69 million page views

Muslim Dominated or Just Plain Muslim?

Reader comment on item: Americans Wake Up to Islamism
in response to reader comment: How History Repeats Itself, Sadly

Submitted by Jayelle Farmer (Morocco), Sep 10, 2010 at 00:03

@Geoff >What about the persecutions of Christians and Jews in Muslim-dominated countries (and please let us not deny this reality). In some countries (like Saudi Arabia for example) they even have sectors that cater to non-Muslims, I suppose fearing that these "Dhimmis" will contaminate the general Muslim population!

Jayelle: They are not Muslim dominated countries, they are Muslim countries. Period - big difference. Deny what reality? What persecution are you talking about? Can you be specific please? I am a non-Muslim and live in the Arab world and experience none of what you are talking about. If Christians think for one minute that they can go to an Arab country and start to evangelise the locals then they are in for a big shock and yes, they will get themselves into trouble by doing this, as it is not allowed. Moslem countries are just that - Moslem - and they do not want their nationals to be evangelised by other religions. It is their right to say and do that, if they choose to do so. Christians, however, are allowed to attend Church services in their own communities and the authorities do not have any problem with this at all.

Yes, removal of Saddam Hussein, murderer of Kurdish people, empowered by the US during Iraq's war with Iran during the first Gulf War, but just how much of this bilateral US/UK invasion of Iraq for the third Gulf war was connected with Saddam's changing of the petro-currency from dollars to Euros? The US did not march all the way to Baghdad during the second Gulf war, but found it expedient to do so under the third war. And why so? Colin L. Powell wrote an excellent essay on this very subject, in 1992: "Decisive means and results are always to be preferred, even if they are not always possible. We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force. History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic -- both for the men and women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation. This is not to argue that the use of force is restricted to only those occasions where the victory of American arms will be resounding, swift and overwhelming. It is simply to argue that the use of force should be restricted to occasions where it can do some good and where the good will outweigh the loss of lives and other costs that will surely ensue. Wars kill people. That is what makes them different from all other forms of human enterprise."


If anyone wants to go and open a liquor store in Iraq then yeah, good luck. Is that not asking for trouble, seeing as Iraq is a Moslem country? Before the US invasion of Iraq, Christians and Moslems lived side by side. All of the liquor store owners have now left and are now living in Jordan. Such becomes the religious polarisation when America upsets the apple cart with its enforcement of foreign policy. "Of course, in Iraq, you need not be employed by Americans to receive death threats. Angam was threatened because her husband owned a liquor store; Majeda because she refused to marry a Shia; Leila because her son was an engineer; Selivia because her father was a barber; and so on. All have fled Iraq, and all have heartbreaking stories. Still, while many Iraqis suffered in the course of being chased from their homeland, it is those whose families loyally served the United States to whom the United States owes the most. Yet so far, America has, for the most part, turned her back on them in their hour of need." http://www.theirc.org/news/iraqs-refugee-nightmare-exiles-new-republic-4215

Saudi Arabia can run its own country any way it chooses. And yes, all foreign expats are required to live in gated communities and yes, they don't want western decadence parading itself in their conservative society, contaminating the local population with alcohol, drugs, nightclubs, social promiscuity and the rest of it and if people don't want to go and work there under the conditions laid down, then stay away. What is the problem with respecting the rule of law in overseas countries that are not democratic countries? Why is there the constant need of comparison between Muslim countries and western countries that always seems to end in an unjustified or a deliberately dishonest and discrediting criticism of the former? Can we not just accept that they are different and run their countries the way that they want to? Does not every sovereign country have the right to run their own country? Or does national sovereignty only apply to democratic countries? Or is this really just to do with OIL?

Jayelle Farmer September 9, 2010


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)