"I would refute this concept of 'you cannot understand us or know us unless you are one of us', it is a concept muted by many regilions and organisations to differentiate themselves and IMHO as a sign of their own insecurities. To accept this point of view is defeatist and only serves to promote stereotypical antagonism. If you beleive the concept then it must go both ways, and logic would then dictate that any form of dilogue or negotiation would be a pointless execise."


You're right, sorry for the preambule , this is because it is a sensible point. It is always difficult for a real "democrat" (or at least a sincere person trying to be the most logical, objective and neutral) to treat a specific community, whether religious or ethnic by what could seem xenophobia or worse, discrimination.

"As a starting point, nealshim where do you reside?"

I'm northafrican. My point of view is NOT influenced by that : I understand french, english, arabic, some german and tamazight (berber) . As a francophone, I can assure you there is already a huge gap between two western neighbouring european countries like france and UK. But when it comes to arabic (classical and dialectal northafrican + egyptian + lebanese) , there is a whole universe between what is said and tought here, and what is understood and (mis)interpreted there (positivly or negativly). This is not a liguistic barrier, but a fundamental cultural "filter". I'm not telling that to support the binary, blind, unobjective, anticonstructive and inhuman "with us or against us" thing -believe it or not, many arabs think the same way, but here, it is not scandalous...- but only to raise the problem(s), to have at least a chance to "build" an acceptable solution. It is human cohabitation, and if there is not a popular consensus/understanding - not diplomatic, politician or even mass-mediatic "miraculous" consensus "treaties" and handshaking- there is no chance to achieve anything good.

"If I knew where hailed from I could possibly put your diatribe into some form of context. We are all products of our upbringing and environment, but as human beings we have the capacity, if we choose to use it, to look beyond this and grow as a result. Hopefully something that may be achiving in some a tiny way through this topic."

Ok, my "diatribes" where emotionnal , I recognize it, so i'll try to explain :

-Human kind is a sociable species. This is genetical. it can be proved biogically and psycologically by many ways.
-So we're OBLIGED to live in group. this group can take diverse forms, depending on the criteria choosen to study it. ("society", a very recent concept, is one of the most intelligent forms of human groups...)
-The human groups that have suceeded (fuzzy and dangerous criteria, but let's stay objective and say that succeed=to have the ABILITY to INVENT solutions to an OBJECTIVE REAL -not only a perceived- problem. This is general, but is still neutral, because if we follow a religious group's definition we will end to billions of subjective, generally dangerous or ambiguous definitions), so the human groups that have suceeded are characterized by the existence of a social ORDER.
-please note : order should not be confused with AUTHORITY. Why that ?
+ order, is a human construction, recognized as that, open to discussion, criticism, and transformation. "order" belongs to the mathematical spirit : clear, precise, yet open as long as the transformation is done with respect the the "order".
+ authority, is a social phenomenon, deepply rooted in : subjectivity (does not need to be proved or demonstrated), person cult (is represented with a living "human" example of leadership), irrationnality (authority is based on past - heritage and tradition-, fantasm -religious- or fear - totalitarism with all it's old and modern forms).

+the natural, intuitive, normal form of human organization is based on authority. order always needs special intellectual mechanisms -freedom of speech, objectivity and facts, personnal courage- to be "reactivated". We can see that even inside democratic countries, which laws have been designed by philosophers ( logic, science etc) but interpreted by citizens themselves, they just considered as a heritage or a "democratic tradition", a very dangerous but revealing mix-up.

-so in all human groups, there is always a bare minimum of order, at least in organizing sexuality (not necessarly by our mediteranean criterias, there are tribes that have no problem with homosexuality, others that keps the matriarcal filiation
...) but the majority of time and human history has been led by "authority".

-so the modern democracies are not the rule, but the fragile exception. Fragile mainly because of the natural inner movements of traditionnalims and conservatism, in the objective meaning :
-julied have already given interesting links about conservatism, if i remenber , but these definitions still lacks an objective definition. we are still defining conservatism as a political phenomenon. Trying to define anything from a political viewpoint is hopeless, politics are about verbal rant and rethoric, not precise definitions, that are the fundement of any scientific analysis. Conservatism is indeed a cognitive phenom : there is a huge amount of conservatism inside "progressist movements" , that defends sometimes "outaded" principles, or that transform a philosophy like marxism (whether anybody like it or not, it is a philosophy and should be respected, treated and criticised as such) to a RELIGION ! the summum of absurdity is when the rational, free and humanist philosophy becomes a fanatized point of view, leading big communist empires, and creating another form of rigid "communist casts" in place of the -criticable but dynamic- social classes in the market economy ! another tragical example of this can be seen in this good critic http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html from Michel Crichton of "environtalism" and its threath of a productive and efficient enviromental policy.

