Support NeoGAF

[Atrus]

Sorry if I missed this but:

Do you then view Muslims as bigots? A simple yes or no will do.

No.

As has been pointed out, only those adhering to bigoted religious tenets are bigots.

 

[Ashes]

You're the one shifting the discussion away from religious tenets.

This is not about individual choice as you seem to want to change the discussion into, it's the doctrinal basis that we're discussing here, namely the prohibition of Islamic women marrying non-muslims. I even underlined and put it in bold. The very post I responded to beginning this line of discussion is in direct reference to the doctrinal nonsense you posted justifying bigotry, so you are, on an evidential basis, the one veering the discussion away to 'choice'.

That tenet and anyone holding that tenet is a bigot. If a persons believes that as a matter of religious doctrine that Islamic women should not marry non-Muslims then they are a bigot, and yes, if a person chooses not to marry someone on the basis of that doctrine then they are bigoted. People can choose all they want based on desires but to follow a bigoted doctrine solely because it is doctrine makes that person a bigot.

If we changed the word non-Muslim to Black or Chinese, then the bigotry would be readily apparent.

You've weasel-worded 'devout' to qualify and cover for the practice of these atrocious beliefs as being a matter of true or correct faith. You introduced that qualifier and have stuck with it this far, defending bigoted actions as being those of 'devout' believers.

I'll ask you directly then, my mother married a Christian. Is she a devout Muslim? Do devout Muslim women marry non-Muslims?

If you truly believe that devotion is Islam is and should be based on such bigotry and discrimination, then people of like-minded nature only serve to undermine and potentially doom your religion. If you do not integrate into society then you can only become isolated and swept aside.

I'll also point out that your repeated attempts to quantify why and categorize my assaults on your beliefs only serve to undermine your position. I've assailed religious opinions of every stripe and seeing that this is an Islamic thread, it's on Islam and seeing that the topic at hand turned to something of personal interest, I jumped in.

The topic is not about your suspicions of me, why I am assailing your position, or your baseless accusations. If it's too much for you to stay on topic then by all means scamper away.

Straight up charges themselves are hollow and by the nature of the accusation is itself evidence of bigotry.

The reason women in Islam were disallowed to marry people of the book was chiefly because of this idea that the god in the Quran gave express permission to men to marry people of the book. And that's pretty much the bulk of their case.

oh yeah, I'm sorry, I stated that wrong. The god in the Quran *only* gave express permission to men to marry people of the book.*

The reasoning if it needs to be stated is -whether you agree or disagree - is this. If men needed to be given express permission to marry outside of the Muslim faith, women needed to be given express permission as well.

I mean its possible that God X gave permission to women as well, but it didn't say anything about it, did it now?

They have to interpret its silence in the only way they know how.

*don't ask me whether the word *only or something similar is used. Its the interpreters game sir. Let a man speak. Allow a person to cite their case.

 

[Atrus]

Straight up charges themselves are hollow and by the nature of the accusation is itself evidence of bigotry.

The reason women in Islam were disallowed to marry people of the book was chiefly because of this idea that the god in the Quran gave express permission to men to marry people of the book. And that's pretty much the bulk of their case.

oh yeah, I'm sorry, I stated that wrong. The god in the Quran *only* gave express permission to men to marry people of the book.

The reasoning if it needs to be stated is -whether you agree or disagree - is this. If men needed to be given express permission to marry outside of the Muslim faith, women needed to be given express permission as well.

I mean its possible that God X gave permission to woman as well, but it didn't say anything about it, did it now?

They have to interpret its silence in the only way they know how.

As was pointed out before, those who have interpretations that aren't discriminatory are fine. Who would have a problem with them?

Ah... there's the rub because some people don't interpret it in the non-discriminatory manner and instead go with 'the only way they know how' and rationalize discrimination as being the best path, or as I'm being told, the path of the 'devout' Muslim to use their qualification.

Here the sense of arrogance and pride makes some believers defend their faith at all costs, instead of letting them potentially evolve beliefs into something that is more sociable and all-inclusive.

Instead of a "If it is wrong then we will change it" that we get from the Dalai Lama and his religion, we get a "It's never wrong! You're wrong! Your society must accept it!". Modern society isn't so accepting of it and in the Western sphere of influence, the power of religion is at historic lows and is continually being diminished. Being a source for antagonism in such a climate will not be a successful tactic.

 

[Ashes]

As was pointed out before, those who have interpretations that aren't discriminatory are fine. Who would have a problem with them?

Ah... there's the rub because some people don't interpret it in the non-discriminatory manner and instead go with 'the only way they know how' and rationalize discrimination as being the best path, or as I'm being told, the path of the 'devout' Muslim to use their qualification.

Here the sense of arrogance and pride makes some believers defend their faith at all costs, instead of letting them potentially evolve beliefs into something that is more sociable and all-inclusive.

Instead of a "If it is wrong then we will change it" that we get from the Dalai Lama and his religion, we get a "It's never wrong! You're wrong! Your society must accept it!". Modern society isn't so accepting of it and in the Western sphere of influence, the power of religion is at historic lows and is continually being diminished. Being a source for antagonism in such a climate will not be a successful tactic.

Don't you see how you are completely undermining your own strategy?

I mean I know you see what I'm doing with my post above. It is a criticism of the reasoning that was used to craft the law. Cite argument with argument.

And the use of so much rhetoric only works in your favour when you are amongst supporters of your rhetoric. There are better ways to argue in the Islam thread.

 

[TheContact]

I feel bad for you Smiles...held back from your passion because a book tells you to. Just keep painting man.

 

[Atrus]

Don't you see how you are completely undermining your own strategy?

I mean I know you see what I'm doing with my post above. It is a criticism of the reasoning that was used to craft the law. Cite argument with argument.

And the use of so much rhetoric only works in your favour when you are amongst supporters of your rhetoric. There are better ways to argue in the Islam thread.

I'm not following you. If you're the same Ashes I spoke to regarding the use of question marks, the point still stands. Be direct, explanatory and to the point. You're not being charged by the word. Your posts don't make sense in relation to each other and I'm having trouble following.

If you're trying to make it a discussion about rationalizing a holy text, I don't actually care.

This is not an issue of how to interpret and I certainly don't care what sort of method a believer holds onto in accepting a non-discriminatory interpretation and would hope that someone would eventually pull a Thomas Jefferson and take a razor to it.

The fact of the matter is that the discriminatory interpretation cannot be accepted, period.
If people feel they can only obey Gods rules like robots and on that basis feel that they need to discriminate because of that, then the beliefs of those people cannot be tolerated.

