On air: Is it best for Christians to leave the Muslim world?

I would imagine people who don't beleive in any God are treated worse.
Remember that video with the couple in the Maldives?
"you are and infidel and don't even beleive in your infidel religion"
But since the question is, "is Christianity the most oppressed religion in the middle east"

Shia and Sunni muslims seem to argue the most, and jews are probably the most oppressed religion ever.
I only know what i read and see in the news etc, but it seems to be only very recently that the christians have been a soul target, rather than just collateral damage.

And since the middle east is the holy land (well that area of the world atleast) for all 3, Jews Christians and Muslims, (which incidently are all essentialy the same thing with different names)
I would say untill now, no.
But i'll bet every other terrorist is now going to jump on the band wagon as it where, and things are about to get considerably harder for Christians over there.

If the Iraqi government can guarantee their safety there is no reason they should leave that country.
but until now I don't believe it. Iraq is still volatile today. Many innocent people become victims.
So if their safety is threatened, there is no harm in them going out of iraq for temporary refuge.
When the situation there has improved, they could have gone back again to that country.

christian

Hello from Baghdad gang,

I've said it before like a billion times, and here I am saying it now : ALL Iraqis are in grave danger regardless of their ethnic and religious backgrounds... Today Iraqi Christians were the target, the day before yesterday Iraqi Muslim Shia pilgrims in Najaf and Karbala were the target, but it seems like the outside world only cares if the victims of terrorism and violence were non-Muslims while Muslim victims of terrorism and violence do not turn on emotions (does France granting visas for Iraqi Christian victims of terrorism only ring a bell anyone?), now what do we call such behavior ??? OK, let me think.............. Oh I found it, HYPOCRACY...

With my love

Yours sincerely, Lubna N in Baghdad

Also, the trend in the time period between 2006-2008 was to target Iraqi doctors (many great Iraqi physicians were murdered or injured by the bad guys, others were threatened and forced to leave Iraq and suffer a great deal in Iraq's neighbouring countries), and yet no European country offered them visas like the visas that France offered for Iraqi Christians, why I wonder ?????

With my love

Yours sincerely, Lubna N in Baghdad

On the issue of leaving Iraq, if the reason behind the call of Mr Dawood and others for Iraqi Christians to leave Iraq is the fealing of being threatend or in danger then I suggest that ALL Iraqis should flee Iraq, because ALL Iraqis are feeling threatened and ALL of them are in grave danger!

With my love

Yours sincerely, Lubna N in Baghdad

No, Christians are not the most oppressed minority in the Middle East.

EVERY non-Moslem minority in the Middle East is oppressed. The Moslems should be asked for the whereabouts of the millions of Zoroastrians in erstwhile Persia. Where are they? There are just over 200,000 in the world now; mostly in the USA and India. Why did the Jewish people who were also spread all over the Middle East leave the Middle East?

In countries where the Shia sect of Moslems is in the majority the Sunnis or other sects are persecuted. In countries where the Sunni sect of Moslems is in the majority the Shia or other sects are persecuted. Would I be wrong if I said that persecution is the Nature of the Beast?

Let's all pray for the well being of the Christians and other minorities in the Middle East while we make plans for the departure of Moslems from all lands where they are not in the majority.

I ask myself who do not feel oppressed in one way or another in the Middle East? Is not this the reason for the violence in that part of the world?

No, it is not best for Christians to leave the Moslem world. That would be a shot in the arm of all Moslem terrorists including Al Qaeda!

IF the Christians have to leave the Moslem world for it is seen as the safest way to save their lives then ALL Moslems should leave the lands where they are not in the majority. The politically correct Western countries are the only ones who would oppose on the grounds that it is not civilized to make or force the Moslems to leave non-Moslem lands. Animals follow the Jungle Law though they do not kill indiscriminately; they follow Nature and in that sense even they are civilized! The world today is facing a very dangerous enemy which has no regrets targeting and indiscriminately killing innocents including children.

Both the Moslems and the terrorists they support must civilize themselves or they must be dealt with in the harshest ways possible. A Lion does not understand the language of a Cheetah or Leopard defending its turf or its offspring. The Lion only understands the language of a bigger Lion. Sadly that is the situation the terrorists have forced the world to confront.