-this is one level of fragility (the "instinctive authority" one). The second level comes from the "culture" concept-buzzword :
the culture, scientifically speaking is a moving target. the main reason is that it is a political term, like identity, not a scientific one. there is no rigouros definition of culture or identity. So it is a buzz word in any "respectable" political rant about democracy and difference, but -not so -amazignly also in xenophobic and discriminatory/hate speech !. The ONLY definitions that can be accepted rigourosly about culture and identity are those that stresses about the individual, the temporary, the dynamic and the local nature of cultures and identities. all other definitions are nothing than a potpourri container of exclusion mechanisms at best, and systematic "cultural-aware" discrimination mechanisms at worse ! One example that applies tu moslems (but not limited to this "cultural community", any honest, couragous and objective observer can notice that in other communities) is the reject of homosexuality. while this belongs to the freedom of speech or faith, with no doubt or discussion (unless in a pro-homosexual opressing regime ) , to give the right to a group of religious to "eject" an individual from a community , or even to insult him or her, to *openly* despise him or her because of his/her sexual behaviour, is to trade the right of one against the many at best, or against social peace at worst : this is blackmailing, no more no less. and homosexuality is only a dramatized mediatic example; what about gender equity (no even equality), polygamy, little girls excision, the right to teach hate, the right to propagate false dangerous ideas about the inferiority of intelligence of women, the ideological anti-science (my God says that diesel engines works thanks to his highness, no physics indeed ) etc...etc... to sum up : the Umma cultural right should not be the rule, but the exception, case by case, with no hijacking of freedom of counsciousness to propagate annti-freedom ideology. This could raise the problem of the "equality" between communities, but right in democracy, or in any state of law, does applies to individuals, not groups !

-Sorry for the rant, one last thing : the Human Beign is an animal. no more no less , this is "zoology", we share many things with animals, metabolism, physical and chemical laws (if we were so mystically special why should we need to oby to gravity like a stupid stone ?) . But if , for a narrow-minded person, "animal" is an insult, in reality every animal has it's own originality, it's stategy to survive. We are not mutant-ready like viruses, we are not born with fur, but we have genetically an individuality, a mix up of genes, hormones, experience, personal choice, and many other factors, that ALWAYS infuluence, NEVER determine us : we have a "soul", i.e a distinctive unique existence in space-time . THIS is our real nature, discovering, keeping then using our "soul", our originality, our unicity. If democratic countires have suceeded to be powerful, developped, rich (even that the majority have not even a single petrol field), this is not a miracle. this is only the primitive human nature that have been "legalized" , "organized" and "institualazied" by a simple effective and realist system called democracy in it's complete wide definition, not only the "election show" : freedom (i.e choice), that leads to change, that leads to intelligence, that leads to more freedom (this is only an example, if there is an ID behind human genius, I do not know the algorithm ) . The real miracle is how, masses of free-born humans, have been so effectivly brainwashed, and kept under stong "surveillance", at home or in ghettos, that they can not even ASK the most fundamental question (if they can ever ask a sigle real question, not a "linguistic" question) : "What if" !

-OK, i stop here there are many things that i hope to talk about (OHH NOOOO!... ) , perhaps it serves to nothings, perhaps it's 100% wrong and i'm a klingon. but who cares, this is a free imperfect point of view. take it with open and "impitoyable" free mind !

good night and good luck !

Time for a quick rest.

I have just spent the last three hours watching the House of Commons debate the Racial and Religious Hatred bill, thay have now gone into division to vote on Amendments made to the bill by the house of Lord (Madam deputy speaker has just called for the doors to be locked)

This an interesting an topical bill, in that it would if it is past as the Government want it curtail free speach, and potentialy some of what has been writen in this thread would, had the author been resident in the UK, have caused the author to at least be investigated if not arrested and charged.

