nations dont even help the arab nations !!!!

the arab nations do nothing at all for the palestinians!!!

the arab nations consider themselves superior to persians........

and so on, your points re Egypt daniyaal is totally irrelevant. you may be sad that you think arab/non arab supremacy/infreriority complex/issues prevail, but at the end of the day if you feel like this, why did you feel the need to mention the Egypt conflict and sight the south asian muslims?

The fact of the matter is the GCC nations to an extent, do consider themselves superior in all matters of Islam.

Well i did not mention it in the context that i have some issues personally with south asian countries, its that I have friends and they talk and i shared some sentiments, thats all.

What you have abou arab nationd consider ...... and then about GCC, well which nation does not have those issues, ask french what they think about british and so forth. Issues are there everywhere but it takes one good leader to bring everyone on board and thats what I am hoping must happen to the muslim world.

Cheers


Cheers

arniegang wrote:Found these 2 articles from the Guardian and Al Jazeera

Associated Press in Riyadh
Tuesday February 14, 2006
The Guardian


Saudi Arabia's non-elected parliament said yesterday that it was not entitled to debate the kingdom's long-standing ban on women drivers.
"What has been decided on by religious edict is not within our authority to debate," said Saleh bin Abdullah Malek, the secretary general of the Shura Council, an advisory body appointed by the king.

In 1990 the Supreme Council, the top religious body in the kingdom, declared that for women to drive would be a violation of Islam. However, last October King Abdullah said he believed "the day will come when women drive" in Saudi Arabia.



and from Al Jazeera.net ............



Saudis debate ban on women drivers



A Saudi man's call to lift a decades-old ban against women driving - the only prohibition of its kind in the world - has been met with death threats and opposition.

Saudi Arabia is the only country that prohibits women drivers



Mohammed al-Zulfa's knew his proposal last month to Saudi Arabia's appointed advisory council, of which he is a member, would stir controversy. Even so, he was taken aback by the reaction.

Some people said he should be booted off the all-male Shura Council, which has the power to change old laws and draft new ones. Another made death threats against him and his family.

The step would be almost revolutionary for the kingdom's conservative and segregated Muslim society.

"It's as if I am calling for women to take their clothes off on the street," he told Reuters. "I was only asking a normal question, about a normal issue."

Conservative Saudis say that allowing women to drive would expose them to strange men, and encourage young people to date - which would be anathema to the traditional practice of arranged, or at least closely supervised, marriage.

Those in favour of lifting the ban say the accepted practice of hiring foreign drivers to get around it is even less compatible with Islamic social norms. It also places a heavy burden on Saudi families who cannot afford such a luxury.

Zulfa says if the 150-member council does not vote on his proposal, it would be the first time it does not follow its own procedures.

The laws have gone to an internal committee and when they return for a vote, he will find out if it can be included.

"I am still hoping and waiting. I think it's the right place and time for this matter ... to be discussed and I hope my colleagues will be brave enough not to resist," he said.

Regardless of the outcome, the issue he raised is being debated more openly than ever before in newspapers, by important officials and the public.

Social, not religious

A top official and a senior cleric have made significant public comments on whether allowing women to drive is an act that breaks faith with Islam.

Interior Minister Prince Naif characterised the ban as a social rather than religious issue, which in theory means that if society wanted to see it lifted, there would be no obstacle.


Saudi women often have to wait
for their drivers to pick them up

The catch is whether Saudi society - which follows an austere doctrine of Islam - really does.

Shaikh Abdullah ibn Munee, a member of the Council of Senior Ulema - Saudi Arabia's highest religious body - lent some support to Naif by saying scholars had not discussed the issue, but that it was not religiously forbidden for women to drive.

"We never said it was haram (sinful) for women to drive. We do not say it is haram, but we say that it is for the good of our daughters not to drive," the Arab News quoted him as saying.

Such comments may have encouraged a member of a 1990 women's driving protest that shocked the kingdom to again speak out.

Fawziah al-Bakr, a 37-year-old university teacher spent a night in jail alongside 47 other women for taking part in the protest drive 15 years ago.

She said lifting the ban was a matter of conditioning people in a society where demonstrations are virtually unheard of and questioning religious tenets unthinkable.

"People had to get used to the idea of education for girls; they can get used to the idea of women driving. It is of course not the most important issue, but it is an important expression of freedom, mobility and access for women," she said.

Local newspapers have been filled with debate and editorials on the issue. One showed a photograph of a Saudi woman driving her car in the desert. A piece in Arab News newspaper carried the headline: "Let Them Be at the Helm."

