Arab / Islamic Culture

[Hugh B]

I recognize that Arab and Islamic are not the same thing however, Islam was born in the cradle of Arab lands.

One of the problems we face in the middle east is we are trying to westernize (bring democracy) to a culture in which rational thinking is for the most part absent and in fact rejected as invalid philosophically. Islam and Arab philosophy is not in the least like our western idea of reasoning.

Here are a few items I have noted after reading a number of books on Islam, Arab history and the middle east. Westerners need to stop dealing with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan as if the think like westerners.

Arab culture


• While objectivity is given considerable emphasis in Western culture, the opposite is true in Arab culture.

• Westerners are taught that objectivity, the examination of facts in a logical way without the intrusion of emotional bias, is the mature and constructive approach to human affairs. Arabs place a higher value on the display of emotion.

• Arabs look at the world in a subjective way, particularly if a more objective assessment of a situation would bring to mind a too painful truth. Personal, family and national honor are more important than facts.

• Arabs are likely to allow subjective perceptions to direct their actions.

• Arab newspapers are full of emotion and contain little objective reporting.

• The Western approach of getting directly to the point in a discussion is highly offensive to the Arab mind. Even a direct answer of “Yes” or “No” is considered very impolite.

• In Arab culture, people are more important than rules. T. E. Lawrence stated, “Arabs believe in persons, not in institutions.” Arab officials often make exceptions in laws, rules and regulations based upon personal affiliations and friendships. Often employment qualifications are not the basis for obtaining a position.

• Arabs respond much more readily to personalized arguments than to attempt to impose “logical” conclusions.

• Religious affiliation is essential for every person in Arab society, there is no place for an atheist or an agnostic.

There is no difference between religion and politics/government in Islam. Both are the same. Islam is all pervasive ruling every aspect of one's life. There is no such thing as separation of church and state nor separation of Islam and any aspect of life, business, government, military action, ecomomics, ect...

[glennac]

I recognize that Arab and Islamic are not the same thing however, Islam was born in the cradle of Arab lands.

One of the problems we face in the middle east is we are trying to westernize (bring democracy) to a culture in which rational thinking is for the most part absent and in fact rejected as invalid philosophically. Islam and Arab philosophy is not in the least like our western idea of reasoning.

Here are a few items I have noted after reading a number of books on Islam, Arab history and the middle east. Westerners need to stop dealing with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan as if the think like westerners.

Arab culture

• While objectivity is given considerable emphasis in Western culture, the opposite is true in Arab culture.

• Westerners are taught that objectivity, the examination of facts in a logical way without the intrusion of emotional bias, is the mature and constructive approach to human affairs. Arabs place a higher value on the display of emotion.

• Arabs look at the world in a subjective way, particularly if a more objective assessment of a situation would bring to mind a too painful truth. Personal, family and national honor are more important than facts.

• Arabs are likely to allow subjective perceptions to direct their actions.

• Arab newspapers are full of emotion and contain little objective reporting.

• The Western approach of getting directly to the point in a discussion is highly offensive to the Arab mind. Even a direct answer of “Yes” or “No” is considered very impolite.

• In Arab culture, people are more important than rules. T. E. Lawrence stated, “Arabs believe in persons, not in institutions.” Arab officials often make exceptions in laws, rules and regulations based upon personal affiliations and friendships. Often employment qualifications are not the basis for obtaining a position.

• Arabs respond much more readily to personalized arguments than to attempt to impose “logical” conclusions.

• Religious affiliation is essential for every person in Arab society, there is no place for an atheist or an agnostic.

There is no difference between religion and politics/government in Islam. Both are the same. Islam is all pervasive ruling every aspect of one's life. There is no such thing as separation of church and state nor separation of Islam and any aspect of life, business, government, military action, ecomomics, ect...


I guess we should just nuke them all and don't worry about distinguishing the so called "good" ones from the bad ones then. Not very PC or what about "public opinion":eek2:. That has kept us from wining all the wars since WWII. Thank you, thank you very much.

[crackertech]

I guess we should just nuke them all and don't worry about distinguishing the so called "good" ones from the bad ones then. Not very PC or what about "public opinion":eek2:. That has kept us from wining all the wars since WWII. Thank you, thank you very much.

:ditto:

[scrogdog]

I guess we should just nuke them all and don't worry about distinguishing the so called "good" ones from the bad ones then. Not very PC or what about "public opinion":eek2:. That has kept us from wining all the wars since WWII. Thank you, thank you very much.

Wow Glenn, We actually agree on something.

The horrors of war is what makes it a thing to be avoided. It is what makes it a last resort.

The more we pussify it, the more we are able to get in to it. Consider that peace-niks.

For example, and I'll get crucified for this; the protection of civilians in a war zone is somewhat misguided. True, we should not indiscriminately mow them down, but to suggest that the killing of civilians is wrong simply because they were in the way is ludicrous on multiple levels.

Number one being: if you don't want to be in the way, get out of the way. Surrender or negotiate.

