Hope for the Middle East? Is there any?

The Middle East.

Birthplace of Civilization.

The homeland of three great religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity --if you needed to be told ). Birthplace of science, and mathematics. The arts.

In short? The Middle East is the birthplace of much that is good.

Conversely, the Middle East has brought much that is horrible, as well.

Religious hatred. Sectarian hatred. Generation upon generation, upon generation. Hatred that pre-dates the births of the religions that have so merrily adopted the hatred for their own purposes.

We watch in horror, those of us who can stand to (I'm not one of them) to do so, as captives are murdered in most horrific fashions.

Are there solutions to this ongoing, generational conflict?

This is the question that needs answering. Sooner, rather than later. If only to console ourselves that it can happen, or could have.

First thing, above everything else... We must realize that no solution, no matter how ingenious, is going to be instantaneous. It will take, literally, lifetimes. Yours. Mine. Our children, and theirs.

Like the conflicts, peace will take years to grow. Generations. Realize that it will take lifetimes, or we're doomed before we're even started. All we'll be able to do, is lay the groundwork for it.

Many years ago, a charismatic leader arose in the Middle East. He brought a message from God. He was the Prophet Mohammed. Charismatic. Intelligent. ...and perhaps unsurprisingly, fairly proficient with a sword. He began the process of uniting the Middle East under the banner of Islam. His followers, generations of them, continued to build on the groundwork that he laid.

Yet another leader, Saladin, rose when the Faith was threatened by outsiders. The Crusades. He began the process of eradicating the various Crusader states in the Levant by various means.

Other leaders, generations of them, continued the spread of Islam. East into Asia. West into Africa, and Europe. Many of these places are Islamic to this very day. It spread not just by the sword, though there was plenty of that, but by trade, which prospered under these leaders.

In these conditions, the arts and sciences prospered as never before, or since. The shoulders of giants that science stands on today lived and worked during these times.

Renaissance Europe might not have happened without the influx of arts, and sciences from the Middle East. A bit of an overstatement, perhaps, but not by much. It was called the Dark Ages for a reason.

This is what the Middle East under Islam is capable of. In our horror/fear/hate of what we see every day, seemingly, on TV/internet, we've forgotten this, assuming we ever knew it...

But... How do we get back to that? That's the question, isn't it??

That the Middle East needs, and deserves, a strong leader seems self evident. Not a tyrant, but a leader who can draw others to him.

But what will this leader need to be?

(hoo boy...)

1) Unfortunately, he must be a he. Until there is something resembling a reformation in Islam, leaders are going to be male.

2) Charismatic. He must look the part. He must sound the part. He must be all things to all people when necessary.

3) Intelligent. He must be educated to the point of being a scholar of Islam. Nothing less will work. He must be able to disarm arguments that will be brought by those in opposition, many of whom will be religious zealots. He must also be educated in secular matters.

4) A warrior. Not a killer wearing a uniform. Not a thug waving an AK. A warrior. A warrior knows when it's time to fight, and more importantly, he knows when it's time to talk. Anyone can kill. Not just anyone knows when to, or more importantly, when not to.

5) A healer. There are wounds that are centuries old, and are just as raw now, as when they first were inflicted. This is, in my humble opinion, the most important, and most difficult task he'll face. Sunni -vs- Shia is only one of an incredible number of conflicts that he'll have to begin to mediate.

He will need to be all these and more.

He must be firm in his belief. Strong in his belief. Not a zealot. One can be strong/firm in belief and not be a zealot/mad man. Only this sort can begin what must happen in Islam... A reformation. Currently, unless something of a miracle happens, women are excluded from any leadership roll, other than behind the scenes. This can not continue if the Middle East is to save itself.

Do you begin to see why it's going to be generational? No leader, no matter how inspired, or inspiring, in going to complete this in his lifetime. All he can reasonably hope to accomplish is to lay a strong lattice for his successors.

Where does the West belong in this great work?

Out of the way.

The West, meaning the United States, and Europe; need to leave it alone. It's going to be bloody. People are going to die. Entrenched beliefs of the sort we see in the Middle East will demand nothing less than blood. I hope I'm wrong.


Israel.

This is going to piss many of you off. This I know. But in this scenario, Israel must stand or fall on its own. They are the Middle East, too, and must live, or not, on their own merits.

