There are 57 Members of the OIC.. That there are varying degrees of Piety is not a surprise.
You name ONLY 5!
And Turkey later answered yourself in another post. Gee.
Turkey/Ataturk and Iraq/War were Jolted out as was Egypt to some degree by Pan-Arabist Nasser.
Though Egypt has 3 sets of Laws, one, Sharia.
Egypt Persecutes it's Coptic minority (Apartheid!) as most Muslim countries oppress officially or unofficially their minorities.
Black Sudanese/Darfurian MUSLIM Refugees go THRU RACIST "Apartheid" Egypt to get to Free Jewish Israel.
In Indonesia's case that would be Christians and Ethnic Chinese.
Tens of thousands purged and killed in East Timor, Sulawesi, Ambon, Bali, The Moluccas, etc,
Tho some improvement in the last 3 years or so.
Turkey Wails on it's Kurdish Minority and has Cleansed and Killed Hundreds of Thousands.
[Only] In an effort to join the EU it has repealed some laws .. like preventing the Kurdish language from being spoken, Even preventing Parents from giving their Children Kurdish names.
((And what about "The Legitimate Rights of the Kurdish People for a state?
Unlike 'Palestinians', a true and disinct Ethnic, cultural, and Lingual group screwed by the British in that disposition of the Ottoman land. Who is/Where are the equal-handed liberals or Leftists here? Just me?
Another post/String))
Beware of Anglos whose only Cause is 'Palestinians'.
In Iraq, there was a War in case you missed it.. but many Both progressives and conservatives were Disappointed in the new constitution which "may not contradict the Koran." Unquote.
And the above are your Best Isamic countries. Sad but true.
And then The STUNNING:
This is not only False, it's Mindblowing PC attempt of the Month. Not to be taken lightly on a board full of "everyone is the samers". And ironically capped by accusing others of "misleading"!
There aren't any Non-secular Christian (or Jewish) 'Sharia countries' governed by NT/OT law.
ergo, there's only Islam of the three that "Got it wrong"...even if some can be deemed tolerable.
-
Let me get this straight, you are simply ignoring Turkey because it is inconvientent. You are chastizing Indonesia for ethnic violence, laying it squarely at teh feet of Islam? So that whole Balkan thing, with a Christian orthodox state driving the violence is OK? The Los Angeles riots? The riots in the French banlieue? Uighur violence in China? Tibetan unrest, also in China? The Naxelite insurgency in India? Of course we'll ignore the ethnic violence in Sri Lanka with no Islamic component? How about that Moaist insurgency in Nepal? That whole FARC thing in Columbia? The class violence in Equador? There are also three insurgencies raging in the Phillipines, only one of which is against a 'Muslim' ethnic group, shall we ignore that one too?
So, perhaps Islam is not the sole vcause of unrest on the world after all?
Once again, if you only going looking for evidence that supports your claim, you will certainly find it.
You've also ignored two rather salient points.
One, Islam says that government and religion are one, that they are not incompatible. It is easy to simply scoff from the West because we live under secular principals that we take for granted.
However, IN THE REGION, secularism is no guarntee of sound government. The Shah of Iran is a case in point, as is Saddam Hussein who was far from Islamic. We supported BOTH of these tyrannts when they were at the height of their secularism, while they were killing hundreds, if not thousands, of their own citizens. When they turned more Islamic, they became the enemy of the US.
Which would you choose, life in Iran under the Shah or under the current clerics? Tough choice.
I will tell you that the people of the Middle East are desperate for sound government, but they look at Saudi Arabia, who is stable and rich, and see a government that is capable and religious. They look North and see Turkey, secular, prosperous, and stable. It is not a clear cut choice to them.
I will say that simply scoffing and fearing the choice that Islamic states must make is simply to drive it to extreme. Particularly if you are whipping up a fernzy in order to 'do something about it.'
Simply put, the choice is not your to make.
Two, the Middle East is changing rapidly. It has a large and growing population, and its influence on the world will be growing, not shrinking in the future. We must find better ways to deal with Islam than to fear and deride it.
Ode Magazine : Creating comics for the Middle East
There is but one example of how the Middle East is changing. Just as we have our right wing nuts who fear immigration, change, and are not above murder, so to do Islamic states who are currently undergoing charge that is almost breath taking in its pace. Even old consrevative Saudi Arabia has come light years since we first went over in 1990.
Bear in mind the change must be managed. There must be a balance between those who embrace change and those who fear it. As the old guard gets used to the new things, more things can change.
If we simply demand that they make the change to secularism, I would point you to the period in Europe when secularism, the downfall of authoritarism took place: the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was an extraordinarily bloody and tumulteous time. The liberalizing changes you take for granted now, were not firmly entrenched until after WWI and in some area had to fight Facism to maintain their hold thereafter.
The Reformation itself launched the 30 Years War, which left central Europe almost devoid of its population.
There are literally millions of deaths that lead to the secularism that you and I take for granted. If Islam can get there with minimal deaths and a little patience, I for one am all for that.
If this thread continues in this manner, I will Lock and Archive it. In addition, DO NOT bring drama from another forum here to Debate Politics. The next person who does so earns a DBAJ infraction.
