December 4, 2008
On The White House
Looking for the Ideal Spot to Make a Speech
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama’s aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
So where should he do it? The list of Islamic world capitals is long, and includes the obvious —Riyadh, Kuwait City, Islamabad — and the not-so-obvious — Male (the Maldives), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Tashkent (Uzbekistan). Some wise-guys have even suggested Dearborn, Mich., as a possibility.
Clearly it would be cheating for Mr. Obama to fly to Detroit, talk to Dearborn’s 30,000 Arab residents and call it a day. And Male and Ouagadougou, while certainly majority Muslim, can’t really be what Mr. Obama’s aides have in mind when they talk about locales for a high-profile speech that would seek to mend rifts between the United States and the broader Muslim world.
So Burkina Faso and the Maldives are out. But that leaves a whole swath of Islamic capitals, all ready to be spruced up for Mr. Obama to make his speech. I’ve thought hard about this, and asked a few people — diplomats even — which capital Mr. Obama should pick.
The consensus, after an entire day of reporting, is Cairo.
Why Cairo? It’s a matter of elimination. I called Ziad Asali, the president of the American Task Force on Palestine, to gauge his thoughts. “Damascus would be cool, except it would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it’s too soon for that,” Mr. Asali said.
True. Maybe in a year, if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gets around to a land-for-peace deal with Israel. But for right now, I’m not really seeing Damascus as the spot for the big speech.
What about Ramallah, I asked Mr. Asali, thinking it would show solidarity with the Palestinians.
“I would object to that on so many levels,” he shot back, irate. “Are you forgetting that Palestinians seek Jerusalem as their capital?”
Right. And giving the speech in Jerusalem would just open up a Pandora’s box full of problems. So that’s not happening.
My colleague, David Sanger, heard me talking about it and came over to my desk. “I think he’s going to pick Jakarta,” he said. “It would be a big homecoming-type trip.”
But Jakarta’s too easy. Mr. Asali thought so too: “Jakarta? People would yawn about that.” Sure, Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country — some 177 million Muslims live there — but the very fact that Mr. Obama once lived and went to school there would make choosing it seem like cheating.
Baghdad? Definitely out-of-the-box, but it could appear to validate the Iraq war, which Mr. Obama opposed. Beirut? Too many Hezbollah members — Secret Service would flip its collective lid — and anyway, the Lebanese president has always been a Christian.
Tehran? Too soon for that. Amman? Been there, done that. Islamabad? Too dangerous. Ankara? Too safe. Plus the Turks aren’t going to be too crazy about being used for outreach to the Muslim world when they’re trying to join the European Union.
I asked a senior Turkish diplomat what he thought. He immediately started acting, well, diplomatic. “We don’t have a problem with our Islamic identity,” he said. “But our system is secular.”
Riyadh? Mr. Obama’s national security aides say no.
Kuwait City? Abu Dhabi? Doha? “I don’t think it will be in the Gulf,” one foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama said.
See? It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold. The country has plenty of democracy problems, so Mr. Obama can speak directly to the need for a better democratic model there. It has got the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization that has been embraced by a wide spectrum of the Islamic world, including the disenfranchised and the disaffected.
The Secret Service won’t like it one bit, but Cairo is no Islamabad. I called the Egyptian Embassy in Washington to ask officials there what they thought. Someone from Mr. Obama’s team had already mentioned the possibility, although embassy officials said Egypt has not been approached about a possible presidential trip to Cairo.
Still, Sameh Shoukry, the Egyptian ambassador, e-mailed me a statement. “Needless to say, the President of the United States is always welcome in Egypt,” it said. “Delivering such a speech from Cairo would no doubt reinforce the intended message. Cairo has long been a center of Islamic learning and scholarship, in line with Egypt’s central role in the Middle East.”
I'm going to assume it will be Cairo, not for the reasons the report stated (well some of them)...Cairo has long been the center of Islamic Intellectualism...it would be an ideal spot. Going to Indonesia would be a cop out, I do agree with the article. Arabs won't care and we are having issues with them and Persians, not so much with Southeast Asia (besides some isolated spots in the Philippines and Southern Thailand).