Life’s realities are practical, not theoretical. A relatively few Muslims hate Christians enough actively to do them grievous harm. With a very small percentage of exceptions this feeling isn’t reciprocated and it wasn’t here in the US even after 9/11. I think the majority of Muslims are profoundly disturbed by a Christian Nation’s (the US) support of an avowed enemy, Israel; but I do not think this leads them to active hatred of Christianity. Never the less, US support of Israel doesn’t help the plight of indigenous Christians, because it acts as a restraint to Muslim's active support of tolerance. One wouldn’t wish to be seen helping friends of an enemy, as it were. The climate for Christians in Muslim Lands is the sum of the current winds. A few blow warmth, more than these are hateful, violent storms, and the great majority are becalmed in an unwillingness to get involved. As a Christian; I would leave.
g

It's really shocking you'd ask questions like this, but when you think of it, the obvious answer would be yes. But should people have to move because of the intolerance of others?

For all the talk about how we in the west are waging a crusade against Islam, how we're so intolerant, blah blah, I only hear calls for understanding and tolerance from the west for others (ie Muslims) but no such calls are made for those in the muslim world to be tolerant/understanding. The violence you are seeing is the results of this insistance on one way tolerant. No matter how bad people (those on the left) claim there is intolerance against muslims here in the west, the worst things you'll read about are people putting bacon on the grounds of a mosque. And surely only a minority of muslims in the muslim world are being violent towards nonmuslims, but here in the west if some extreme minority of people who do bigoted acts towards muslims (not even violence) we are all told to be more tolerant and understanding, not just the minority... So why not expect the same of the muslim world?

Mosque and attendees have been bombed and killed. This is a pattern of the terrorist..gatherings of people. Terrorist want to kill everyone who doesn't think like them. Iraq should start by forming a government..one of the fundamentals of security.

We should each ponder Lubna Naji's observations.
The West's offers to protect Christians threatened by murder in the Middle East represents our disconnection with non-Christians, to whom we do not offer the same visa protection with open arms. This discrepancy sits at the heart of our international crisis since, by implication, we in the West value "our own" more than "the others." Actions DO speak louder than fine words about equality and respect for all human life.

It seems to be the "Nature of The Beast" that the people who believe in the Abraham "One God" Religion keep murdering each other, so maybe it is just a bad Religion for humans. In other words, the Abraham Religion, all three iterations, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is itself the problem.

Other than that, I suggest that if anyone cannot leave the region where they are made unwelcome, instead of dying for some "God" who is not willing to protect them, why not just convert to the "God" who is on the currently winning side. "Go along to get along", or "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".

And that includes non-believers, because your first duty is to keep yourself alive. You have no chance of changing things if you are dead, so stay alive however you can and maybe some day things will turn your way and life will be fun again. I could do a lot of the Catholic kneeling on those knee rails, or Muslim bowing, or whatever the Jewish people do, or whatever the Protestants do, if that is what I had to suffer through to stay alive until I could escape or things changed.

Whatever it takes to stay alive, that is what I recommend.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I don’t think anyone can pontificate and tell people what do. They have to make up their own minds. The only way I could comment on this is by putting myself in the shoes of someone who would be likely to suffer prejudice for their beliefs, be these religious or otherwise. Then I would weigh up the degree to which such prejudice interfered with my living the life I want to live and if it were such as to drive me away, how much better off (in general not monetary terms) would I be in the place or places that would allow me to make my new home.
I am categorically not one of life’s martyrs, if my life and the life of members of my family were in danger because I don’t subscribe to some religion, I would be inclined to up sticks, but as a middle class European that is quite easy for me to say, particularly as the only continent I could possibly countenance living in would be Europe. Not so easy for someone of non-European ethnic origin who may not speak any European languages and whose qualifications, if they have them, would be unlikely to be recognised so despite being a qualified doctor (for example) they end up cleaning toilets.
This sort of advice can not be generalised, one size does not fit all, and I think it rather simplistic to imply that it can.

