Syria and Iraq - Back off and let them be!

Just imagine for a moment, if you can, what Mississippi Governor Bill Bryant (Republican) would say, or feel, if someone in Egypt or Saudi Arabia said that the current method of governance in that state was all wrong (constant bickering between Republican and Democratic parties and with strong racist tendencies) and they should institute a system, instead, based on the Koran.  

Furthermore, that both Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be prepared to support and finance any group who agreed with their views and which was prepared to challenge the current regime in Mississippi. And how would he feel if they strongly suggested, that he, Governor Bryant should be replaced, by force if necessary, as he was not acting in the interests of peace in the USA.

Apoplectic would be a mild description, I suggest!

Yet this (in reverse) is what the USA and their allies are suggesting for both Syria and Iraq. Now I might not have agreed with either the late Saddam Hussein (or the current regime of Nouri al-Mliki) or with Bashar al-Assad (or with the avowed policies of the brutal ISIS leadership) and their oppressive policies and yet both Iraq and Syria, before the current conflicts, were relatively stable and prosperous countries.

Contrast this with what is happening in those two countries now – today.

They are neither stable nor prosperous. And what disturbs me most is that we (the “West”) played a major part in destabilising both these countries. To what end? Hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, their economies in tatters and the prospects of any peaceful result is far distant.

Again, what disturbs me is that we (the West – America and others including Australia) were influential – if not the actual cause, of the problems that beset both Iraq and Syria. This was the nominally Christian “West” trying to change the politics and pick a winner in these two unfortunate countries, both Muslim. Both are now in the grip of extremists, which is what, I suggest, the “West” was trying to avoid in the first place!

Why can’t we – “the West” – learn the leave well alone and back off? How others govern themselves is no concern of ours; just as how we govern ourselves is no concern of others. As long as whatever conflicts they may experience are kept within their borders, let them be. Both geographic areas, now called Syria and Iraq, have tumultuous pasts going back to the beginning of recorded history and yet both have survived. Both Syrians and Iraqis are intelligent people, perfectly capable of working out their own destinies.

I am not a Muslim. But I think I have enough common sense to avoid trying to pick a winner when it comes to Sunni versus Shia in Iraq or Syria – or to try a pick what method of governance they would prefer or choose or what some non-Muslim may consider would be “best for them”.

Learn not to interfere where we are not wanted! Back off and let them be!!

Sharia Law in Australia

I know very little about the finer points of sharia law. I am certain about one thing however and that is, like oil and water, Religion and the Law don’t mix. Sharia Law is not codified, in fact, as I understand it Muslim clergy are the ones who interpret Sharia Law from their understanding of the Koran.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants a parallel system of Law in Australia whereby Muslims can marry, divorce and conduct business under Sharia Law. Why? Is Sharia Law better? Does it provide a “better” form of justice? Don’t they like “our” system of law? I mean we don’t stone women to death for adultery, do we? We don’t condone gang rape girls for the social “crime” of being seen with a non-Christian, do we? I would remind Muslims that “our” law is based on Christian principles (Love thy neighbour as thyself) and dates back to Roman times, which predates Sharia Law by some 600 years.

To submit to such requests is to, eventually, have a country – Australia –governed by Sharia Law, like Iran. God (or Allah) forbid!!!

Let me ask a question of the Muslims. If the situation was reversed and a whole boatload of Christians ended up in a Muslim country and demanded that they be allowed to marry, divorce and carry business under “Western” non-Sharia based law, would they be allowed to?

Stupid question!!

Please talk to me!

What do you do – or what can you do, at work, when your superior cuts you out of the loop of information and limits the control you have over your life? I guess that you would have an argument and then walk out and find another job. But what happens when a country's leader does the equivalent of the same thing?

With all the modern means of communication, why is it that people don’t talk to each other? Governments communicating with their citizens; firms communicating with the workforce, down to an individual level, to let them know what is going on and how they are tracking and the importance of their contribution is vital for harmonious relationships and an individual’s general well being. Yet this is a significant failing with most governments and in many organisations.

To me this is a classic example of any organisations indifference, down-right bad “people management” and very poor communications. It is also an example of the (unfortunately common) attitude that the only thing governments care about is power (and money) and that the only thing firms care about is money – their citizens or staff, their morale, work-life balance, welfare and well-being come a long way second.

I believe that poor communications is at the core of what is happening in the Muslim world at present – the current “popular” uprisings against oppressive regimes. People are getting tired of continually being told what they can and cannot do by an elite class or group who consider themselves better than others and above the law (rule by edict). Part of the problem is that Muslim law and religious practices are so intertwined that the State, religion and the law courts are one and the same.
This leads to massive conflicts of interest. Similar problems were recognised in England over 1000 years ago when the King (John) was forced to step back from actually ruling the country and to agree to the separation of powers – that the State, the Law courts and elected Parliament (the Government) should be independent from each other.

Muslim (Sharia)law does not operate in this way. But I really think that something similar will have to occur in countries where Koranic Law prevails. Currently the Mullahs are both the lawyers and the enforcers of the law – in effect they are the law makers, judges and ‘executioners’ of the law. They are not, however, trained in law – they are trained in the Islamic religion. This is not necessarily the same thing. The Koran, as I understand it, suggests a code of conduct, which if followed should lead to peace and harmony between all peoples. The same applies to Christianity and Judaism – we are all ‘children’ of Abraham after all. The trouble is no one follows the code of conduct – everyone has their own interpretation – just look at the problems between Shia and Sunni Muslims - both followers of the same faith.

I suggest that until there is a separation of powers in the Muslim world these uprising will continue for some time yet. People need some personal control over their lives – an elected parliament gives this element of control. If this separation of powers actually happens then there will be a long overdue renaissance in the Muslim world.