During the debate the The Reverend and Right Honourable Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, not somebody I would normally find my self agreeing with, made a vaild point what aludes to the issue of 'Trust' discussed earlier. He pointed out that whilst we may have every faith and trust in the minister, the minister will not be present in the law courts for every case to ensure that the courts interpretation is as indended, and it was the law that MPs were making not intentions.

Well we are now on the third division, and it is not looking good for the Government, so far the Commons have voted for all the Lords amendments.

Well the commons voted to keep the Lords Amendments, the government capitulated, the Lords Amendments are intact (I'm now not likely to go to prison ) and the bill is going for Royal Assent.

Slow down, nealshim, please try and be a little more focused and concise. I am having great trouble marshalling your thoughts


Who are 'They'? Your description of the situation in North Africa is not one that, as an outsider, I recognise, particularly from what I was taught or understand from the British media. However I am open to being enlightened to your situation.

"I'm now not likely to go to prison"

Happy for you Batchoy .

" Who are 'They' "
This is in part a wink (clin d'oeil) , the paranoid "They" will come to take your soul and blah blah blah .

More seriously, it is difficult to define it without a very little history, so here we go again with our dear wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers

please note that there is no complete, exaustive history of northafrica (NA). history is not only an imprecise science, it is also a important tool for politics, so this version given here is to be taken 'cautiously'.

Another very interresting link http://www.faithfreedom.org/ that you certainly know.

Just woke up after "a late night with George & 'friends'." Looking at the posts ... well, there's a good deal to discuss; after, that is, I do my homework to get up to speed.

There is one issue that I want to clear up as it needs no further thought.


Certainly not if you are listening to "The 1812 Overture"; however, it is a start.



Not at all, ns. My impression of you is genuinely warm and charming as a fellow human being. Your intelligence, insight and tenacious spirit of growth and self-discovery are truly commendable.

While your writing style is, shall we say a bit overwhelming at times, frankly I respect and agree with what "I believe" to be your fundamental position (that is, after I had decoded it):

'Yes, North African implies Muslim; and Muslim implies Muslim fundamentalism which is a more dangerously close-minded, hate-filled and destructive philosophy than the global community appears willing to acknowledge. The real casualties of this twisted culture are the individuals and nations forced to live under its bizarre customs and laws. And, while these observations may be true in so far as any generalizations can be, they unfortunately serve to obscure a more honest and realistic appreciation of the individual and the native cultures held captive by this tyranny.'

Or, as we say in the West: ' "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" - [no matter how polluted the water].'

We can all empathize with you, ns. It must be incredibly frustrating, to the point of intellectual/emotional exhaustion, to have to condemn and expose the harsh truth of this oppressive religious regime, while simultaneously striving for the deserved positive recognition of you as a separate individual in a region with it's own deeper, more humanistic enduring customs and values.

It is appropriate to state that you have earned my own personal respect for the courage and power of your own personal convictions that you have demonstrated by publicly stating the obvious truth that most people are too timid to acknowledge: There is something inherently very wrong and very destructive about the Islamic religion and the sum total of the Muslim culture. While the average person knows this to be true, he refuses to acknowledge it publicly because he fears that any criticism of Islam, what-so-ever, puts him at risk of violent reprisals. The threat of physical violence against anyone who speaks disparaging of Islam is arguably the core tenet not only of the religion, but of the entire Muslim culture. This is why it is impossible for the World Community to separate issues when discussing compromise and solutions. For Islam, there are none. If Islam were to simply reject the entire concept of "Infidel" and everything that it implies, there would be no conflicts. Regrettably, the West does not have the stomach to acknowledge the truth. Terrorism has already succeeded in its strategy of fear and intimidation by having made cowards and liars of those of us who would otherwise speak freely and openly. Without the full exercise of free speech, our most fundamental democratic values are condemned to be but dim memories of a better and happier past.

Having said that, you may wish to reflect upon two considerations:

The more that your words presume that the reader will see you negatively; the more likely it is that they actually will.

Then consider that people often pay at least as much attention to the manner in which you present your argument, as they do to the argument itself. You may possess a magnificent collection of priceless art, ns, but if you attempt to cram it all into a tiny room with poor lighting and shabby walls, it will still look like a junk yard, not a museum.

I can only hope, neilsham, that you will interpret my post as a genuine and realistic acknowledgement of who you are as a person and what it is that you are attempting to communicate, for the purpose of facilitating continuous mutually rewarding discussions.

This, at least, was my motivation in writing it.