As it currently stands, the Middle East is doomed. Doomed to stagnate in a bloody ghetto. Maybe not of their own design, or maybe it is. They control their own destiny. It's time and past that they realize that...

Perhaps ISIL is a sign that that realization is finally occurring. Not the way I'd choose to do it, but generations of hate, and fear, may demand nothing less...

I don't know, nor will I ever claim to know best for a culture, or cultures I'm not part of.

All I can ever do is pray for them.

...and that's all we should ever do. It's theirs to do.

The Crusades were a response to Islam spreading out of the Middle East by the sword in the first place.

You also described someone who is in the Bible and the Koran. He isn't a very good guy. But he is all those things you mentioned and he does promise peace and safety.

a reply to: seagull

Actually, I think the question should be is there hope for humanity? The answer is...not the humanity we have right now. I, also, do not believe that the middle east is the cradle of civilization...it is merely the supposed belief based on 1000's of yeaars of disinformation or misinformation...the fact is we have never seen the place where civilization originated and we never will. We have a responsibility to each other though that falls by the wayside daily because of a notion that one belief is more acceptable than another. I would like everyone that thinks religion is based on fact to take a moment and give their brains an enema.

Wow, you describe with great accuracy, the Anti-Christ foretold in the Bible, which is honored by the Koran.

Did you realize that?

These people only respond to Violence, meet them head on with a "Clash of Civilizations" War and bomb them back into being sheep herders and date eating desert dwellers. They have no thoughts of preserving anything that does not adhere to their version of a book they unquestionably follow without even knowing its content.

I say that our Western Cultures have been too accommodating to their beliefs ( by allowing Mosques to built everywhere ) by allowing them free reign and even preferential treatment here in my own Country by giving them "Sit Down" money and allowances for everything they need.

We need to show the same if not harsher treatment that matches how Islamic nations treat our Religions and rights, this is all they know.

originally posted by: seagull

Are there solutions to this ongoing, generational conflict?

I know that Allah is with his people.

a reply to: mazzroth

That was very racist and counter-productive.
 

a reply to: seagull

Afraid not. It's the site of Armageddon.

Economics and educations are the key to peaces in the region. The poor and uneducated are so desperate they have nothing to live for so embrace the most radical parts of religion. The same things were true in many places in the world, Europe for example for slaughering each other because you were not the right Christian sect went on for centuries. Until education and economics improved life so that running off on the latest holy war no longer had much appeal.

a reply to: seagull

Your ideals are enjoyable. I will go out on the limb to say that Muslims are having such social and moral upheavals because they have drifted away from the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (SWT).

One cannot understand the meaning or complexity of true submission without knowing the personality of the last and greatest prophet. Without knowing his noble love for humanity, attempting to emulate his teachings through knowledge of his practices only is merely a mechanical response to the demands of Allah's Law. Applying the law is a rather harsh calculation without contexts of mercy synonymous with love and wisdom of the Prophet.

There are a number of Hadith which propound the depths of his mercy, which mercy is an expression of a sweeping theme familiar in the teachings of Jesus as well.

I have compared the "teachings" of Mohammad and Jesus and have found them to be at least 90% correlated in context. I think it most poignant that the meaning in the story of the Jew who lived next door to Prophet Mohammad displays a very broad context relating to the most compelling teachings of Christ.

This simply proves that all prophets carry the same message as it relates to the duality of Allah's Law. That duality incorporates both the cold demands of the Law, and the wisdom of its most just administration in the proper spirit of mercy. Jurisprudence devoid of love is unjust and an instrument of repression. This fact is universally recognized by Muslims and is the catalyst for the mission of the Mahdi.

Once the Prophet died and the Sahabi and caliphates disbanded, councils of scholars became the jurisprudent intellectuals guiding the imams and Islamic courts. About 300 to 400 years after Muhammad, we see that kings and other related entities competing for the minds of the people began to sponsor schools of thought based on the four great scholars.

We now see the divisions of secular movements and splinter groups that correspond to the four great scholars as well as Wahabism, which is the most widely integrated form of tunneled jurisprudence among the Sunnis.

The Wahabi inflexibility that marks modern day Islamic ideology is the root of radicalism that has led to where we are today. Whether one can argue that it has also been exploited by western themes and geopolitical agendas is a reality incidental to the underlying facts at large.