I think the idea of Christians leaving the Muslim world is not the best sinse there are other possible ways of sorting out their differnces.If the Christians leave then it would be an indictment on the unity we all seek to have in the world.
Moreover,both cristians nad muslims owe each other certain obligations and duties as each others keeper as the Bible and the Quran urges them.
Let us go back to our Bibles and the Quran to find solution to this problem instead of trying to resort to division as the only solution.

it's apparent that people will not give up their religion but a government can rule without it and prohibit theocratic discrimination and it's negative externalities. With philosophers like peter cave, sam harris, peter singer and othets we as a people can arrive at moral conclusions without gods. In cases like this religion only hurts and causes more bloodshed. Should a group of people move from their land if they are threatened? Only if the threats are allowed by the state. If the state allows this, directly or indirectly, it is not a just state. Isn't this why we have the un?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

no. i believe it's important that before we harmoniously together, we ought to accept what others think of us and not necessary require them to agree with us at all cost. therefore, if i am a christian in a muslim world, i just gonna christian when the people there are at easy with that, otherwise, i've to talk the "neutral" language, one that excludes things we don't have common. when you always find a common ground on which you agree, then it's obvious that you both will have nothing to argue about.

So much is being done by the international community to help Iraq to stand on its own feet. It is imperative that the Christians stay and help rebuild the country. Running away will only exacerbate the situation. It is only through democracy and sensible governance that the Iraqi population will unite. There are so many shining examples of countries with different races and faiths living harmoniously together: take Singapore for example. Terrorists need to be isolated and should not be allowed to exploit the situation for their own ends. Of course security is a vital consideration but it a vital duty of the government in power to protect minority groups. Right now Iraq is a fledgling democracy but with strong support from powerful backers, like the Unied States, it could grow from strength to strength.

The fact is wherever there is a majority of Muslims in a country, other religions are frowned and abused by the religious Muslims, the preachings are that wether christians, jews or any other religion is not acceptable amongst them. It is not just discrimintions against other religions, its when the muslims resort to violence and killings, burning down of churches and so forth thaat it makes outside entities live an unbearable way of life, accordingly they either leave or continue to be harrased. There ar many Muslims living in European countries, the USA and others, we dont hear any of them leaving those countries because of any violence towards them. Take for instance Jerusalem when it fell into Jordanian hands, Jews living there moved out rapidly knowing only too well their lives would be unbearable amongst Muslims. Conversely when Jerasalem during the war, fell into Israeli hands, the Arab Muslims were leaving towards Jordan, Israeli soldiers called them back, telling them they had nothing to fear, back they came. This was shown clearly on BBC TV news and is a fact. Has the opposite ever happened with Muslims telling people of other religions they should not leave and that they are safe to remain. Further, it makes no sense in Muslim countries like Iraq, that Muslims are killing other Muslims just because they dont belong to the same religious entity.

The Iraqi government needs to create the right security conditions so that all residents irrespective of their faith could treat Iraq as a safe place to live in. The promotion of multiculturalism would be a step in the right direction. Democracy thrives in a country where people of different faiths are able to practise freely what they cherish. The seeds of stability have been sown in Iraq but it will take some time before the citizens reap the rewards.

@Lubna Naji
Comment:
I've said it before like a billion times, and here I am saying it now : ALL Iraqis are in grave danger regardless of their ethnic and religious backgrounds... Today Iraqi Christians were the target, the day before yesterday Iraqi Muslim Shia pilgrims in Najaf and Karbala were the target, but it seems like the outside world only cares if the victims of terrorism and violence were non-Muslims while Muslim victims of terrorism and violence do not turn on emotions (does France granting visas for Iraqi Christian victims of terrorism only ring a bell anyone?), now what do we call such behavior ??? OK, let me think.............. Oh I found it, HYPOCRACY...
--------------------------------------------

I disagree that this is hypocrisy. Generally speaking, when one religious group attacks people from the same religion, the world pretty much stays out of it. There are so many Muslim groups perpetrating violence on each other in the Middle East that it makes it difficult for any nation to get involved and try to pick sides.

One religion perpetrating violence on another peaceful religion however (not to say that most Muslims are not peaceful people)is a completely different story. That is why other countries jump in to aid the group under attack.

It's becoming very obvious that the Christians in Iraq should flee what has now been turned into a Barbaric Fallacy of a True Religion and those that it has brain washed.