They should be sued into bankruptcy and sentenced for discrimination.

 

[Ashes]

I'm not following you. If you're trying to make it a discussion about rationalizing a holy text, I don't actually care.

This is not an issue of how to interpret and I certainly don't care what sort of method a believer holds onto in accepting a non-discriminatory interpretation and would hope that someone would eventually pull a Thomas Jefferson and take a razor to it.

The fact of the matter is that the discriminatory interpretation cannot be accepted, period.
If people feel they can only obey Gods rules like lemmings and on that basis feel that they need to discriminate because of that, then the beliefs of those people cannot be tolerated.

They should be sued into bankruptcy and sentenced for discrimination.

What a political strategy! I suppose simply having laws in place hasn't accelerated the amount of woman in boardrooms or government office. It's much harder to tackle an invisible cultural ethos.

I should say, that marriage in the Islamic faith is somewhat different to marriage in the secular society. Like OS for example, he and his wife live their life to please Allah. Their married life isn't unique in this. Nor is their outlook.

 

[Atrus]

What a political strategy! I suppose simply having laws in place hasn't accelerated the amount of woman in boardrooms or government office. It's much harder to tackle an invisible cultural ethos.

I should say, that marriage in the Islamic faith is somewhat different to marriage in the secular society. Like OS for example, he and his wife live their life to please Allah. Their married life isn't unique in this.

I should point out that the laws in place already provided the basis to prosecute discrimination by religious offices and institution in Western societies. The only reason that it's not open season yet is because religious discrimination is currently protected by legislation.

This means that if you were a racist, you can be sued or sentenced for your racist acts but if somehow your racism was the result of religious belief or opinion, your racist acts are protected thanks to a religious lobby afraid of... being sued and sentenced.

On a judicial basis, courts have already recognized that the special protections afforded to religions are themselves discriminatory and violate the charter of rights on equity. That is to say secular institutions are being discriminated by not being offered similar rights and if such rights were offered, they would then violate the rights of the individuals being discriminated against. The basic conclusion of courts is that discrimination cannot be protected while reconciling to the charter of rights.

The only thing lacking is political will and this itself is growing.

Saying Islamic marriage is different from other types of marriages is just a bunch of arrogant self-aggrandizing nonsense. I've seen Islamic marriages first hand, which would make sense considering half of my family is Muslim and they're basically no different than any other. Since the other half is Christian, I can directly make comparisons and see nothing altogether different between them (controlling for education).

 

[Ashes]

The only thing lacking is political will and this itself is growing.

Saying Islamic marriage is different from other types of marriages is just a bunch of arrogant self-aggrandizing nonsense. I've seen Islamic marriages first hand, which would make sense considering half of my family is Muslim and they're basically no different than any other. Since the other half is Christian, I can directly make comparisons and see nothing altogether different between them (controlling for education).

So wait in your example, a part of marriage would be pleasing the Muslim god? That makes no sense to me.

I ain't saying all Muslims are like this, but its kind of like you ignored my point... and just by showing universal commonalities.

And which society were you talking about specifically?

 

[Atrus]

So wait in your example, a part of marriage would be pleasing the Muslim god? That makes no sense me.

I ain't saying all Muslims are like this, but its kind of like you ignored my point...

Er... no. I inferred from my example that in practice they are no different from each other, the various religions or beliefs would obviously use their own substitute to Allah or even God.

You also said Islamic marriage, which was a universal qualifier.

 

[Ashes]

Er... no. I inferred from my example that in practice they are no different from each other, the various religions or beliefs would obviously use their own substitute to Allah or even God.

You also said Islamic marriage, which was a universal qualifier.

The point being expressed was that married life itself is an act of worship to some Muslims, and the preferred outlook, a lot of scholars would say I think.

An act of worship itself is something that separates it to say an atheistic marriage.

 

[Kinitari]

I don't want to jump in with Atrus here, but I find this conversation fascinating - I've gone toe to toe with OS before on similar issues (Apostasy in particular) and if I am honest with myself, I don't feel extremely comfortable going up against him again. Even remembering the conversation - he didn't really say anything to alleviate the fear associated with my point, he simply and artfully completely changed the point of my argument without me even realizing it. This isn't an insult or a dig at OS, honestly this is the highest praise I can give, I can't do anything but respect that argumentative skill.

That being said - I think Atrus has a good point here - and while a semantic argument can be made for his use of the word bigot, his main point stands - that the doctrine stating that Muslim women will not marry outside of the faith is an example (one of many) of the pitfalls of adhering to the laws of Islam with such conviction. OS doesn't address the patriarchal and (what I would describe as) demeaning attitude that is apparent here, he simply discusses how this ideology is a beneficial one, and that adhering to it seems absolutely obvious - and that patriarchy obviously exists in Islam, as it does in many other religions, but Islam has elevated women to a higher level before anyone else bothered.

However if you were to approach an angle that doesn't inherently seek to find good in every message in Islam - maybe even one that in fact seeks to criticise/critique Islam as much as possible - you find flaws. Doesn't such a blanket rule lead to grief when a possible happy relationship is impeded because of religious doctrine denying it? Why does the past 'elation' of women in Islam past other women of another time, get paraded around as a point of Islam's kindness to the female sex, when that elation doesn't seem to reach a level of equality that is aimed for and achieved throughout the world today? I know OS will cite his personal relationship with his wife, and whenever he does he even makes it sound like this relationship has her as the one with the upper hand - but a critical mind will know that -

1. His interpretation of the roles of females in a household/society is not one adopted by the vast majority of Muslims
2. That Islam and it's language has a direct role to play in this sexist position women are put in, and that it is much more than just a perpetuation of pre-Islamic cultural tribalism/traditionalism.

The simple truth is, Islam cannot change - at most you can argue over interpretation - and that is what people like OS do. That is wonderful because his argument is the one that aligns the closest with what I find to be morally just (which is all that really matters, what someone else finds morally just is pointless, no one is going to fight for someone else's moral convictions) - but it is still not enough for me, no matter what sort of gymnastics and contortion someone applies to the doctrine, you cannot - for example - take away the essential nature of Shariah, of the Hadith even.

With the Hadith comes the violent persecution of apostates, of adulterous individuals and of homosexuals - of people, essentially, who Islam does not agree with. Remove the hadith from the picture, remove Shariah from being a possibility, and interpret the hell out of the Qu'ran (I mean that in as many ways as possible) and I guess I will be more content with Islam. But for as long as I have that niggling fear, the fear that someone will find out I am an apostate and decide "you know what, I'm not going to stand for that", like a huuuuuge amount of Muslims think by the way - I won't be happy with Islam as it is today, it's not enough that most would never do anything about it - I refuse to allow that opinion to stay the way it is, I want to fight it at every opportunity.