Number two: civilians make the materials for war. What is the goal of war? To take away the other side's ability to make it.

It is exactly BECAUSE the the killing of civilians is abhorrent that it should not be illegal. IT IS A CONSEQUENCE OF WAR. So, if you don't like that consequence, then don't get in one. Do everything you can... scramble, tap dance, negotiate, bribe.

But once you are in one, you'd better be prepared for the consequnces of being in a war.

[Tool-Slinger]

"total war" that is a term I associate with the US civil and WW2, from reading stuff.

A diversionary term?

[glennac]

Wow Glenn, We actually agree on something.

The horrors of war is what makes it a thing to be avoided. It is what makes it a last resort.

The more we pussify it, the more we are able to get in to it. Consider that peace-niks.

For example, and I'll get crucified for this; the protection of civilians in a war zone is somewhat misguided. True, we should not indiscriminately mow them down, but to suggest that the killing of civilians is wrong simply because they were in the way is ludicrous on multiple levels.

Number one being: if you don't want to be in the way, get out of the way. Surrender or negotiate.

Number two: civilians make the materials for war. What is the goal of war? To take away the other side's ability to make it.

It is exactly BECAUSE the the killing of civilians is abhorrent that it should not be illegal. IT IS A CONSEQUENCE OF WAR. So, if you don't like that consequence, then don't get in one. Do everything you can... scramble, tap dance, negotiate, bribe.

But once you are in one, you'd better be prepared for the consequnces of being in a war.

I'll shake your hand on that one. Totally agree. Left Nam pissed because they wouldn't let us win like really bomb the North, 90% of the bombs were dropped in the South. Cut across Laos link up with Thailand, blockade NV and Cambodia and then the SF and ARVNS could have mopped up the remaining starving NVA and VC. Thank you, thank you very much.

[royc]

I guess we should just nuke them all and don't worry about distinguishing the so called "good" ones from the bad ones then. Not very PC or what about "public opinion":eek2:. That has kept us from wining all the wars since WWII. Thank you, thank you very much.





"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

[glennac]

"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."



Roy, you are quoting Oppenheimer after the first test of the Atomic Bomb. He was latter denied a security clearance because of his pro communist views. He was all for the bomb until Germany was defeated and like most communists he wanted to kill German civilians and destroy Germany (so did Morgenthal and a few others in FDR's Administration as evidenced at the close of the war and during the initial occupation). When Germany lost then he was totally opposed to using the bomb on Japan and for further development of the bomb and the H bomb even with the Soviets threatening to conquer the world.

Now I think the bombing of German population centers per sey and not military targets like factories was morally wrong. My post was an over simplification of my views.

In Nam we weren't even allowed to take out a Sam Missile site if it was next to a school, hospital or dam. This was absurd and extremely PC in an overt obsession with "public opinion". I think the only reason was to appease the leftest press, Democrats and by some a settle desire not to win a war against a communist enemy.

The war against radical Islam is even far more PC than our war in Nam. We are not allowed remove civilians from combat zones in Afghan and declare free fire zones and not allowed to recon by fire in such areas. We are not allowed to executed enemy combatants not in uniform and committing war crimes.

Perhaps this is OK with you but not me. Now I would not give foreign aid to Israel or any other country who uses that aid to deny basic rights to it's inhabitants. I am sure that is the reason we are in a war against militant Islam and partly responsible for energizing it. I'm against foreign aid in general.

I don't know why you are jumping on me because I have never condoned massive bombing of population centers in Germany especially the fire bombing of Dresden at the close of the war with no military value and meant to destroy a center of art culture with some of the most beautiful buildings in the world and the death of over 100,000 civilian refuges fleeing the advance of the murdering and raping red army.

I think I have expressed these feelings in the past but apparently you choose to forget that and because of your personal tragedy during and after the war use this to hammer me for wanting to win a war against a threat as big as communism and just as murderous and cruel as the commies were and are. I think you owe me an apology. Thank you very much.

[printer2]

It is not a question of PC getting in the way. It is a question of winning the peace, not the war. Remember Bush and his premature 'We won.' By all accounts the war was pretty successfully waged. So why are you still in Iraq years later?

Could it be because not everybody was on the same page in terms of accepting defeat? What if 10% of the population decides that it is not going to comply with your wishes? What if they decide to wage a gorilla war and do not care if innocents get harmed. After all civilians getting killed is just a normal part of war, isn't it? The big problem with accidentally, or worse yet, knowingly causing civilians to be killed when going after a target causes the civilians to look at you as the enemy. This in turn is used as a recruiting tool for the bad guys.

So why not get the civilians out of the way first and then go after the bad guys? You could just advertise in the paper you are going to go after Bad Guy A and that anyone within harms distance should get out of the way.

More than likely the Bad Guy A might be bright enough to skip town for a while while you pound the neighborhood. Mind you the good citizens that take their leave when you warned them get a little po'd when you blast the hell out of all they worked for over the years. They may accept it for a while but as things drag on for years it gets annoying.