In Afghanistan a Muslim isn't human if they deal with non-believers! So sad!

It's really hard to have any respect for Islam if all you consider is the actions of it's followers.

If Islam is such a great religion, then it's leaders around the world should decry and condemn these religious atrocities.

If the owner of my local mini-mart can voice his disgust at this aspect of his religion, then so should all the others that truly feel the same way.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Lubna Naji, there is really no "HYPOCRACY". If I offer help, I choose who I will help decided by my own conscience, my own resources and my own physical ability. Many times, I (personally)do not expect succour coming to me in non-discriminatory manner, which is why I am helpless then. You cannot begrudge the international support given the Iraqi Christians. That is just the way how help/support is voluntarily and expeditiously given.
I do not even begrudge ALL IRAQIS fleeing your ‘failed state’, if you and others feel that way. Go ahead and save your own lives. And we will see how many borders will be opened and see who can go

Oh please, when you attack a church and then claim it's not an attack on Christians, it makes me question your honesty.

Remember in November 2008 the Mumbai attacks? It wasn't just Hindus being targetted. The Gunmen also went after the Chabad House and killed several people there too. Are you going to also claim that wasn't an attack against Jews when they deliberately go to a Jewish cultural place and start killing jews? Just an attack on Indians?

Stop denying reality. Yes, your guest is right is is "daydreaming".

Is the BBC arabic service a comedy show? The host of it read a comment that Egypt is a model for the tolerance of copts in Egypt. Is the commenter serious? The cops are horribly oppressed in egypt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/17/egypt-copts-muslim-christian

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4912966.stm

My last sentence should read 'And we will see how many borders will be opened and see who can go through'

Perhaps you in the future could do a followup show, by getting the opinions of various groups what its like to be a religious minority in muslim nations? You could get older Israelis who used to live in Arab countries. you could TRY to get Jews in Iran today. You could get Jews in Morocco today, or copts in Egypt, Bahai, etc. I think it would be an interesting show. It's not just christians that are minorities in middle eastern nations, there are other groups too who probably have stories to tell.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Is it best for Christians to leave the Muslim world?"

Clearly, what is "best" is for Moslems to finally rise up against their extremist element, and prevent them from controlling these problem countries.

Once again, disingenuous comments about who is causing what mayhem. These terrorists are not aliens from Mars. People should place responsibility where it belongs and TAKE ACTION to resolve the problem.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think minorities suffer from 3 forms of oppression in the Middle East.

- Dictatorship
Everyone living under a dictatorships is equally oppressed and protected. Only groups with alliances to the dictatorship would get better treatment.

- Terrorism and civil war
In the instability of Post-invasion Iraq, all religions and sects are under attack. Christians have no weapons to defend themselves and are most vulnreble. The majority have fled to other Muslim nations (Syria and Jordan)

- Extremist identity
There is also the blurring of identity. Muslims are seen as belonging to the Middle East while Christians are seen as belonging to the West (even though both religions come from the Middle East) In the West, the right wing extremists demand violence against Western Muslims to force them to "go back home". Fortunately, there is strong government, civil and legal protection for minorities. (It’s even illegal to incite violence against minorities, something lost on the BBC moderators). In the Middle East, Islamic extremists also see Arab Christians as foreigners and want to force them to "go back home", but the corrupt governments of the Middle East offer little protection for minorities.

In all cases, the troubles are mainly due to corrupt leadership that is not accountable or responsible to its people. All the peoples living under these regimes are at risk, more so the minorities.

@Lubna

Yes, Shiites and Sunnis are also in danger, but you are forgetting one simple fact: the real numbers.

As a whole Iraq is actually less dangerous (nowadays, I'm not speaking about 2006-2007) than Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, Russia and a bunch of other countries we don't tend to see as warzones. However, for Christians, gays (two groups who get their refugee status granted more easily in some European countries) and probably atheists as well, the dangers are much greater: you said "today the Christians got bombed, yesterday the Shiites got bombed", but there are 40 times more Shiites than Christians in Iraq, so if equal numbers of Christians and Shiites get killed life would still be 40 times more dangerous for Christians and they'll rightly feel like they're being singled out. So unless you can say "today the Christians got bombed, yesterday the Shiites got bombed 40 times", the Christians have reason to be more afraid then others.

