Arab Writers Following Election Of Muslim Woman As Speaker Of Netherlands House Of Representatives: She Proves That West Can Accommodate The Other

'Al-Quds Al-Arabi': Khadija Arib Is The Arab Answer To Western Racism



The Al-Quds Al-Arabi editorial stated: "Arabs and Muslims awaken each morning to disasters, occupying armies, tyranny, wars, conflicts, and massacres and starvation from all sides – making them feel like they are being constantly plotted against and that Allah is testing them as he tested Job, or, alternatively, making them feel guilty for the torrent of disasters that afflict them. "From China, Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, Chechnya, and Afghanistan to Palestine, Iraq, greater Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere, millions are fleeing in trucks and death boats, dreaming of emigrating to the Western paradise. They find themselves trapped between the terrorist threats that hound them to their destination and the racism that greets them wherever they end up.

"This daily, unending war of Arabs and Muslims explains why they are endlessly searching for a window of happiness and hope to distract them from the endless waves of funerals, coffins, and death and mourning processions. They find [solace] in a talented child who proves his abilities – for example, the Sudanese boy who invented a clock that his school thought was a terrorist bomb; Steve Jobs, son of a Syrian immigrant from Homs; the Palestinian particle physicist Munir Nayfeh who helped lay the groundwork for nanotechnology; or Iraqi structural engineer Zaha Hadid, the first woman to be awarded the Gold Medal by the Royal Institute of British Architects. Or even when an artist wearing a hijab, such as Nidaa Sharara, wins The Voice Arabia contest.

"The news of the election of Khadija Arib, a Dutch MP of Moroccan origin, as speaker of the [lower house of] the Netherlands parliament is one of these reports that touch the heart and prove how Arabs and Muslims can find their place in the sun despite the horrible attack on their image around the globe and their systematic marginalization. Global terrorism operations carried out in the name of ISIS and others contribute to this [attack on them and their marginalization]. The mirror of this terrorism, and one of the main contributing factors in creating it, is the extremist, racist right wing in the West, which makes a living from it.

"As anticipated, the leader of the racist Dutch right wing, Geert Wilders, quickly expressed his displeasure at Khadija's election, calling it a dark day in the history of the Dutch parliament because she represents everything that is opposed to the racist right wing's humiliating patterns [of thought] vis-à-vis the Arabs and Muslims. "The racist image [of Arabs and Muslims that the West] requires is an image of tyrants who oppress women and children, and cannot peacefully coexist with democracy (because their genes are Arab and Muslim). But here is a Morocco-born woman who came to Europe as a teen, who coexists with Western democratic bodies, who was elected first as MP... and ultimately as speaker [of the House of Representatives], while maintaining her Moroccan citizenship and pride in her native culture.
"The irony is that this MP's name has Arab and Islamic significance. Khadija is the name of the wife of the Prophet Muhammad, and Arib is a diminutive, or variant, of 'Al-Arabi.' This deeply symbolic meaning, taken together with her birthplace of Casablanca… as well as her immigration, her assimilation, and her extensive activity in her new home, combine to create a wonderfully positive image, showing how people coming from a [Muslim] country such as ours are capable of combining their esteem for the cultural identity of their birth – not just a religion but also language, culture, home, emotions, scents, cuisine, gestures, etc. – with their affinity for the values, morality, and culture of the land in which they reside, and whose laws, systems, and lifestyle they respect.

"Khadija Arib is proof that Western culture and its humanistic values can incorporate the other – and she is one of the best responses by us Arabs and Muslims to the Western racism and the tyranny against Arabs in all its forms."[1]


'Al-Ayyam': How Would The Muslim Brotherhood React If A Jew Were Elected President Of Morocco's Parliament?


Hamada Fara'aneh, a columnist for the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Ayyam, wrote: "Can you imagine a woman being elected speaker of the Jordanian parliament, or a Copt being elected head of the Egyptian parliament, or a Christian as head of the Palestinian National Council and Legislative Council, or a Shi'ite as head of the Bahraini parliament, or a Jew as head of the Moroccan parliament? What would be the reaction of the Muslim Brotherhood, or of the parties in Iran, of Hizb Al-Tahrir, of Al-Qaeda, and of ISIS? "This is the paradigm that we are lacking in the Arab and Muslim world. We search for it and yearn to attain it – and by so doing, we seek to understand that the three types of ethnicities living amongst us – the Kurds, the Africans, and the Amazigh, as well as the Chechens, the Circassians, the Armenians, and others – are part of our people and are our partners in administering the Arab state... and that all citizens have equal rights regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, or school of thought.