Expensive drivers

Many among the country's liberal minority hope the time could be right for Saudi authorities to lift the ban, which they believe is in the interests of the country's economy.

"People had to get used to the idea of education for girls, they can get used to the idea of women driving"

Fawziah al-Bakr, university teacher jailed for a protest drive in 1990

Foreign drivers cost the kingdom more than 12 billion riyals ($3.2 billion) a year, according to Zulfa's estimates.

"It should be obvious to us all today that the future growth and prosperity of our country depends largely on women and their equal role in society," said oil consultant Hassan Yassin.

"We can ignore it and delay it all we want, but we cannot stop this from happening. With courage and confidence we should grab the initiative and take those steps which are in the interest of our country and economy," he said.

Saudi women, who support the cause, say the government should give them the option, whether society approves or not, in the same way that the late King Faisal imposed education for girls on an unwilling public in 1960.

"I think ... the government should take the initiative. If people don't want to do it (drive), it's up to them. But this is getting silly; it's giving Saudi Arabia a bad image. I feel sad about this, it's humiliating," Bakr said.

The answer lies in your post, majority wants to change to allow women to drive, religious minority wants to implement their version of islam. This shows that the saudi public is not as bad as you and others have thought in the first place. It is all matter of time before the change will start to happen. One of my friend told me that even the ruling party wants these changes but one must look into how the country was founded and how much influence is there from the religious police.

Cheers

daniyaal wrote:I am shocked and sad to see that the Arab and Non-Arab supremacy/infreriority complex/issues prevail so much into our thinking that people have almost generalized their perceptions about the other party based on arab-ajam lines.

If you read my posts carefully, you will see that i didnt say that at all. What i said was Arabs have never and likely, will never accept to be ruled by Non arab muslims - my point was specifically on rule. I DID say that the Arabs have since the days of the caliphate considered Islam as the religion for Arabs and converts were not equal in their eyes. I am telling you this is an obstacle towards greater Islamic Unity. the only way to fix it, is to first treat is as a problem!

daniyaal wrote:There are good and bad people on both sides(I would not call them sides but since you simly divided muslims as arabs and non-arabs) and if there are arrogant arab muslims who took south/east asian muslims for granted, that is not because they are being biased towards them on basis of religion, it is all to do with economics. I wonder if the similar financial blessings had been showerd on for example muslims in pakistan, how much they would go forward and share it with other muslim countries.

I didnt say the Arabs were bad people - check again. My separation of Arab and Non Arab was regarding the point i make above, which is that arabs have never accepted being ruled by others. My only correction of the ARAB debate was to remind you that Arabs DID NOT spread Islam to what is today Asia - the largest concentration of Muslims in the world, others did, namely Turks and Persians.

The point you make above about ecnomics completely irrelevant - this topic is not about the exploitation of labourers. My posts were in theme with your opener - who should rule and i am merely expressing my reasons for my opinion.
Forget Pakistan, they have enjoyed their golden age during the Mughal empire whch was way richer than the middle east in relative terms. And why they or any other South Asian nation didnt join in any war, is a politcal debate not an Islamic - i dont remember too many other arabs states busting their guts either as Arnie rightly points out.

Think Malaysia. Democratic, Islamic, progressive. Why has the Middle east not followed?... even entertained replicating? and since they are the most advanced, will the middle east be prepared to follow Malaysia as the leader? i doubt that very much. So you want a country to lead, you have a great role model, yet it is completely rejected... why? Egos and pride.

daniyaal wrote:
I think we have so much political issues within all muslim countries and you can not associate these political issues with arab-ajam concept which islam denounce in the firtst place.

My comments on internal politics, were to do with Laws nothing else and as i have said on previous posts, i do not believe a minority with such little knowledge over the majority, should rule.

daniyaal wrote:I am not an arab by the way as you may have noticed by now, however i would not generalize arabs muslims as you have done so.

Where did i generalise? i did not attack the Arab people at any stage, If you have read any of my posts in other threads you will see i offer my fair share of support for the arabs!
My comments were made on the attitudes of Arab leaders - who i, once again repeat, will not tolerate being ruled by a NON ARAB muslim. That is my opinion and has happened all throughout history.

daniyaal wrote:Issues are there everywhere but it takes one good leader to bring everyone on board and thats what I am hoping must happen to the muslim world.
Cheers

Take for example, Salahadin, a Kurdish Muslim who was a great leader and is one of the last, few, successfull Muslims who managed to lead many groups.
He baught the Arab tribes together to defeat and recapture Jerusalem.. soon as he died they separated. In fact, soon as he started getting older, there was a power struggle. He almost lost Jerusalem to the Crusaders, because rival tribes were questioning his purity as a non arab and stopped fighting alongside his army!