Of course there is also something else going on: the Shiites can have hope for the future because they'll eventually dominate the country almost completely and life will be good for them from then on. Iraq also has a constitution based on Islam (somehow the Americans weren't able to impose a secular constitution), that may be fine with heterosexual Sunnis and Shiites but you can't expect the same response from the Christians, gays and atheists, they know they will always be somewhat like second class citizens as long as the current constitution remains, so even without the violence they would have reason to get out of Iraq.

RE: 35. At 09:47am on 11 Nov 2010, Ibrahim in UK

I have read all the comments on this blog and I have also read many of your comments on previous blogs. Here you say:
"In all cases, the troubles are mainly due to corrupt leadership that is not accountable or responsible to its people. All the peoples living under these regimes are at risk, more so the minorities."

Assuming that to be true why don't you see the convolution in this logic?
>The current Iraqi leadership is majority Shia and it is NOT a dictatorship. Hardly logical that they will bomb their own Shia worshippers. Also illogical for the Iraqi Shia to bomb and kill Christians as both were persecuted by Saddam's Sunni regime.

At a more generalised level (in many previous blogs) you have stated and implied that certain Western countries support dictatorships in the Middle East and you use that allegation to justify that terrorism against the West is a natural consequence and thus justifiable.

Again I don't understand this convoluted logic. Will killing 10 or 100 or 1,000 innocent civilians in New York make the dictators in the Middle East suddenly feel guilty and they will step down?...... The KEY Q here is why terrorise the West, why not terrorise your own despots? If your leaders were NOT despots but honourable they wouldn't allow any Western country to dominate or control them, would they?!

Hi Max_Mahajan

1. I don't believe I have ever justified terrorism, although if you show me a post I will promptly apologise. What I have done is explain where Anti-Western sentiment comes from (Western interference) and what the solution to this is (accountability and justice). In the absence of accountability and justice, some people will try to achieve their rights through force. This is an explanation of human nature not a justification of it.

2. I'm not sure where it came across that I thought the Iraqi government was bombing Sunnis, Shias or Christians (I don't). It is the government's responsibility to protect all Iraqis from criminals, terrorists etc. The government in Iraq is not yet strong enough or mature enough or responsible enough to protect the majority, let alone protect the minorities.

"If your leaders were NOT despots but honourable they wouldn't allow any Western country to dominate or control them, would they?!"

That is the point I have been trying to make. In order for the Middle East to rise above its current state, the leaders must be made responsible and accountable to the people, which is what the people are struggling to achieve. But in many cases, they have both the despots to contend with as well as their powerful backers which makes it even harder to achieve this accountability.

RE: 38. At 6:49pm on 11 Nov 2010, Ibrahim in UK
"In order for the Middle East to rise above its current state, the leaders must be made responsible and accountable to the people, which is what the people are struggling to achieve. But in many cases, they have both the despots to contend with as well as their powerful backers which makes it even harder to achieve this accountability."

I still disagree and to keep my post brief I will give you only 3 examples:
1) Pls see "Who would you like to be the next Superpower?" What I said there based on recorded Chinese history is this: "...keeping in mind the HISTORY of the persecution of the Chinese people by their very OWN Emperors (all except one dynasty) and then knowing the history of the Chinese people vis-à-vis the Cultural Revolution and the MILLIONS killed thereby I have NO respect for a Communist China being a potential Superpower or whatever!"
With such a long history of persecution of the Chinese by their OWN where are the Chinese terrorists?!
2) After WWII Germany was almost literally dust. The Marshall Plan was part of it (though the Germans had to PAY for the aid) BUT within a couple of decades Germany was a rising economy. Five years ago Germany was the third largest economy in the world!
3) After WWII Japan was the ONLY nation in the world which had nuclear bombs dropped on a civilian population in Hiroshima & Nagasaki and it was also literally dust! By the 1960's Japan was growing and up until 5 years ago Japan was the second largest economy in the World!

So!? How did the Germans and the Japanese do it? Whether it be the belief that they are both superior races or whatever; education, the pursuit of knowledge, hard work and so on ALL have a role to play. They did NOT destroy but they built!