"The left, the pan-Arabists, and the Islamist parties have failed to present a paradigm worthy of imitation for spreading pluralism and democratic values in... the countries where they have taken power. Moreover, in most cases, they did not attain [their positions] through the ballot box, but with tanks, that have also helped them cling stubbornly to [their power]. In the few cases where they did come to power through the ballot box, like Hamas in Palestine, they [subsequently] adopted 'military victory' as a means of preserving their autocracy. They used elections one time only [i.e. to gain power] – and now oppose them...

"Israel has something that strengthens it and helps it maintain superiority: It provides for continuity in government [while allowing] the leadership [itself] to change and new blood to be pumped into the veins of its institutions, by accepting the results of the elections [that are held] regularly and sequentially."In all the Arab regimes, there is an absence of pluralism, of expansion of the basis for partnership, of continuity of rule, and of acceptance of election results. This malady, with its impact and its ramifications, does not stop at the borders of the official Arab state, whether it is a monarchy or a republic. It affects the leaders of the left wing, the pan-Arabists, and the Islamist parties, who will remain in power until they die.

"This is the reason for the failure, the regression, the erosion, and the inability [to adopt] the values of this new era and its demands. It is one of the reasons for the failure of the Arab Spring, for its collapse, and for its swing towards violence and terrorism."[2]

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8998.htm

ah well that will be holland screwed as a nation then

10 years time they will all have their heads on the floor and arses skyward.....

Lord Foul wrote:ah well that will be holland screwed as a nation then

10 years time they will all have their heads on the floor and arses skyward.....

Indeed, the probability of you beng right is vastly slim, as there is always one aspect within Europeans that you neglect everytime.

When have they ever surrendered to foreign invaders since before the Romans?

So not only is your pessimism ill concieved, but the reality is, this lady is the reality of Muslim liberialism, something that allows Islam to come fourth into the 2st century

yer right...how can she represent western values when the religion she follows is her FIRST loyalty


holland is supposed, like us to, have seperation of church and state
secondly , given that her first loyalty is to islam, how can she ever represent "western values" such as for instance the human rights act, when the same has been declared "unislamic" across the majority of the islamic countries...?

and thats only the beginning

Lord Foul wrote:yer right...how can she represent western values when the religion she follows is her FIRST loyalty


holland is supposed, like us to, have seperation of church and state
secondly , given that her first loyalty is to islam, how can she ever represent "western values" such as for instance the human rights act, when the same has been declared "unislamic" across the majority of the islamic countries...?

and thats only the beginning

Firt of all you just placed a standard how she should follow her religion.

That is your first error, when yes some Muslims do, but does a liberl Muslim place thier religion first?

Second if her understanding of Islam is Liberal, how is that at odds with western values?

Its only you placing a label what Islam she follows, where its what you it seems have decided what that Islam is

Failed and very poor reasoning on your part

sorry didge but there aint no such animal as "liberal islam"

islam is what it is, and it AINT "liberal" in any way or form

for sure, having no "cental leadership" means there is no one defining "version"...its open to every man to interpret it however he sees fit...

but...lets take something that IS absolute


how can she be allowed ANY vote on the subject of drinking...when it is clear that her islamic teachings demand that she views it as wrong

also...It is quite clear fom all quoranic authority that islam MUST come first, above ALL loyalties...

else you are apostate (or at best "deviant")

so either she is an apostate...or she CANNOT be a "liberal" Muslim

the two (liberal and islam) are ideologically impossible to reconcile.....

Islam is nothing more than what people make it is, just as Chrisstianity once was Victor,

Are you saying if I was a vegitarian, I should not be allowed to vote on matter of meat?

What you are saying is that in some instances there will be a bias, but fialing utimately that you are saying a Muslim can never be Liberal

Well that would show you have not learnt a damn thing from the history of Christianity and how it has progressed

Didge wrote:Islam is nothing more than what people make it is, just as Chrisstianity once was Victor,

Are you saying if I was a vegitarian, I should not be allowed to vote on matter of meat?

exactly...firstly being a veggie addles your brain
secondly it wouldnt concern you... except in an illogical emotive way.



What you are saying is that in some instances there will be a bias, but fialing utimately that you are saying a Muslim can never be Liberal

exactly

Well that would show you have not learnt a damn thing from the history of Christianity and how it has progressed

umm...not exactly didge...YOU forget that christianity didnt actually "progress"

it took wars, uprisings and rebellions to finally make some smart rulere or other decide to curb the churches power
and THEN it took legislation to FORCE the church into submission to secular authority....

so whilst it may have "reformed" it did so only under intense pressure from both leader and led....hardly "progressive"

Actually Christianity does progress because its just an ideology that is decided by people.

It did not take wars but free thinking to change societies, where people stood up for thier rights.