And then when you do get everyone out of the way, where are they going to go? Where are they going to sleep, what are they going to eat, do they have water or proper sanitation while you go blasting away?

Pakistan tried to be responsible and clear out the general population before they went up against the Taliban. They found out there is more to it than saying everyone get out of the way.

Or as it was suggested you might just lay waste to everything that moves and let Allah sort things out latter. Mind you that would probably galvanize the rest of the Muslims in the world to take up arms against you as it would be seen as you trying to exterminate Islam.

The 'Lay waste to everything till we win.' strategy would work as long as you want to start WWIII, or finish where the Crusades left off.

[printer2]

We are not allowed to executed enemy combatants not in uniform and committing war crimes.

I wonder why not.

[scrogdog]

The 'Lay waste to everything till we win.' strategy would work as long as you want to start WWIII, or finish where the Crusades left off.

All well and good except that has nothing to do with what I said.

Simply, if you bomb a military target and civilians become collateral damage, too bad.

That in no way implies that Dresden is a proper strategy to win. It's not. In fact, it is counter-productive.

[printer2]

All well and good except that has nothing to do with what I said.

Simply, if you bomb a military target and civilians become collateral damage, too bad.

That in no way implies that Dresden is a proper strategy to win. It's not. In fact, it is counter-productive.

Not really directed to your post, just bringing up things that make life more complex.

[freddy-b]

The rich ARAB/OPEC so called allies are the root of the problem. They should be first on the target list IMO.

[printer2]

The rich ARAB/OPEC so called allies are the root of the problem. They should be first on the target list IMO.

Too much money to be made to go after the real source of the trouble. And if you did go after the Saudi's, who just happen to be sitting on holy land how long do you think before all of Islam rises up?

[Tool-Slinger]

I recognize that Arab and Islamic are not the same thing however, Islam was born in the cradle of Arab lands.

One of the problems we face in the middle east is we are trying to westernize (bring democracy) to a culture in which rational thinking is for the most part absent and in fact rejected as invalid philosophically. Islam and Arab philosophy is not in the least like our western idea of reasoning.

Here are a few items I have noted after reading a number of books on Islam, Arab history and the middle east. Westerners need to stop dealing with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan as if the think like westerners.

Arab culture


• While objectivity is given considerable emphasis in Western culture, the opposite is true in Arab culture.

• Westerners are taught that objectivity, the examination of facts in a logical way without the intrusion of emotional bias, is the mature and constructive approach to human affairs. Arabs place a higher value on the display of emotion.

• Arabs look at the world in a subjective way, particularly if a more objective assessment of a situation would bring to mind a too painful truth. Personal, family and national honor are more important than facts.

• Arabs are likely to allow subjective perceptions to direct their actions.

• Arab newspapers are full of emotion and contain little objective reporting.

• The Western approach of getting directly to the point in a discussion is highly offensive to the Arab mind. Even a direct answer of “Yes” or “No” is considered very impolite.

• In Arab culture, people are more important than rules. T. E. Lawrence stated, “Arabs believe in persons, not in institutions.” Arab officials often make exceptions in laws, rules and regulations based upon personal affiliations and friendships. Often employment qualifications are not the basis for obtaining a position.

• Arabs respond much more readily to personalized arguments than to attempt to impose “logical” conclusions.

• Religious affiliation is essential for every person in Arab society, there is no place for an atheist or an agnostic.

There is no difference between religion and politics/government in Islam. Both are the same. Islam is all pervasive ruling every aspect of one's life. There is no such thing as separation of church and state nor separation of Islam and any aspect of life, business, government, military action, ecomomics, ect...
I have been thinking about this for some time, off and on, thought provoking post and congratulations for that. Basically, I have decided that I do not agree on the arab point. I dispute that the problem with muslims is particularly arabic in nature. The "middle east" is pretty fair game for dispute as to what that may include, but arabs are not so much so. For starters, iranians are not arabic, they be persians. Turks are not arabs. Phillipino muslims are dirt-bags, but not arabic ones. Western europe, africa,.... not arabs but muslims with the same exact problems you seem to be trying to get a handle on.

I do not see the particular problem with arabs. Yes arab culture is in itself a problem concerning some integration with modern civilization, but not even a drop in the bucket as far as problems with islam is concerned. Tribal, medieval, retarded inbred throwbacks if one wants a good stereotype. But so are all muslims, why single-out arabs? I think this is very unfair, and myopic.

Arab culture, strange as it is, has some very good points. Arabs can be very hospitable and uncommonly generous. Primitive in many ways, but some of the 'modern' ways are not so admirable.

They have good family values, when not commanded by allah to whack a female family member for exposing a naked ankle in public or whatever, but that is a muslim thing and not an arab thing so much. Arabs have a unique culture, strange but so might I think of any other than my own, and they deserve the right to live with the cultural values they choose. Picking on arabic culture, in my opinion, is not helpful and perhaps a harmful distraction.