SO! If the people in the Middle East or rather the Muslims in the Middle East want to progress then the ONLY way to do it is to beat the West or whoever at their own game. Educate yourself, develop the hunger for knowledge, make machines and everything else which is better AND cheaper than what the West or India or whoever can make!

Terrorising and murdering innocent civilians in the West or in India, or the Philippines or Thailand or bombing the Churches of the Christian minority in Iraq and wherever is a cop out and utter nonsense!

"Yes, Shiites and Sunnis are also in danger, but you are forgetting one simple fact: the real numbers."

I think it's a LOT more than just a question of numbers.

The simple truth is, while it is obviously true that both Shia and Sunni are also the victims of ongoing terrorism, it is Shia and Sunni who are the perpetrators AS WELL. So the inescapable consequence of this is, rather than frantically pointing the finger at other countries as being the culprits (directly or indirectly), rather than crying "hypocracy," rather than pretending that other countries owe Shia and Sunni people safe sanctuary, how about Islam clean up its own house first?

(Side bar: Why would other countries willingly want to import these problems into their own societies? Who are we kidding?)

Yes, perhaps the government of these countries is too weak to do this job for the citizens. But is this not an even bigger indictment on the religion? What, we should be deflecting blame to the "governments" for not being able to control their own people? It's the other way around, folks. Governments are made of the people. Governments don't have a different genetic structure.

"In order for the Middle East to rise above its current state, the leaders must be made responsible and accountable to the people, which is what the people are struggling to achieve. But in many cases, they have both the despots to contend with as well as their powerful backers which makes it even harder to achieve this accountability."

I certainly agree that western powers need to get out. But this will not solve anything, other than make the West appear less complicit. In Iraq, it would be hard to show that the US or other western powers are siding with any one faction. Our people are under attack from both sides.

Accountability is the right word. Where does it lie? From my point of view, it is as obvious as it is with the Catholic clergy's pedophilia problem. No one is pointing the finger at, oh, say, the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference for that problem.

The middle East is the area where the christianism was born.
Despite the violence,the religion founded by Jesus-Christ must remind there.
If chriastians should leave this area, the counterpart would be, that non Christians should also leave the west area of the world.

We should remember that there was a time, not so long ago when christians and muslims shared this country alongside each other like brothers and sisters. The crux of the matter here is not whether christians should stay or not, but what went wrong along the way. If we all focus on that, the problem can be solved. Iraq is their home, so they should stay.

Hi Max_Mahajan
China's history is littered with violent uprisings/terrorism and opposition to Chinese rule and external actors. Take the Boxer Rebellion for example, which was aimed against the "white devil" of Europeans and Christians. Or the armed Tibetan uprising. Opposition to Chinese rule still exists today, just as opposition to Middle East dictatorships exist today, but in both places, any sniff of it is immediately and overwhelmingly crushed... as you saw in the recent Tibet and Uighur violence. In China, Non-Chinese aren't an issue anymore because there aren't any non-Chinese actors violating the rights of the Chinese people.

On your second point:
How do you, as an individual get an education in a country which doesn't have a proper education infrastructure? How do you, as an individual work in an industry which doesn't even exist in your country? These are not things that individuals can achieve, they are things achieved by a dedicated government interested in the advancement of the nation and massive investment, like they were in your Germany and Japan examples.
Most rulers in the Middle East have personal/dynastic survival as their primary goal not investment in the country. Unless the individual was born to that dynasty, they have little to no influence on governance.
Occassionaly, someone comes along who wants to build. Look at what UAE has achieved in very little time. It may or may not be what the people of the UAE want because they don't have a say in the matter, but it shows what can be achieved. Again, the question comes down to having a government accountable and responsible to the people.

Hi Bert,

In the case of Iraq, the West has already dismantled the government structures that kept the country together (for better or worse), now Iraq has to rebuild new ones to support a new undecided structure. Outside influences don't only mean Western influences. Saudi Arabia and Iran also have a stake in Iraq, and want the new structure to be favourable to their aims. Both Saudi and the US armed and trained Sunni militants/insurgents/terrorists. The stated intention is to defeat Al-Qaeda, but in reality these weapons are also used in the civil conflict.
In other parts of the Middle East, Western intervention is ongoing in assisting the pro-West dictatorships remain in power as well as other violations of the rights of the people in the Middle East.