I guess I went on a personal tangent there, and I know this thread really shouldn't be a 'vs' thread now that we have an actual vs thread, I just occasionally read to see what the Muslims are up to, and honestly the last few pages reminded me of another reason why I am so glad I left the religion - it's so hard. Just so hard trying to be happy and a Muslim, at least it would be for me.

 

[Atrus]

The point being expressed was that married life itself is an act of worship to some Muslims, and the preferred outlook, a lot of scholars would say I think.

An act of worship itself something that separates it to say an atheistic marriage.

It's inculcated into the religion just the same as the act of marriage in any other religious tradition. While people are free to add a whole lot of additional requirements and expectations onto it, which you're right, a secular marriage likely may not have (although it could easily choose to), I'm saying that in practice it is observably no different from any other marriage.

You may put a lot of weight on religious this or that, but I can only value observable outcomes.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Doha debate on women's freedom to marry anyone they choose

Pretty interesting debate.

 

[Ashes]

It's inculcated into the religion just the same as the act of marriage in any other religious tradition. While people are free to add a whole lot of additional requirements and expectations onto it, which you're right, a secular marriage likely may not have (although it could easily choose to), I'm saying that in practice it is observably no different from any other marriage.

You may put a lot of weight on religious this or that, but I can only value observable outcomes.

Well then observe that one's outlook may be that of nun to her lord, and another's of failing to go church. But to call the two the same is not to account the truth.

How can an atheist marriage be an act of worship to er anything... unless you want to play mental gymnastics, and say well, they married as a worship of their err, love.. no it's close to nonsense.

Oh I see you used secular marriage. I suppose... Os is more fit to cite his own example..

Ok let us start again.

Marriage is a liberty afforded to an individual.* for clarity, let us stay on the topic of gender and the legality of Islamic marriages. The word legality implies that some people sat down and wrote it into law. So one is talking about woman's rights to choose who she marries, specifically in regards to her having equal access to a man's rights.

You want the state to forbid Shariah law that is discriminatory. Right? You basically want to push the non-discriminatory aspects of Shariah law [and for that to happen you have to allow that such a position actually exists]. You can't be arguing that the act of interpretation itself be culled, (althought going by your tone... never mind) because that is undermining the freedom to speech.

It is the shariah law version 2.450* that is the problem... right so far?

random number*

 

[Ashes]

I guess I went on a personal tangent there, and I know this thread really shouldn't be a 'vs' thread now that we have an actual vs thread, I just occasionally read to see what the Muslims are up to, and honestly the last few pages reminded me of another reason why I am so glad I left the religion - it's so hard. Just so hard trying to be happy and a Muslim, at least it would be for me.

If a subject interests you take a critical look at it. Religious historians and comparative theology student do it all the time. Anything regarding Islam is talked about in this thread...

on marriages...

Straight up charges themselves are hollow and by the nature of the accusation is itself evidence of bigotry.

The reason women in Islam were disallowed to marry people of the book was chiefly because of this idea that the god in the Quran gave express permission to men to marry people of the book. And that's pretty much the bulk of their case.

oh yeah, I'm sorry, I stated that wrong. The god in the Quran *only* gave express permission to men to marry people of the book.*

The reasoning if it needs to be stated is -whether you agree or disagree - is this. If men needed to be given express permission to marry outside of the Muslim faith, women needed to be given express permission as well.

I mean its possible that God X gave permission to women as well, but it didn't say anything about it, did it now?

They have to interpret its silence in the only way they know how.

*don't ask me whether the word *only or something similar is used. Its the interpreters game sir. Let a man speak. Allow a person to cite their case.

That is not to say I disagree or agree. It is showing the argument as it played out. One could challenge the reasoning that led to basis of the ruling. Of course they can. To get the ball rolling, one needs dialogue to happen.

 

[The Internet]

edit: and what if one of you guys were to marry a jewish or christian woman, would you expect her to become muslim eventually?

I married a non-religious christian girl who "converted" to Islam right before we got married. I asked her to only convert if she truly believes in the religion and not just do it to make my parents happy. Things did not work out for us as we are currently going through a divorce but I think it was more of her side of the family putting alot of pressure on her to not to adapt to some of our ways of life. It's been rough playing both sides of the family.

 

[F#A#Oo]

I know this thread really shouldn't be a 'vs' thread now that we have an actual vs thread, I just occasionally read to see what the Muslims are up to, and honestly the last few pages reminded me of another reason why I am so glad I left the religion - it's so hard. Just so hard trying to be happy and a Muslim, at least it would be for me.

Ofcourse its hard...its a daily struggle. With yourself and all the things and people around you. Following the Deen on top of all these other things can be overwhelming and confusing. You have to work at everything in life; work, studies, relationships...there is nothing in this life that one doesn't need to work or put some form of commitment and effort towards.

Sorry for cutting your post up...just wanted to comment on the bolded part.

 

[Atrus]

Well then observe that one's outlook may be that of nun to her lord, and another's of failing to go church. But to call the two the same is not to account the truth.

How can an atheist marriage be an act of worship to er anything... unless you want to play mental gymnastics, and say well, they married as a worship of their err, love.. no it's close to nonsense.

Oh I see you used secular marriage. I suppose... Os is more fit to cite his own example..

Ok let us start again.

Marriage is a liberty afforded to an individual.* for clarity, let us stay on the topic of gender and the legality of Islamic marriages. The word legality implies that some people sat down and wrote it into law. So one is talking about woman's rights to choose who she marries, specifically in regards to her having equal access to a man's rights.

You want the state to forbid Shariah law that is discriminatory. Right? You basically want to push the non-discriminatory aspects of Shariah law [and for that to happen you have to allow that such a position actually exists]. You can't be arguing that the act of interpretation itself be culled, (althought going by your tone... never mind) because that is undermining the freedom to speech.

It is the shariah law version 2.450* that is the problem... right so far?

random number*

I used secular marriage because Atheism is not a religion, there are no defined traditions or cultures attached to it. An Atheist marriage would merely be a secular marriage and I framed it as such because to continue to reference it as an Atheist marriage makes it sound like a specific act shared by Atheists.