That is what you miss in your arguments, that a people conditioned to have rights would surrender them

That is why your reasoning fails

Just the other day Rouhani was calling for more women to take part in politics in Iran. There is a long way to go before they get anywhere near where it should be but at least it's a start. Let's hope he means it.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/02/iran-rouhani-women-vote-parliament-elections.html#ixzz3zi4enxzL

Yeah thanks for your post Irn, really added fuck all to the thread

Didge wrote:Yeah thanks for your post Irn, really added fuck all to the thread

In your opinion

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Yeah thanks for your post Irn, really added fuck all to the thread

In your opinion

Thank goodness you are incapable of that Irn.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Yeah thanks for your post Irn, really added fuck all to the thread

In your opinion

Thank goodness you are incapable of that Irn.

THe post I made was about women being elected wasn't it so why did it have nothing to do with the thread?

What is it that you are so angry about?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Thank goodness you are incapable of that Irn.

THe post I made was about women being elected wasn't it so why did it have nothing to do with the thread?

What is it that you are so angry about?

Well as she was the first Muslim, why else would you then go off something else Irn?

I am not angry, how would i be, I am not Scottish irn

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Thank goodness you are incapable of that Irn.

THe post I made was about women being elected wasn't it so why did it have nothing to do with the thread?

What is it that you are so angry about?

Well as she was the first Muslim, why else would you then go off something else Irn?

I am not angry, how would i be, I am not Scottish irn

It's about Muslim women making progress so it's bang on the money.

What has my nationality got to do with this?

Its not as this is about a first.

Do you know what a first is Irn?

Didge wrote:Its not as this is about a first.

Do you know what a first is Irn?

Ah here we go with the riddles. Just answer the question Didge

Its not a riddle Irn but a first

Do you know what a first is Irn?

Simple question

you recon you know about history???

henry 8th and his fall out with rome
the subsequent wars vis catholic v's protestant

the eventual legal ruling that allowed freedom of beleif...or not as the case may be...




Medieval Europe
Main article: Church and state in medieval Europe

For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right. Sometimes this began to be used by a monarch to support the notion that the king ruled both his own kingdom and Church within its boundaries, a theory known as caesaropapism. On the other side was the Catholic doctrine that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, should have the ultimate authority over the Church, and indirectly over the state. Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages the Pope claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and tried to exercise it, sometimes successfully (see the investiture controversy, below), sometimes not, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre.[9]

In the West the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere. This unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, which was resolved in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. By this concordat, the Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration.[10]
Reformation

At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[11]

In the 1530s, Henry VIII, angered by the Pope Clement VII's refusal to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the Church of England.[12] The monarchs of Great Britain have retained ecclesiastical authority in the Church of England since Henry VIII, having the current title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. England's ecclesiastical intermixing did not spread widely, however, due to the extensive persecution of Catholics that resulted from Henry's power grab.[clarification needed] This eventually led to Nonconformism, English Dissenters, and the anti-Catholicism of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, and the Penal Laws against Catholics and others who did not adhere to the Church of England.

One of the results of the persecution in England was that some people fled Great Britain in the hopes of religious freedom. Some of these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies specifically for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against King George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was specifically amended to ban the establishment of religion by Congress.
Enlightenment
John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).[13] According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[14]

At the same period of the 17th century, Pierre Bayle and some fideists were forerunners of the separation of Church and State, maintaining that faith was independent of reason.[15][16] During the 18th century, the ideas of Locke and Bayle, in particular the separation of Church and State, became more common, promoted by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. Montesquieu already wrote in 1721 about religious tolerance and a degree of separation between religion and government.[17] Voltaire defended some level of separation but ultimately subordinated the Church to the needs of the State[18] while Denis Diderot, for instance, was a partisan of a strict separation of Church and State, saying "the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great".[19]



1687 JAMES II DECLARES FREEDOM OF RELIGION

At the urging of William Penn, James II declares freedom of religion. More than a thousand members of the Society of Friends are freed from jail.

1689 BRITS OBTAIN PRECEDENT-SETTING BILL OF RIGHTS

In December Parliament passes the Bill of Rights which includes the earlier Declaration of Right, and William and Mary stamp it with their Great Seal, swearing that "No foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." That is still the law today, as asserted in the Bill of Rights, but it has been ignored and flouted by Parliament in a series of unconstitutional treaties with the European Union

The Bill establishes a constitutional monarchy whose powers are limited by Parliament. It will inspire what many Americans consider their most precious possession, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Brits’ Bill of Rights affirms their "ancient rights and liberties" and declares in addition:

1689 A STEP TOWARD TOLERATION

Parliament passes the Toleration Act, providing a measure of religious freedom. Less tolerant than its name suggests, the Act protects some of those who dissent from the nation’s official religious doctrine.


1695 PRESS FREEDOM UNCHAINED

Decades earlier, Parliament had banned all publications that did not conform to Church of England teachings. Those that were published had to receive approval under the Licensing Act. When Parliament lets the Licensing Act lapse, Brits seize the new freedom with both hands. Social, political, scientific, and religious papers pour off the presses.


ummm...methinks the church was legislated and coerced into subnission...rather than voluntarily "reforming"

it was I believe an 17th century act that established the right to beleive as you wish,,,and consequently to NOT beleive also...