"What, we should be deflecting blame to the "governments" for not being able to control their own people? It's the other way around, folks. Governments are made of the people. Governments don't have a different genetic structure."
In Western countries yes. In the Middle East, they are not of the people or accountable to the people. Most rulers inherit leadership (i.e. they have a genetic structure), and have zero-tolerance for political opposition.
Western countries depend on social cohesion, so invest in civil society and establish rights to protect minorities from extremists.
Middle Eastern rulers depend on the police state. Rights and empowerment are a threat.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No. Christians should not leave Iraq if they are citizens, although they certainly should look at their individual situations before making that decision. They should, however, accept that they are targeted by extremists who are attempting to ignite holy war throughout all of the middle east by blaming Christian "crusaders" for all problems in that area of the world. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that is what is happening. I'm sure the killers are thinking to themselves: "If only those Christians would fight back; then all muslims would join us in holy war." Seriously, though, the practice of separating populations by religion, race, or other characteristics has proved a failure. Just look at Pakistan and India, for example. Another way must be found for disparate peoples to live together peacefully.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

RE: 44. At 3:10pm on 12 Nov 2010, Ibrahim in UK

As I've said b4 to keep our posts brief we must to some extent 'read between the lines' of each other's comments. So I make my last comment with the proviso (from my economics lecturer while doing my MBA) - Do not change horses in midstream! (Midstream here would be 'in the middle of a context'.)

In the case of China if the Chinese people were to have an uprising against their OWN Emperor that is fine as it is their right to throw off the yoke of oppression! Just as the Tiananmen demonstration was the right of the Chinese people. But I have never heard of Chinese terrorists killing innocent civilians from a country which their oppressive Emperor or their Communist government was trading with...! Tibetans were making an uprising against what I presume was their being ‘taken over’ by the Chinese in 1959. Uighur violence is also that of Chinese who have become Muslims fighting with their OWN central government. (And you could also see Donnamarie in Switzerland’s comment to you in a previous blog about the same topic.)

In response to what you have said to 'my second' point:

Every individual, couple, family, society, country and groups of countries have their OWN problems to solve. The way you talk about it is this : If you do not help the people from Muslim countries to get rid of our oppressive despots who are corrupt and unaccountable to the people we will terrorise you! If you trade with them we will terrorise you! ….. This is nonsense! Ask any reasonable person. The world has got its own problems and it is not the world's responsibility to solve other people's problems!

In summary: Fight your OWN battles and/or wars!

I think the semblance of this issue signifies that we deal with this problem in a wrong way . First , we say "Muslim , Christian " accusing Islam of racism picturing Christianity as innocence .Undoubtedly it is a solemn point in order to escalate the clash between them . What we suffer inside our country is not a racial war , but it is the corruption of leaders , the corruption of great countries such as US ,the viper Israel , the lethal invasion of China ,and so . Thus the clash between Islam and Christianity is like the clash between deism and atheism in Europe .The only difference is that you handle your matters silently without interference , and silence is golden .

Hence, it's clear that the issue will not be solved by the departure of Christian since if we suppose they are going to leave to Europe or form a Christian settlement , they are to be charged of terrorism by the same countries that were by their side .Moreover , if we suppose that other countries will host them , the hosting people will consider them developed ignorant emigrants , so the solution is adaption .

On the other hand , the problem that is in Iraq is because of the brutal attack of US . The reason was that Iraq is laden with nuclear ,atomic , heavy , and phosphoric armies but the expected and the faked surprise is the non existence of anything . Meanwhile , a country such Israel , possesses Arsenals of that . So the crust In Iraq needs the factor of time to fix and remedy the corruption of other insane great countries. And undoubtedly everything has cause and effect .

i live in densely populated city in Ghana called ashaiman where there are mixed religious believers living together but the majority are Muslims and Christians and when we have co-existed since the time the people stated living together in spite of our various religious differences we still see each other as brothers and sisters we share all social amenities, when it is time for Christmas Muslims join the Christians indirectly to celebrate it and when it is time for idhul fitir we christian also join the to celebrate. If we we countries with most of our population in the Christianity domain can coexist with Muslims peaceful, in Christianity we always preach about peace and love to every one around us and i believe Islam is also about peace therefore Muslims in the middle east should accept the christian brothers and sisters

@Max_Mahajan writes "Uighur violence is also that of Chinese who have become Muslims fighting with their OWN central government".