As for Sharia, I don't have to allow or agree that such a positions exists in Sharia at all. I only have to expect the advancement and enforcement of certain criteria (namely our current laws against discrimination) on a universal basis and if a compatible position exists within Sharia it will show itself. If such a position is impossible, which I doubt due to the longstanding ability of believers to rationalize dogma, then it is impossible. Either way, secular laws should stand unmoved. If dialogue is to occur then let it occur within and amongst its adherents, but the non-adherents shouldn't care for anything other than the outcome. It's not their place to make you feel good about your personal beliefs.

You might see it as something that attacks Sharia but the logic underlying this is indifferent as to what ideology is used. From my perspective it doesn't single out any specific religion nor should it. If Islam and Christianity fell tomorrow and were replaced by something else, that something else should also be bound to the same expectations of conduct.

 

[Ashes]

1, I used secular marriage because Atheism is not a religion, there are no defined traditions or cultures attached to it. An Atheist marriage would merely be a secular marriage and I framed it as such because to continue to reference it as an Atheist marriage makes it sound like a specific act shared by Atheists.

2, As for Sharia, I don't have to allow or agree that such a positions exists in Sharia at all. I only have to expect the advancement and enforcement of certain criteria (namely our current laws against discrimination) on a universal basis and if a compatible position exists within Sharia it will show itself. If such a position is impossible, which I doubt due to the longstanding ability of believers to rationalize dogma, then it is impossible. Either way, secular laws should stand unmoved.

3, You might see it as something that attacks Sharia but the logic underlying this is indifferent as to what ideology is used. From my perspective it doesn't single out any specific religion nor should it. If Islam and Christianity fell tomorrow and were replaced by something else, that something else should also be bound to the same expectations of conduct.

1, I wasn't implying that atheism was a religion, however its strange that you don't seem to allow that athiests are united in their non-belief of god/non-position/irreligiousness, so regardless of whatever kind of atheist you are, all atheistic marriages [Athiests who marry] would be united in their act of non-worship.

2, I only said shariah for the purpose of the argument. and for there to be a counter-position, a counter-position must exist. the rest of the rhetoric is irrelevant.

3, attack the shariah or not is irrelevent, when taking a critical look, a better critical look examines the positions they are bunching up together.

If your position is that secular law should be above shariah/or muslim law, then what of places that do not have secular law? and anyway, this is such a long drawn out affair, I wonder whether I'm bothered to tackled it with you...

 

[Atrus]

1, I wasn't implying that atheism was a religion, however its strange that you don't seem to allow that athiests are united in their non-belief of god/non-position/irreligiousness, so regardless of whatever kind of atheist you are, all atheistic marriages [Athiests who marry] would be united in their act of non-worship.

2, I only said shariah for the purpose of the argument. and for there to be a counter-position, a counter-position must exist. the rest of the rhetoric is irrelevant.

3, attack the shariah or not is irrelevent, when taking a critical look, a better critical look examines the positions they are bunching up together.

If your position is that secular law should be above shariah/or muslim law, then what of places that do not have secular law? and anyway, this is such a long drawn out affair, I wonder whether I'm bothered to tackled it with you...

1. How would you differentiate between an Agnostic marriage and an Atheistic marriage? As I mentioned before, secular is the more appropriate term. Atheism is a qualifier for religious belief and as such doesn't have a uniquely different practice than a secular marriage.

2. Just because I push for a non-discriminatory position does not mean that I am validating such a position exists. These are two different points. While I suspect such a position can exist, it may very well not. This is for the religious zeitgeist to decide. I'm not going to rationalize for religious adherents because if I had to do that, my rationalization wouldn't involve the existence of that religion to begin with. I would also think that such rationalizations would appear to be more convincing if the believers came up with it themselves.

3. I'm not referencing areas without secular laws but my suggestion to those regions would be to move toward secular laws that provide far more equity and stability than whatever travesty they're currently employing.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Marriage is a construction, something created within communities with the function of guarding relationships in a specific manner.

In the Sha'riah the nikah (marriage contract) is the easy part and short part. The functioning of every aspect of the marriage itself is set out within the Sha'riah. In this sense, the rights of a woman upon her husband, and of a husband upon his wife, are elaborated upon.

In a state run according to the principles of the Sha'riah, specific minority communities live under their own laws. Their governance, according to the Sha'riah, resides with themselves. Thus all aspects of their family law, indeed the social laws of their community, are regulated by themselves.

In this context, a woman from the Muslim community could not expect to have the rights that she has within the Sha'riah, to be upheld by the minority community in question. Now I don't think I need to give you a history of, say, Christian family law, suffice to say, the laws of minority communities rarely even come close to extending the kind of rights guaranteed by the Sha'riah.

This brings us back to the issue at hand, and our initial definition of marriage. If the function of marriage is to guard relationships within the community, then, were a Muslim woman to marry outside of the community, her marriage would not have the same protections, and thus the marriage would not fulfil that function.

You can attempt to obfuscate all you want, reiterating bigotry! over and over again, but to do so is to ignore the function, form and purpose of marriage. The function of a marriage is to guard the participants of that marriage, to create a contractual barrier between the two parties and exploitation. If a woman marries outside the Islamic community, her rights are not guarded, and thus such a thing is not condoned.

It is as simple as that.

This isn't an insult or a dig at OS, honestly this is the highest praise I can give, I can't do anything but respect that argumentative skill.

Thanks.. I think.

Again I have to apologize for the somewhat scattered reply, instead of my phone, I am now on my wife's laptop, which, apparently has had half the keys stolen from it by my obliging cat. While not making typing impossible, it breaks my concentration and thus the flow of my replies.

Kinitari, what specifically would you define as the patriarchal attitude being addressed in relation to the Islamic laws of marriage? I think there is certainly a patriarchal system being addressed, but it is not the Islamic one, it is that of those to whom a Muslim woman may find herself married into.

In the Sha'riah, a woman is guaranteed, at very least, a dowry; a sum of money that is hers alone, to allow her to survive independently should the relationship collapse. This is not something guaranteed in other cultures, it is certainly not something specified in the laws of the ahlul qitab. Indeed others go so far as to specify that the wife, bizarrely, pays the husband!

If one looks at the attitude of the Nasiri (the Christians) up until the last century, Christian marriage law gave few of the rights that are ensured by the Sha'riah, if any. While a Christian or Jewish woman could be guaranteed the rights of the Sha'riah when married to a Muslim man, the reverse is not true for a Muslim woman marrying the other way. Indeed to do so would be suspending the rights that she had.

Of course this is confusing to people like Atrus, who operate on the assumption that the cultural values of the majority are the defining factor in the law of all within the state. This is not, however, the assumption of the Sha'riah.

I can accede to the fact that were Christians forced to follow Muslim family law, that a woman being unable to marry a Christian would be an issue. That is not, however the case, and this is something that Atrus ignores.