There are scholars who call for reforms, but I believe that Muslims need only understand their religion from the prospective of the Prophet Muhammad, not under the authorship of past or present schools of thought or famous imams.

Yes, there is hope. We need to bomb the entire Middle East ( except Israel of course), to defeat terrorism and bring back democracy.



Remember this?



That's how you fix the Middle East. I mean.....look how peaceful Iraq is now. There are no longer any suicide bombings, no terrorists bombing and murdering people, crime rates have dropped and they(public) now benefit from the oil revenue.
Syria is next.

No...

Till the west and east get out of there and allow them to settle their differences and grow from there, there is no hope.

a reply to: seagull

Wrong on so many levels

I guess you mean well but still wrong

ISIL was started up as relevant organization by pumping funds and weapons into Syrian Rebels, good ol USA did that

As for Israel, first west gives it nukes

And now you want them to stand alone armed to the teeth, which they would use to depopulate Middle East

Umm look up proxy wars by US Israel etc

a reply to: grandmakdw

Only to eyes obscured by their religious dogma.

The anti-Christ? According to whom?

My description could apply to every single strong leader who has arisen during any point in history. Seriously.

Anti-Christ? No.

a reply to: ketsuko

Didn't say he was a nice guy. I said he was a leader who began a process that brought about a time of economic growth that the Middle East hasn't seen since.

Hate to say it, but anyone who can, or will, bring about changes in the Middle East that are at all wide spread aren't going to be really nice guys...they are going to have to make incredibly hard choices.

a reply to: mazzroth

Oh, yeah, that's surely going to be effective, isn't it?

All that will succeed in is hardening attitudes of hate and vengeance. Attitudes much like the ones we see expressed today in all too many places in the world. Much like the ones you're expressing in post.

a reply to: MrSpad

Agreed.

When the region realized its widest, and deepest, amount of economic, and educational success, it was under the aegis of the Caliphate, whose guidance came from Islamic teachings.

a reply to: seagull

I think that if we have had listened to the voice of this french individual 50 years ago we wouldn't have all the problems we are dealing with today because, we choose instead to follow the rethoric of the zionists.


- Speech transcript and translation -

CDG :We will now talk about the middle-east. If you want, I was asked questions about the current conflict and I'm now ready to answer them.

J1 : War having started in the middle-east 6 month ago, it ended almost immediately as everybody knows. What do you think about the evolution of the international situation in that part of the world ?
J2 : How is that, that Israel is the aggressor when it is Nasser who closed the strait of Tiran ?

CDG :
The establishment, between the two world wars … because you have to go back that far.
The establishment, of a Zionist seed in Palestine. And then after the second world war, the establishment of the state of Israel, was raising a few suspicions.
People were wondering, even many Jews, if the settlement of this community on lands that were acquired in a more-or-less legitimate context – and in the middle of arab people that are deeply hostile to them – wouldn't generate unstopping, endless,frictions and conflicts.

And even some were fearful that the Jews, - so far scattered, but that managed to stay what they have been forever : an elite population, self-confident, and dominating – started, once gathered on the site of his previous glory, to change their ambitions in the hopes they were chasing for 19 centuries : 'Next year in Jerusalem !'

Despite the cycle of persecutions that they were causing – or should I say inducing – in some countries, at some eras, they managed to keep an important amount of sympathy and interest in their favor. Mostly, let's admit it, among the Christians.
An amount (of sympathy) traced back to the memory of the Testament, fed by all source by a wonderful liturgy, enforced by the empathy caused by their ancient suffering, and turned poetic by the legend of the roaming jew, re-enforced by the abominations they endured during the second world war, and developed – since they got back a homeland – by their constructive achievements and the bravery of their soldiers.
That's why – despite the numerous supports, in money, influence, propaganda that the Israelis were receiving from Jewish communities of America and Europe – many countries, including France, were satisfied by the establishment of their homeland on the territory that the big powers acknowledge them. But were hoping that – by using a bit of modesty – they would be able to reach a peaceful 'modus vivendi' (way of living) with their neighbors.

These psychological considerations changed after 1956.
After a joined French and British operation in the Suez Canal, we noticed a Israeli state warmongering and ready to expend.
And then, the actions they were carrying out in order to double their population, through immigration, led us to think that their new territory wouldn't be enough anyway and that they were ready in order to further extend it, to use any opportunity to do so.