Why not Pristina (Kosova), Tirana (Albania), Sarajevo (Bosnia) or Baku (Azerbaijan). All four are Muslim capitols. Makes me mad sometimes people always associate Islam with Arab countries when only like 18% of Muslims are Arabs. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with him going to one of the Arab countries but doing the speech in one of the other countries would be a nice change, might break some stereotypes.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 24 Feb 2009 14:49 Post subject:
abu isabella wrote:
Why not Pristina (Kosova), Tirana (Albania), Sarajevo (Bosnia) or Baku (Azerbaijan). All four are Muslim capitols. Makes me mad sometimes people always associate Islam with Arab countries when only like 18% of Muslims are Arabs. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with him going to one of the Arab countries but doing the speech in one of the other countries would be a nice change, might break some stereotypes.
If I was him I would go to Cairo.
The reason being that Egypt has long been considered the center of Islamic thought, since the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols I believe. It is true that most Muslims are not Arab, but all Muslims who pray pray to Mecca, which is in Arab lands and the Middle East is still a "Holy Land" for Muslims around the world, which also happens to be a homeland of Arabs.
It is kind of like saying you will give a speech about Judaism addressing the "Jewish World"...and skip Israel, because most Jews don't live there.
The reason being that Egypt has long been considered the center of Islamic thought, since the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols I believe. It is true that most Muslims are not Arab, but all Muslims who pray pray to Mecca, which is in Arab lands and the Middle East is still a "Holy Land" for Muslims around the world, which also happens to be a homeland of Arabs.
It is kind of like saying you will give a speech about Judaism addressing the "Jewish World"...and skip Israel, because most Jews don't live there"
Point taken, I see what you're saying about the arab world being like the heartland of the Muslim world, so it's best to make the speech there.
I don't agree with your Israel analogy though because, look at it this way. Yeah most Jews don't live in Israel, but there is no other country on earth besides Israel that has a Jewish majority. There are however many countries outside the arab world that have a Muslim majority. See what I'm saying? So I think you could give a speech addressing the Muslim world in a non arab country.
Don't take this wrong or anything, I'm not trying to shoot you down or start an arguement. It's just that I'm a Muslim myself and this subject interests me.
Why not Pristina (Kosova), Tirana (Albania), Sarajevo (Bosnia) or Baku (Azerbaijan). All four are Muslim capitols. Makes me mad sometimes people always associate Islam with Arab countries when only like 18% of Muslims are Arabs.
That's because Islam is Arabcentric in the sense that the Arab world in central to Islam. Even many Arabs (who are Muslim) believe this. I am remined of an interview with Irshad Manji in which she claims she was challenged at one of her talks at a university by some Arab Islamic students who challenged her right to critique Islam since according to them Allah chose the Arabs first to reveal his "true" message or something to that effect. Manji is an Ugandan-born South Asian.
Usually in the U.S., regardless of your political orientation or level of knowledge about the world, Islamic world means the Arab world. Included is Iran, which is seen as Arab by many and a few South Asian countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are also seen as Arab.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 24 Feb 2009 20:46 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
abu isabella wrote:
Why not Pristina (Kosova), Tirana (Albania), Sarajevo (Bosnia) or Baku (Azerbaijan). All four are Muslim capitols. Makes me mad sometimes people always associate Islam with Arab countries when only like 18% of Muslims are Arabs.
That's because Islam is Arabcentric in the sense that the Arab world in central to Islam. Even many Arabs (who are Muslim) believe this. I am remined of an interview with Irshad Manji in which she claims she was challenged at one of her talks at a university by some Arab Islamic students who challenged her right to critique Islam since according to them Allah chose the Arabs first to reveal his "true" message or something to that effect. Manji is an Ugandan-born South Asian.
This directly contradicts the Qur'an, but then again when has accuracy of written text ever discouraged religious opinion. LOL
Officially the Qur'an is not supposed to be translated out of Arabic, or so I've been told (more than once)...which is why many Muslims in Indonesia, Afghanistan, etc can speak some Arabic if they attended an Islamic School.