 

[OttomanScribe]

In relation to Atrus saying that were it that Muslims were not allowed to marry black people, then it would be bigotry, then I would agree. Except that is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is a marriage occurring across to vastly different legal systems.

When it comes to race and marriage, the Sha'riah is an aid to those who wish to marry someone from another culture.

The greatest ally to my wife and I, trying hard to make an intercultural marriage work, was my Sheikh. The same is true of multiple different intercultural marriages that I am familiar with.

 

[Ashes]

1. How would you differentiate between an Agnostic marriage and an Atheistic marriage? As I mentioned before, secular is the more appropriate term. Atheism is a qualifier for religious belief and as such doesn't have a uniquely different practice than a secular marriage.

2. Just because I push for a non-discriminatory position does not mean that I am validating such a position exists. These are two different points. While I suspect such a position can exist, it may very well not. This is for the religious zeitgeist to decide. I'm not going to rationalize for religious adherents because if I had to do that, my rationalization wouldn't involve the existence of that religion to begin with. I would also think that such rationalizations would appear to be more convincing if the believers came up with it themselves.

3. I'm not referencing areas without secular laws but my suggestion to those regions would be to move toward secular laws that provide far more equity and stability than whatever travesty they're currently employing.

I stated atheistic marriage to highlight a critical difference in comparison to *some* islamic marriages, i.e. the non-worshipping part.

It's a fundamental difference. But utilising the secular aspect, it negates the point of the argument. There is your observational aspect right there.

And I'm confused as to the second part. A Muslim woman can *legally* marry anyone they choose in most secular societies. Heck, can you think of a secular society they can't do this in?

They have had that right for a long long time. What they don't have [oh all right I'll be fair: *currently*] is Islamic schools of support behind them.

 

[Atrus]

In relation to Atrus saying that were it that Muslims were not allowed to marry black people, then it would be bigotry, then I would agree. Except that is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is a marriage occurring across to vastly different legal systems.

What is being discussed is the doctrinal discrimination on other grounds. That you agree discrimination on one ground is bigoted while discrimination on another logically equivalent ground is not, is a serious problem.

 

[Heshinsi]

Isn't the marriage thing in regards to why Muslim men can marry outside their faith and Muslim women couldn't, based a lot on the assumption back then that faith of the children was influenced and dictated by the father? I don't know if I'm right though, just something I've heard.

 

[Atrus]

And I'm confused as to the second part. A Muslim woman can *legally* marry anyone they choose in most secular societies. Heck, can you think of a secular society they can't do this in?

Yes they can thanks to secular laws, however it doesn't change that there is a drumbeat of discrimination from certain adherents or schools of belief. This is what needs to be curtailed. This isn't limited to marriage mind you but other discriminatory practices and the accommodations should exceed any particular belief of the religion.

If there can be gay Christians then I fully expect there to be gay Muslims, or to at least allow the participation of those identified as such, without being discriminated against.

 

[OttomanScribe]

What is being discussed is the doctrinal discrimination on other grounds. That you agree discrimination on one ground is bigoted while discrimination on another logically equivalent ground is not, is a serious problem.

I think the evident problem is with complexity. You seem unable to distinguish between discrimination (the negative differential treatment of individuals) and differences that equate for complexity in the law.

There being differences between the treatment of different groups does not automatically mean that discrimination is at work, indeed the law can treat different groups differently in order to effectively target injustices or differences that exist, in order to rectify them. Is giving food aid to a Kenyan refugee camp instead of a street of mansions in Beverly Hills 'discrimination'?

 

[Ashes]

Yes they can thanks to secular laws, however it doesn't change that there is a drumbeat of discrimination from certain adherents or schools of belief. This is what needs to be curtailed. This isn't limited to marriage mind you but other discriminatory practices and the accommodations should exceed any particular belief of the religion.

If there can be gay Christians then I fully expect there to be gay Muslims, or to at least allow the participation of those identified as such, without being discriminated against.

This is what gets me. I'm glad you were not as linguistically vicious as before, but the curtailing of opinion is done through discourse - a discourse I might add you appear not to be interested in, (all you are interested in is results, shall we say? ).

To take part in these debates, you must read the literature on it, no? knowledge benefits everyone.

In truth, I like posing questions [armchair philospher, what can I say? ] to everyone, instead of dealing out answers. Purely because I'm not smart enough nor trained in the field.

I can't be the lawyer, but I can for argument's sake put myself on the jury.

Marriage is a huge part in a Muslim woman's life. There was a clause added that takes the right away from a woman to marry whosoever she chooses. In light of what the defence says, I as jury have to think whether the case that has been made is strong enough to convince me that the addition of the clause has been justified. I'm not sure I'm convinced, especially in light of a man's god given right to do so.

It [ woman not allowed...] may not be in the Quran; the God of the Quran may not have said it directly; but it is also true that there is no school of thought that supports my view. All the big schools hold the same opinion.

Arguably, they were all male, and the society they grew up in, is different to the society I grew up in; so our references to what is good and right are different.

 

[Atrus]

I think the evident problem is with complexity. You seem unable to distinguish between discrimination (the negative differential treatment of individuals) and differences that equate for complexity in the law.

There being differences between the treatment of different groups does not automatically mean that discrimination is at work, indeed the law can treat different groups differently in order to effectively target injustices or differences that exist, in order to rectify them. Is giving food aid to a Kenyan refugee camp instead of a street of mansions in Beverly Hills 'discrimination'?

You're talking about discrimination based on preference while I talk about discrimination enshrined in religious dogma. Individuals may preference out of choice but no institution should ingrain fiat discrimination that impinges on the rights and identity of others.

Once again, the focus here is not on choice but on religious tenets.

Let's say I had a sports centre and had a rule that as a condition of employment, no staff member could marry a Hindu.

How long do you think that would last on a legal challenge? Your religious institution is no different.

Just recently a man in Canada went to court to claim that allotting tax credits to people who sent their children to religious training was discriminatory and that he should be allowed tax credits for sending his children to swim classes.

The court denied his appeal because the law did not allow for it, however it also opined, which courts do not have to, on the fact that the separation of secular and religious benefits was a violation of the charter of rights. There should have been no advantage given to a religious activity over a secular activity since doing so creates inequality.

There are many more similar types of reasoning in the courts, and I'm sure similar cases can be found to varying degrees in other jurisdictions because it rests on the logic underpinning it. Religious institutions should be treated no differently than a secular institution enforcing the same.