That's why at the time the fifth republic took distances with Israel, special tights that were in place as part of the previous situation were reconsidered and, the fifth republic was trying to make less tensions in the middle-east.
Of course we kept with the Israeli government good relations, and even, we provided them for their defense, the weaponry they were asking to buy.
But at the same time, we offered them some moderation advises, about the Jordan River or about the skirmishes that were opposing forces on both sides.
Finally we disagreed with their installation in a part of the city of Jerusalem they conquered, and we maintain our embassy in Tel-Aviv.

Then, once the Algerian affair was over (Algerian independence, we initiated with the Arab people of the middle-east, the same policy of friendship and cooperation that was for centuries the one of France in that part of the world. And this policy has to be the base of the way we treat our foreign affairs.

Of course, we made it obvious for the Arab as well that for us, the state of Israel was a fact and that we wouldn't tolerate its destruction. So that, all in all, we were expecting to be able to offer to that part of the world a long and lasting peace cause be installed. If only no new drama takes place … And, unfortunately, the drama took place (Six Days War). This went gradually, with an increasing tension caused by the scandalous fate of the refugees in Jordan. And because of the threads calling to destroy Israel.

The 22nd May, the strait of Tiran closure, embarrassingly caused by Egypt, would offer the ideal excuse to those who wanted to fight.
In order to prevent hostilities, France offered as of 24th May, to the three others main powers, to prevent both parties to engage conflict.
The 2nd June, the French government officially declared that he would disprove the one who first would start the fight and we made it clear to all the countries involved. That's what I personally declare on the 24th of May to the foreign minister of Israel, I happened to meet in Paris.
'If Israel is attacked' – I told him – 'We wouldn't let it destroy. But if you, we will condemn your initiative. Despite the numerical inferiority of your population since you happen to be better organized - united – and armed than the Arabs, I wouldn't be surprised that you would have military success. But then, you would be engage, on the ground and on the international scene, in ever growing problems. Mostly because war in the middle always causes an increasing tension in the whole world and have a lot of embarrassing issues for the other countries as well. So that it's up to you, now conquerors, that should be blamed for the side effects.'.

We now know that the voice of France hasn't heard, Israel having attacked.
They reached after six days of war most of the objectives they targeted.
Now, they organize on the territories it conquered, occupation.
Occupation that goes along with oppression, repression, expulsion.
And there manifest itself against him, the resistance, that he then label as terrorist.
It is true that both parties are now having a fragile cease-fire, promote by the united nations but it is obvious that the conflict is only suspended and that there can't be any solution without an international agreement.
But a solution – unless the UN decided to scrap its own chart – a solution needs to start with the evacuation of the territories that were grabbed by force, the end of all combats, and the recognition of both states by all the others.
After that, with the approval of the UN, their presence and the guarantee of their troops it would be possible to define definitively the drawing of the borders. Conditions of daily life and security on both sides. The fate of the refugees and the local minorities.
And then, the conditions for free navigation for all in the Tiran strait and the Suez canal.

So that such a solution could take place, solution to which - according to France – you should add an international status for Jerusalem. For such a solution you need the agreement of the major power that would automatically provide the agreement of the UN.

And if such an agreement can take place, France is ready to offer political, economical and military support to enforce the deal. But I don't see how such an agreement could take place as long as one of the biggest of four, would be rid of the infamous war he is fighting elsewhere.
Everything is entangled in our world today.
Without the drama of Vietnam, the conflict between Israel and the Arabs would have escalated that much. And if south-eastern Asia would see peace coming back, the middle-east would have it back soon as well. As part of the overall decrease of tension that would ensure …

a reply to: Gianfar

Thanks for that post.

I make no pretense to being a scholar of Islam. Nor am I of that faith. As you may have guessed...

I haven't a clue as to your religious faith, but you, seemingly, have more insight into Islam than I do. Not that that would be hard to accomplish, to my shame...

I can only go by what I see with my eyes, and hear with my ears, and draw judgement from that evidence.

I see and hear evidence of a change of some sort coming to Islam in general. Early days yet as to where that will go. I'm hoping that it will go in the direction you describe...for that might bring peace to a region that is deserving of it.

I think I'm correct in saying that it won't be an overnight process, though.