Catholics were like this in a way...until the Second Vatican, everything was in Latin and it was not uncommon for priest to speak Latin to each other (well in Rome, now the working language is usually Italian in Rome)...but still it was nowhere as regional-centric as Islam has been.
Catholics were like this in a way...until the Second Vatican, everything was in Latin and it was not uncommon for priest to speak Latin to each other (well in Rome, now the working language is usually Italian in Rome)...but still it was nowhere as regional-centric as Islam has been.
Not exactly. The Bible was in the vernacular prior to Vatican #2. Latin remained a liturgical language though.
Today the more obscure Christian churches/denominations like the "Syrian Christians" of India, the Copts of Egypt, Ethiopian Orthodox, and some Middle Eastern-based Christian churches still use liturgical languages that church members do not use outside of church.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 24 Feb 2009 21:13 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
This directly contradicts the Qur'an, but then again when has accuracy of written text ever discouraged religious opinion. LOL
What directly contradicts the Koran?
Oh, I agree the speech, if it must occur, should take place somewhere in the Arab world, Cairo perhaps. I doubt it would make any difference though.
Oh the comment of the Arab student that a nonArab can not comment on Islam. Muhammad said there is no differences between Muslims in anyway...the only differences is believer and nonbeliever.
Yeah I know that is not how history has played out. I met a Bangladeshi girl who grew up in Saudi (dad was a doctor) and she was treated like garbage on a daily basis on the street (until certain circles knew who she was, etc).
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 24 Feb 2009 21:17 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Catholics were like this in a way...until the Second Vatican, everything was in Latin and it was not uncommon for priest to speak Latin to each other (well in Rome, now the working language is usually Italian in Rome)...but still it was nowhere as regional-centric as Islam has been.
Not exactly. The Bible was in the vernacular prior to Vatican #2. Latin remained a liturgical language though.
Today the more obscure Christian churches/denominations like the "Syrian Christians" of India, the Copts of Egypt, Ethiopian Orthodox, and some Middle Eastern-based Christian churches still use liturgical languages that church members do not use outside of church.
Yeah I know some of the churches in the Middle East still use a form of Aramaic. Some Orthodox churches (forgot which one, maybe Bulgarian) still use Old Church Slavonic...Ethiopians use Ge'ez...I think.
It's quite odd, but those churches are mainly speaking more ancient languages of their same ethnicity.
The Islamic thing would be like all Buddhist speaking Pali (at least in religious activities) all through East and Southeast Asia...and praying toward North India. LOL
In most places in Asia Buddha looks just like the local ethnic group and they chant in their language.
Muhammad came up with a good racket...opps...that's not politically correct.
This directly contradicts the Qur'an, but then again when has accuracy of written text ever discouraged religious opinion. LOL
What directly contradicts the Koran?
Oh, I agree the speech, if it must occur, should take place somewhere in the Arab world, Cairo perhaps. I doubt it would make any difference though.
Oh the comment of the Arab student that a nonArab can not comment on Islam. Muhammad said there is no differences between Muslims in anyway...the only differences is believer and nonbeliever.
That depends if Muhammad's message (technically god's message) was for all of mankind or just for Arabs.
There is some scholarship that suggests that Islam started out as a religion for Arabs. It then gradually became a universal religion for everyone over time.
I got the impression from Manji's interview that the Arab student was saying that Arabs were the original recipients of the true message and therefore more worthy of providing commentary on it. She was using this example to point out that many Arab Muslims see themselves as privileged with respect to other Muslims. It’s a point that author Serge Trifkovic makes in his book “The Sword of the Prophet” and V.S. Naipaul makes in "Among the Believers." Plus he was just pissed at her for her criticisms of Islam itself (as opposed to Muslims) at the same time remaining a committed Muslim (at least in her own mind).
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 25 Feb 2009 00:59 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
This directly contradicts the Qur'an, but then again when has accuracy of written text ever discouraged religious opinion. LOL
What directly contradicts the Koran?