 

[OttomanScribe]

You're talking about discrimination based on preference while I talk about discrimination enshrined in religious dogma. Individuals may preference out of choice but no institution should ingrain fiat discrimination that impinges on the rights and identity of others.

Once again, the focus here is not on choice but on religious tenets.

Let's say I had a sports centre and had a rule that as a condition of employment, no staff member could marry a Hindu.

How long do you think that would last on a legal challenge? Your religious institution is no different.

Just recently a man in Canada went to court to claim that allotting tax credits to people who sent their children to religious training was discriminatory and that he should be allowed tax credits for sending his children to swim classes.

The court denied his appeal because the law did not allow for it, however it also opined, which courts do not have to, on the fact that the separation of secular and religious benefits was a violation of the charter of rights. There should have been no advantage given to a religious activity over a secular activity since doing so creates inequality.

There are many more similar types of reasoning in the courts, and I'm sure similar cases can be found to varying degrees in other jurisdictions because it rests on the logic underpinning it. Religious institutions should be treated no differently than a secular institution enforcing the same.

I'm trying hard to see where this relates to my core point.

Not seeing it.

A few points: marrying a non-Muslim does not take one out of the 'Sport's Club' of Islam.

You assume that discrimination on religious grounds is automatically banned in secular states. I can't speak to other states specifically, but the fact that only some Australian states have such laws shows me that this is clearly not the case. So you talking about 'reasoning in the courts' comes off as rather peculiar, which courts specifically? Indeed what is the relevancy anyway?

I am not talking about the ruling in the context of a secular state, I am talking about the Sha'riah in its entirety. Marriage is managed in a different way within a secular system.

 

[Atrus]

I'm trying hard to see where this relates to my core point.

Not seeing it.

A few points: marrying a non-Muslim does not take one out of the 'Sport's Club' of Islam.

You assume that discrimination on religious grounds is automatically banned in secular states. I can't speak to other states specifically, but the fact that only some Australian states have such laws shows me that this is clearly not the case. So you talking about 'reasoning in the courts' comes off as rather peculiar, which courts specifically? Indeed what is the relevancy anyway?

I am not talking about the ruling in the context of a secular state, I am talking about the Sha'riah in its entirety. Marriage is managed in a different way within a secular system.

I didn't say discrimination on religious grounds is banned but that the legal jurisprudence does not support it and that the only reason it continues to exist is the lack of political will, one that is slowly building. As I've mentioned before here or in another thread, the province of Ontario is now pushing forward to create GBLT clubs in all schools, including Catholic ones. The capacity for religious special pleading is shrinking in the face of secular laws.

I also don't care about Sharia or its system, this is not a discussion about superstition. It is irrelevant to any secular society what your religion thinks or perceives only what it does. This is about the standards of discrimination and what such beliefs are qualified as.

I am pointing out that the prohibition on marriage placed upon women under certain interpretations that say they should not marry non-Muslims is bigoted.

You have been completely avoiding the issue, the only time you address the doctrinal link was a few posts back when you tried to justify Islam dictating this bigotry as a measure of protecting women's rights which is nonsense.

This is your defense? You believe in being bigoted because you're paternalistically protecting women? The facts don't support your position and this makes such prejudices intolerable.

Even if it were true, the circumstances of when this edict was created (which could never equal the modern secular standard) could never hold true to the current world circumstances, and nothing in all of Islam is comparable to the many charters, bill of right or even funded programs that are in place that would make Islamic jurisprudence a greater protector of women's rights.

You could have taken the more open interpretation of saying that no prohibition exists, you could have easily turned a blind-eye in allowing for less discrimination and prejudice, but you didn't and this, this act, is what qualifies the people of such beliefs as bigoted. You sought this position out and so must live with what this qualifies you as.

Mormons who campaigned against gay marriage? Bigots. Christians who love the sinner but hate the sin? Bigots. People who believe Muslim women are prohibited from marrying non-muslims? Bigots.

If you dislike this term, stop your prejudiced practices. It is that simple.

You also never did answer my question. Since my mother married a Christian, is she a devout Muslim? After all, I find it only fitting that the party who brought this qualification up be made to explain himself.

 

[Ashes]

People who believe Muslim women are prohibited from marrying non-muslims? Bigots.

If you dislike this term, stop your prejudiced practices. It is that simple.

You also never did answer my question. Since my mother married a Christian, is she a devout Muslim? After all, I find it only fitting that the party who brought this qualification up be made to explain himself.

You call him a bigot; he calls you a bigot..

 

[cooljeanius]

Edit: nvm, conversation has moved on.

 

[Atrus]

You call him a bigot; he calls you a bigot..

Sounds like the Bill Donahue position.

This is not a case of equal but different. This is a case of socially inhibiting discrimination versus not. Being intolerant of intolerance does not make you intolerant, but being tolerant of intolerance does.

 

[Ashes]

Sounds like the Bill Donahue position.

This is not a case of equal but different. This is a case of socially inhibiting discrimination versus not. Being intolerant of intolerance does not make you intolerant, but being tolerant of intolerance does.

This is absurd with regards to freedom of speech. And then of course you said something about opinion and practise.

 

[Atrus]

This is absurd with regards to freedom of speech. And then of course you said something about opinion and practise.

I was not referencing free speech nor was anyone discussing it. You just re-framed it as such and so I'm wondering how I address a point that I didn't make.

As I mentioned before, this is not an issue of personal choice it is an issue of established religious proscriptions.

 

[Ashes]

I was not referencing free speech nor was anyone discussing it. You just re-framed it as such and so I'm wondering how I address a point that I didn't make.

As I mentioned before, this is not an issue of personal choice it is an issue of established religious proscriptions.

Can you not see where your argument fails as per the scale of tolerance of intolerance, intolerance of intolerance etc...?

 

[Atrus]

Can you not see where your argument fails as per the scale of tolerance of intolerance, intolerance of intolerance etc...?

You introduced a subject with a large scope that I didn't even bring up. Freedom of speech is not absolute and protected speech does not include incitement or commands that precipitate discrimination.

 

[Ashes]

You introduced a subject with a large scope that I didn't even bring up. Freedom of speech is not absolute and protected speech does not include incitement or commands that precipitate discrimination.

I brought it up to show you where it fails; so that you see that your claimed intolerance of intolerance angle is partial to failure. It ought not to be a rule; or one that is fully justified, but that is for you to decide.

What happens to nuns orders in your new world order by the way? A school of thought that says you cannot marry anybody at all!

So that school in your perfect world would be abolished?