The Uighur may have Chinese nationality, as do the Tibetan, but they are not ethnically or culturally Chinese. The Uighurs are a Turkic people, with a culture, language, and tradition that's closer to the inhabitants of Istanbul or the Turkomen of Mosul than it is to the people of Beijing or Guangzhou. The Turkic peoples of Central Asia were converted to Islam after the defeat of the Tang Dynasty by the Abbasid Caliphate in the Battle of Talas in 751AD.

If the Christian leave Iraq they would be following a well trodden path, the Christian population has been leaving the region for at least 100 years.

As to whether they should leave, that has to be a personal decision, my main question would be can I see a future here for my children, and their children etc - or should I take them elsewhere.

There are established Arab Christian communities in countries such as Canada, Australia and the US, and in some South American counties I think. In Australia's case they are well integrated, e.g. the Governor of NSW is a female member of the Arab Christian community, her family migrated here in the 1930s. The communities have found ways to maintain elements of their culture, such as maintaining a non-nuclear family structure, with grandmothers in charge; and at the same time play cricket, succeed in business, join our political parties etc.

My advice to any Iraqi Christians thinking of leaving is to go to one of the countries I've already named, I'd only consider Europe if I had strong family connections that had successfully resettled there.

RE: 52. At 1:11pm on 14 Nov 2010, RightPaddock
@Max_Mahajan writes "Uighur violence is also that of Chinese who have become Muslims fighting with their OWN central government".

Thank you for the information though I was aware that the Uighurs are of mixed origins. I was sticking JUST to nationality and not going deeper so as to stay within my OWN context of a people within A nation fighting their OWN battles/wars or fighting for their OWN rights as and when they see fit.

Hi Max_Mahajan,

1. I gave an example of the Chinese "terrorists" who attacked foreigners (boxer rebellion where priests, woman and children were killed). Almost every nation in history has retaliated against foreign intervention. People are still arguing whether the atomic bombs on Japan were a necessary evil to end the war. Terrorists have a similar mindset, that creating enough destruction and pain is the solution to end Western interference in the Middle East.

2. again, you misunderstood the comment. It is not an explanation of terrorism, it is the alternative. The people of Middle East want "proper" governments, who defend their rights from both internal and external attacks. The people are working towards an accountable and responsible government. This is “their own battle” as you say, but even here foreign nations are jumping into the battle on the side of the dictators against the people. i.e. foreign nations are saying, this is our battle too, and we are against you the people.
It is not the people's efforts against dictatorships that creates hatred of the West. It is Western intervention in the Middle East. It has many forms, including invasions, occupations, financing/arming/protecting occupiers, toppling democracies AS WELL AS supporting dictators.

I would like to know if you believe that:
- There is no foreign interference in the Middle East?
- Or that foreign interference doesn’t create hatred?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Is It Best For Christians To Leave The Muslim World?"

No. It is "best" for the Muslims to stop viewing their religion with such seriousness. They should be taught to understand that God only exists in the minds of those who allow him to exist and that "God" does not exist outside of the human consciousness. "God" is not tangible and never will be. There are Christians and Jews (and others) who are just as bad though. People NEED to keep in mind that people invented "God" and that "God" did not invent people.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ibrahim - You make an interesting comment when you indirectly blame the treatment of non-moslm minorities in the Arab world on western supported "occupiers". The Christians in the Middle East, particularly the holy land, Egypt and Syria were there centries before the Moslem invasion. The fact that there are 6 million Jews in Israel, over half of whom are descendents of Jews who fled Arab countries is testamount to the appalling treatment of Jews in the Arab world - there is a reason why more than 99% of the Jews left the Arab world given the first opportunity - the only time that the treatment of the Jews in Arab countres improved was when there was Western intervention. The treatment of the Christians is albeit not as good - but they are still seen as crusaders - Western invaders. Moslems expect full tollerance in the ?West - why are they unwilling to provide it in their countries?