Oh, I agree the speech, if it must occur, should take place somewhere in the Arab world, Cairo perhaps. I doubt it would make any difference though.
Oh the comment of the Arab student that a nonArab can not comment on Islam. Muhammad said there is no differences between Muslims in anyway...the only differences is believer and nonbeliever.
That depends if Muhammad's message (technically god's message) was for all of mankind or just for Arabs.
There is some scholarship that suggests that Islam started out as a religion for Arabs. It then gradually became a universal religion for everyone over time.
Possibly, there was much debate in early Christianity about if they should proselytize to Jews or not. I think Paul won that argument.
One of the original converts to Islam was a Ethiopian former slave, Bilal, the first singer of the call to prayer. In my reading he is almost always sighted to stress the "multiracial character of Islam"...as he was a close alley of Muhammad, but since not much is actually known about his life, he could be a made up character...
That depends if Muhammad's message (technically god's message) was for all of mankind or just for Arabs.
There is some scholarship that suggests that Islam started out as a religion for Arabs. It then gradually became a universal religion for everyone over time.
I was thinking of not getting in on this LOL but I have to something about it. I think it's actually very clear that Islam was meant to be a universal religion from the start.
If you look at some of the sahabah, the companions of Prophet Muhammad. There was Bilal (African), Suhayb ar Rumi (Roman), and Salman al Farsi (Persian). Also in the early days of Islam, the Prophet sent messengers to the leaders of all the sorrounding nations; Byzantines, Persians, Ethiopians, ect. Inviting them to be Muslims. Then in the Prophet's last sermon, he says,
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.
Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 25 Feb 2009 13:14 Post subject:
abu isabella wrote:
Quote:
That depends if Muhammad's message (technically god's message) was for all of mankind or just for Arabs.
There is some scholarship that suggests that Islam started out as a religion for Arabs. It then gradually became a universal religion for everyone over time.
I was thinking of not getting in on this LOL but I have to something about it. I think it's actually very clear that Islam was meant to be a universal religion from the start.
If you look at some of the sahabah, the companions of Prophet Muhammad. There was Bilal (African), Suhayb ar Rumi (Roman), and Salman al Farsi (Persian). Also in the early days of Islam, the Prophet sent messengers to the leaders of all the sorrounding nations; Byzantines, Persians, Ethiopians, ect. Inviting them to be Muslims. Then in the Prophet's last sermon, he says,
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.
Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."
That speech is what I was referring to...but is that speech in the Qur'an or is it part of the Sunnah or the Hadith? If it was written after Muhammad time, sometimes decades after, then the validity is questionable, as much as the much of the New Testament is for Christianity. Actually at least Muhammad wrote something, Jesus wrote nothing; everything is second hand account from people who were definitely not unbias.
That depends if Muhammad's message (technically god's message) was for all of mankind or just for Arabs.
There is some scholarship that suggests that Islam started out as a religion for Arabs. It then gradually became a universal religion for everyone over time.
I was thinking of not getting in on this LOL but I have to something about it. I think it's actually very clear that Islam was meant to be a universal religion from the start.
From the start depends on when from the start starts. Of course if you are a believer then you'd be duty bound to believe that it was meant to be universal from its inception in the same way a Christian is duty bound to believe in the virgin birth or the divinity of Jesus.
As a heathen I operate from the premise that all religions are man made, and so I look at a religion's development solely from an historical standpoint as opposed to a believer.
It's quite possible, nay likely, that Islam's basic tenets and beliefs changed over time and then finally some standard beliefs were agreed upon.
That speech is what I was referring to...but is that speech in the Qur'an or is it part of the Sunnah or the Hadith? If it was written after Muhammad time, sometimes decades after, then the validity is questionable, as much as the much of the New Testament is for Christianity. Actually at least Muhammad wrote something, Jesus wrote nothing; everything is second hand account from people who were definitely not unbias.
The last sermon is hadith. There are a lot of people who question the validity of some or all hadiths. Because like you said they were compiled later.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I met a Bangladeshi girl who grew up in Saudi (dad was a doctor) and she was treated like garbage on a daily basis on the street (until certain circles knew who she was, etc).