 

[Atrus]

I brought it up to show you where it fails; so that you see that your claimed intolerance of intolerance angle is partial to failure. It ought not to be a rule; or one that is fully justified, but that is for you to decide.

What happens to nuns orders in your new world order by the way? A school of thought that says you cannot marry anybody at all!

So that school in your perfect world would be abolished?

You didn't demonstrate such. Hate speech laws still prohibit people from propagating prejudice, with a major exception being that of the United States which has the broadest scope of I think all countries.

Under the Canadian standard, fostering and accommodating hate speech makes one legally liable barring exceptions like opinion which is why I wasn't discussing opinion.

As for the discrimination in your example, I believe you are missing the adverse discrimination aspect of discrimination laws. Nobody is being adversely discriminated against in that case.

Is it all really so dense a concept you cannot really understand?

If the government of Malaysia finds out my parents are married, they annul the marriage even after 3 decades. This is why my father's name on my birth certificate isn't his real name and why my IC card specifically states Islam as the official religion.

My father goes to jail for fraud, being the only way to marry my mother legitimately, and I have a hefty court appearance to convince the authorities that my apostasy is legitimate.

Why? All because of the prejudices of religious sycophants and their discriminatory beliefs. No, such practices have no place to exist.

 

[Ashes]

1You didn't demonstrate such. Hate speech laws still prohibit people from propagating prejudice, with a major exception being that of the United States which has the broadest scope of I think all countries.

Under the Canadian standard, fostering and accommodating hate speech makes one legally liable barring exceptions like opinion which is why I wasn't discussing opinion.

2. As for the discrimination in your example, I believe you are missing the adverse discrimination aspect of discrimination laws. Nobody is being adversely discriminated against in that case.

3, Is it all really so dense a concept you cannot really understand?

If the government of Malaysia finds out my parents are married, they annul the marriage even after 3 decades. This is why my father's name on my birth certificate isn't his real name and why my IC card specifically states Islam as the official religion.

My father goes to jail for fraud, being the only way to marry my mother legitimately, and I have a hefty court appearance to convince the authorities that my apostasy is legitimate.

Why? All because of the prejudices of religious sycophants and their discriminatory beliefs. No, such practices have no place to exist.

1. My views on free speech are different to others. It's on a case by case basis. I don't really want to get into that whole mess.. I'm tired.

2. I suppose no harm is done to persons other than nuns. But now it seems your case is against those that are affected by discrimination. Which doesn't really work in secular societies...

3. Is the Malaysian state even a secular state? bureaucracy is a bitch huh? shame that... Disestablishmentarianism and all that. Which actually falls under this debate of toleration. Its late, so my memory may be failing me, but Milton's argument was that wasn't it? the broadest scope for toleration happens or only occurs under disestablishmentarianism.

But as it stands you are just setting your self up to be another benevolent dictator. You'd just allow people that you agree with. And justify it by promotion of this right or that right.

When you force a school of thought to change, you deny a person's right to belong to that school of thought. And whilst there may not be a debate in your own head, there is certainly debate in the mind of the individual.

You take away their ability to think for themselves through your practises.

edit: I ought to add, that a religion isn't a gym membership card, it's an ideological school of thought that shapes how one lives life. And it's a very important human right.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Attempted Firebombing of Muslim Centre in New York

Woow!!! That's scary shit...

 

[VonRehausen]

Is anyone here familiar with the works of Theodore Dalrymple? If so what is your opinion of his views on the subject of Islam?

 

[Cryptic Psychedelic]

I really don't know where I am spiritually anymore. I was pretty much faithless for a longtime until I met my fiancee.

She got me back into Islam. I read everything I could and went to as many seminars and meetings as I could.. Sociological perspectives, Political perspectives etc... I just devoured information like mad. Helped alot when it came to debates, allowing for a conversation to go beyond verse throwing. Having regained my faith, my religious family actually grew closer to me. But the "germs" in me from my faithless period remained in the form of my opinions and ideas.

My fiancee is a hijabi. Not one of those hijabis that wear it because it's fashionable to do so in the community but because she truly believes in it. The first thing she said to me when we began our relationship was that God comes first, then her mum and me last. At the time I felt alright with it, don't expect to be number 1 everywhere.

Throughout our relationship, my ideas and opinions always remained controversial. She worried that any kids we'd have would grow up faithless if I had my way and would end up doing the same things I did. I was involved in hard drugs during my late teens and was the personification of the angry internet atheist. I trolled like mad and grew extremely notorious for it in my hometown. Ended up couch-surfing for a couple months because my family wanted nothing to do with me.

She fell in love with me during my periods of sobriety and helped me clean-up. Stuck with me through the depression afterwards and made sure that I came out of it as healthy as I could.

Fast-forward a couple years and the "lazy" attitude I have towards our faith has ruined our relationship and we're taking a break from each other, to think about what we want from life.

I am not the most public of Muslims. I prefer to pray privately and I like to study my faith in seclusion as well. I don't go about making a big show of my faith. People in our local community have interpreted that as a "lack of faith" and you can imagine the gossip that's has spawned from it. The things people say are so virulent that my fiancee's faith in me has been shaken.

My faith itself is nearly gone. I feel this emptiness inside me and I really don't know how to fix it. I don't like being without faith but I can't force myself to believe in something that I have started to vehemently oppose. I cannot stand the sight of a hijab, a congregation or the mosque anymore. I've alienated nearly all my Muslim friends and most of my family refuses to talk to me anymore.

I really don't know what to do anymore. I've started up on the drugs again and I've added alcohol to the mix. Sobriety is far and apart now and I think I've committed every major sin there is. 99% of the time, I end up regaining consciousness in someone else's house.

I think I've screwed up really badly.

 

[Pollux]

I really don't know where I am spiritually anymore. I was pretty much faithless for a longtime until I met my fiancee.

She got me back into Islam. I read everything I could and went to as many seminars and meetings as I could.. Sociological perspectives, Political perspectives etc... I just devoured information like mad. Helped alot when it came to debates, allowing for a conversation to go beyond verse throwing. Having regained my faith, my religious family actually grew closer to me. But the "germs" in me from my faithless period remained in the form of my opinions and ideas.

My fiancee is a hijabi. Not one of those hijabis that wear it because it's fashionable to do so in the community but because she truly believes in it. The first thing she said to me when we began our relationship was that God comes first, then her mum and me last. At the time I felt alright with it, don't expect to be number 1 everywhere.

Throughout our relationship, my ideas and opinions always remained controversial. She worried that any kids we'd have would grow up faithless if I had my way and would end up doing the same things I did. I was involved in hard drugs during my late teens and was the personification of the angry internet atheist. I trolled like mad and grew extremely notorious for it in my hometown. Ended up couch-surfing for a couple months because my family wanted nothing to do with me.