Yep I know all that history, it shows what I said could be done

People can progress

Didge wrote:Its not a riddle Irn but a first

Do you know what a first is Irn?

Simple question

I don't think even you know what that is - it's just something you made up

Now back to my question please

Nothing is made up Irn, only that I am exposing how stupid you are lol

Night dummy

Didge wrote:Nothing is made up Irn, only that I am exposing how stupid you are lol

Night dummy

Night, CYA in about 10 minutes once you have thought something up to explain what you meant.

riddlemeree

Didge wrote:Yep I know all that history, it shows what I said could be done

People can progress

via wars, rebellion and insurrection.....along with enforced legislation


now...excuse me if I'm wrong here ...but in all these bloody wars that our pyjama wearing cousins are at present gleefully indulging......I dont see any that are aimed at gaining a "reformed " or "more liberal" kind of Islam........i dont see any that are aimed at reducing Islam to the status of the genial hound lying peaceably at the foot of its master, the state.....and thus the people.....

even the much vaunted arab spring...sadly now reduced more to an arab feezing cold foggy november morning, was only aimed at exchanging one mad bad bunch of bastards for a slight less worse bunch of bastards......

and ...as I keep poin ting out...we aint got 400 plus years ........

Lord Foul wrote:and ...as I keep poin ting out...we aint got 400 plus years ........

Climb out from under the table and calm down, Vic. The U.S. has had two Muslim Congressmen in the past 10 years and you don't see us being forced into anything.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and ...as I keep poin ting out...we aint got 400 plus years ........

Climb out from under the table and calm down, Vic. The U.S. has had two Muslim Congressmen in the past 10 years and you don't see us being forced into anything.

And we have Muslim MPs.

hmmm.....

sassy wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Climb out from under the table and calm down, Vic. The U.S. has had two Muslim Congressmen in the past 10 years and you don't see us being forced into anything.

And we have Muslim MPs.

yes...and we suddenly have "sharia laws" being enacted.....

Lord Foul wrote:hmmm.....

is that you considering crawling out from under the table and taking the big blanket off your head long enough to see the Muslim hate, is just as stupid as any other irrational fear. 

veya_victaous wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:hmmm.....

is that you considering crawling out from under the table and taking the big blanket off your head long enough to see the Muslim hate, is just as stupid as any other irrational fear. 

nope its me pondering the conundrum....

since BY ITS OWN EDICTS a Muslim CANNOT be loyal to islam AND to a nation at the same time...UNLESS that nation is "sharia" (or whatever the term used is)

IF these Muslim congressmen (and mp's in our case) ARE loyal to the respective countries in contravention of that isalmic edict.....then they are in fact apostate (or is it "deviant" ?)

If on the othetr hand they are true and loyal to Islam.....they cannot be loyal to the nations concerned....

Lord Foul wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:hmmm.....

is that you considering crawling out from under the table and taking the big blanket off your head long enough to see the Muslim hate, is just as stupid as any other irrational fear. 

nope its me pondering the conundrum....

since BY ITS OWN EDICTS  a Muslim CANNOT be loyal to islam AND to a nation at the same time...UNLESS that nation is "sharia" (or whatever the term used is)

IF these Muslim congressmen (and mp's in our case) ARE loyal to the respective countries in contravention of that isalmic edict.....then they are in fact apostate (or is it "deviant" ?)

If on the othetr hand they are true and loyal to Islam.....they cannot be loyal to the nations concerned....

Same with Christians... what is your point ?

it isn't the fucking 1500's these people seeking office in secular democratic societies ARE SECUALR too.

honestly Might as well say that Any Chariton man that doesn’t beat his wife is failing his duty under the bibles so is not Christian, reality and the dumbs hit often isn’t the same thing because PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE Muslim are in NO WAY DIFFERENT than British people I know you lot find this really hard to accept but PEOPLE Are PEOPLE that is it.

Stormee ALSO seeks to undermine that secular system, IN fact SO do you by seeking to "let a religious affiliation create inequality in legislation".
 
IF you are secular than by the same logic you are trying to use against Muslims, YOU NEED to Always support secular ideals over religious bigotry. And you cant do that by legislating against a specific religion
 
As Secularist we acknowledge there is no god that is going to ensure equity in justice therefore good men MUST stick to the ideals and not succumb to base emotions like fear of that which is different

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Nothing is made up Irn, only that I am exposing how stupid you are lol

Night dummy

Night, CYA in about 10 minutes once you have thought something up to explain what you meant.

riddlemeree

No need to explain anything Irn, when you cannot grasp anything simple as what a first means

That is your issue not mine, do you need to get a hug?
Is that why you are upset?