So what needs to change is attitudes. Individuals only bring short term solutions.

Dear RVP and all those who posted here,

I see the point you are making and I accept your reasoning and viewpoint while preserving my own view. I am not sure how in the best manner I should explain my view about the whole situation (the events that you mentioned/jumped from Salahuddin and especially your comments about Ummayad which makes the reader believe that Ummayad brought nothing to Islam except mastery over non-arab muslims). I am really not good in winning arguments line by line, so you are free to reply in a summary style to my comments if you like. But I will try to summarise what I feel in my heart with all the discussions I have had with my teachers.

I see that non-arabs muslims have made it a habitual practise to joke about current day arabs and then to go back and generalize the whole islamic history into arabs vs muslims and all they can do is to give examples of Salahuddin and then Persian and then Turkish muslims, while they completly forgot about the contributions made by arab muslims to islam as a whole. I have met a good number of arab muslims and i never found a glimpse of prejudice in them against non-arab muslims. If I were to believe your comments then perhaps I was the only lucky person on this planet to have the company of such arab muslims, what can I say?

There could be many reasons where people like you feel inferior to arab muslims or should I say feel that arab muslims are making you feel inferior: for example lack of arabic langauge is one major reason which is the center to understanding islam.

What you have said about Arabs never accepted a non-arab rule (muslims in both cases) is not true in the context you are trying to conclude. Some of it was inevitable. Please read my post carefully as I want to show you other side of the picture.

Let me say the following lines about Islam origin and how it is spread to us whereby me and you are muslims thanks to the efforts of good arab muslims.

Prophet Muhammad SAW was an arab, revealed holy book Koran is in arabic, and the prophet was able to spread Islam to all of the arabic tribes of Arabian penisula. After his death, Islamic armies composed almost of arabs muslims then went on to march other territories and spread islam, which included Spain, Egypt, persia and partial India as well.

Therefore one should not be surprised that arabs were a bit narrowed in sharing the beneifits and fruits of islamic conquest with converted muslims yet and at the same time newly converted muslims were also eager to to be part of the chosen group. Yes arabs considered Islam as their own religion and they kept the central control politically to protect the invaded terrotory from other invading armies. However adminsitrative records were kept in greek, persian and local communities within the new arab territores were left under the the local leaders. Yes there were cases where centrally appointed judges (Qadis were sent a arabs but the reasons were obvious from islamic point of view).
It was the Umayyads who allowed and encouraged the immigration of skilled individuals like physicians, astronomers, and mathematicians from outside and then these were converted to arabic and were enhanced , innovated and then later stage these arabic translation were transmitted to medieval europe throug spain (which was the center of learning and people from all over the world came ).

You gave an example of persian/mughal empire to indian-pakistan continent as the main source of islamic conversion, but you forgot to mention the influence of Persian lanaguage and the mughal culture that still is visible to indians and pakistan muslims in their education and even food. Persian language was sort of compulsary for every muslims under mughal rule and major islamic books were written in persian, what do you call this influence? From your view that era may be golden but from other views they will call that era as Mughal mastery over local indian population??

In short the efforts of arab muslims actually made our religion Islam which was sort of an arabic religion/culture into cosmopolitan, universal religion which exists today. The roots of persian, turkish were actually arabs muslims. It is not your say that Allah has chosen the arab nation as the one where HE will send his last messenger. Jews and christians at that time could not belive that GOD could send his messnger to the arab nation. Anyway GOD knows how to spread his message.

Therefore before you make any wrong accusations about islamic history you need to ask this, why GOD chose arabs to reveal his message and not persian, turks or india. And than the efforts those arabs did to make it so easy for later muslims. And please do not give example of Salah uddin and persian/mugla empire (with mose repect to them and may Allah please with them) in a way to defame the arabs.

Its a pity what arabs have become in their acts but then who does not? If you visit south asia the most common ill you will find in muslims there is near to Shirq which is worshipping graves and the sufis to the extent of calling them in prayers to intervene. While arabs may not have that as much but satan has come to some of them from the other door which is oil and money and its associated illness yet they do not recoganize that the oil is a blessing from GOD and it has nothing to do with their abilities.
However I am hoping that we will see the same arabs reviving islam one day.
Lastly Some muslims scholars (which include persian/indian as well) belive that future Imam mehdi will be an arab and all muslims will be united under him. I wonder how will you re unite under an arab in that case?
Take care

There is A McDonald in Mecca?!

Religion,religion,religion....but when it comes to money and trade....just forget about it