She fell in love with me during my periods of sobriety and helped me clean-up. Stuck with me through the depression afterwards and made sure that I came out of it as healthy as I could.

Fast-forward a couple years and the "lazy" attitude I have towards our faith has ruined our relationship and we're taking a break from each other, to think about what we want from life.

I am not the most public of Muslims. I prefer to pray privately and I like to study my faith in seclusion as well. I don't go about making a big show of my faith. People in our local community have interpreted that as a "lack of faith" and you can imagine the gossip that's has spawned from it. The things people say are so virulent that my fiancee's faith in me has been shaken.

My faith itself is nearly gone. I feel this emptiness inside me and I really don't know how to fix it. I don't like being without faith but I can't force myself to believe in something that I have started to vehemently oppose. I cannot stand the sight of a hijab, a congregation or the mosque anymore. I've alienated nearly all my Muslim friends and most of my family refuses to talk to me anymore.

I really don't know what to do anymore. I've started up on the drugs again and I've added alcohol to the mix. Sobriety is far and apart now and I think I've committed every major sin there is. 99% of the time, I end up regaining consciousness in someone else's house.

I think I've screwed up really badly.

Not a Muslim, as pretty much everyone here will tell you, but the first and foremost thing to remember is that the people who are shouting their faith on the street corner are not the ones that matter. Faith is private.

Second, keep your head on straight and don't fall off the wagon completely. Get yourself to a 12 step program, they work, my father was in a really bad spot for the majority of my life (20 years or so) and now he's a few years sober.

Don't worry about other people, get your self taken care of before anything else.

Talking to people on GAF in both the Islam and Christian threads helped me get my head around where I was with my faith, hopefully they can do some of the same things for you.

I hope everything get's better. Call your fiancé, tell her how you feel, tell her you want to be with her, tell her that she can raise your children as religiously as she wants (if you are OK with that) etc. Just talk to her, and ask her to help you through this. Tell her not to listen to the empty people shouting their faith at the top of their lungs, she should know you...tell her you love her.

Good luck. I know this probably wasn't that good of a post, but just wanted to give you some emotional support. I'll keep you in my prayers.

God bless.

 

[crazy monkey]

I really don't know where I am spiritually anymore. I was pretty much faithless for a longtime until I met my fiancee.

I think I've screwed up really badly.

Brother first and foremost the religion is a private matter. Do not think about what others are thinking. Second your relationship with the god is the closest thing you have. Take a break. Your finance did a lot for you. Drugs , alcohol they do not get you anywhere. Get of the internet. I have never been hard core mulla type. I always have been kind of friend with god relationship. Do not go astray. You do not become muslim by just showing you are praying or wearing different clothes. People here will give you better suggestions I am not that good with it but all i can say is that it is always easy to become bad or careless. Focus on you self and your love towards allah and fiance. Focus on career do not waste time in useless things like arguing and drugs. They will take you away from peacefulness.

 

[Pollux]

Thought this might be interesting to discuss...an interesting article about the role that Qatar has created for itself in the complex "game" of Middle East politics. I figure the people in the Islamic Thread will have a better grasp of Middle Eastern politics than any other group on GAF.

Really interesting how Qatar has seized some level of "moral authority" in the region by backing Libyan and Egyptian protestors and threatening to do the same in Syria and pull economic support for Syria if the Syrian government doesn't give in to the demands of the people.

The article is specifically about how Qatar is hosting talks between the Taliban and the United States.

Qatar, as diplomats say, likes to "punch above its weight." This arid peninsula in the Persian Gulf is smaller than Connecticut but played a leading role in helping Libyan rebels oust Moammar Gadhafi and has been at the heart of Arab League sanctions against Syria. It's now facilitating talks on the Afghan conflict by allowing the Taliban to open a liaison office in its capital, Doha.

LINK HERE

 

[F#A#Oo]

I just found the Make Me a Muslim series on youtube...thought I'd share it with you all...


Make me a Muslim Episode 1

Make me a Muslim Episode 2

Make me a Muslim Episode 3

 

[XtremeRampage]

Thought this might be interesting to discuss...an interesting article about the role that Qatar has created for itself in the complex "game" of Middle East politics. I figure the people in the Islamic Thread will have a better grasp of Middle Eastern politics than any other group on GAF.

Really interesting how Qatar has seized some level of "moral authority" in the region by backing Libyan and Egyptian protestors and threatening to do the same in Syria and pull economic support for Syria if the Syrian government doesn't give in to the demands of the people.

The article is specifically about how Qatar is hosting talks between the Taliban and the United States.



LINK HERE

Politically speaking, I think it has something to do with the rise of Islamic movements coupled with the decline of Arab nationalist (Ba'athist) movement. Arab nationalist (Ba'athist) movement used to be very popular in 1960's with the use anti-colonialist and anti-western slogan, however the nationalist (Ba'athist) gradually became corrupt dictatorship and in some cases turned away from the anti-colonialist slogan then converted into close western ally which they previously despise. Inevitably, these resulted fracturing among Arab countries with nationalist flavour: Egypt had brief war with Libya on mid 1970's, Syria (which were still close to USSR) viewed Egypt with suspicion after peace agreement with Israel, Iran was assisted by Syria on the war against Iraq in the 1980's while other Arab countries helped Iraq, then of course there's also civil war in Yemen and Algeria, and ultimately the issue of Palestine. It's not rare for Arab nationalist (Ba'athist) leaders to use popular issue like Palestine as a rally and tool of oppression while they themselves couldn't care less about Palestine (anyone remember Mubarak government calling the Egyptian protesters being incited by Israeli/Zionist agents?)

On economic sector, there are also decline on Arab countries with nationalist flavour (mass unemployment, poverty, etc) while at the same time there are major improvement of economic condition on the Gulf countries boosted mainly by petrodollar revenue. Qatar and UAE were relatively unknown in the 1980's and even 1990's, now they're two of the richest countries in the world. With a small population compared to other Arab countries (I believe Qatar has population of around 1 million and UAE around 5 millions), it's not surprising they spent the money to expand their influence including on the politics of Middle East.

Then there's also spread of information. Whereas previously collecting news were difficult and people had to rely on government. The emergence of alternative news channel such as Qatar-based Al-Jazeera and new medium of information like internet certainly cannot be ignored. I believe news media like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya helped raise the political awareness of people in the Arab countries which culminated with the Arab Spring.

Qatar also host FIFA World Cup 2022.