I agree that last post. We tend to forget that the rule of law is the backbone of a system of fairness. No system is perfect or perfectly just but it is essential to a strong social contract. As to US-Saudi relationships, the backbone is OIL. Granted, other threads have worked into the relationship over time but oil is the logjam and the reef of US/Middle east relations.

"I don't know if you have time to read an extra book during your studies. It is called "Trust" by Frances Fukiyama. It's basic point is that one of the reason that the West is so properous is that the law is applied equally especially in economic matters. Connections though helpful don't mean everything (as you well know coming from a third world country). Read it if you can. It has proven to be very convincing to me." Thanks, i was waiting for someone to suggest a good book by Fukiyama. He seems to be at odds with Samule Hunington, and Fukiyama seems to belive (with very good reason) that westeren classical liberalism and rule of law have proven to be a superior ideology too all others. I think it will he refrehing to read it after I have had a complete brain sap after recently reading S.Huntington's "Clash of civilzations" which was full of non-sense. He insists that western concepts are so unique that they cannot be applied for other cultures. SUch arrognace is disgusting. I also think he misread a lot of the muslim world which consits of atleast 4 civilzations NOT 1 as he suggests.Well this is just the surface of it... he also misreads China and a lot of other things about Islamic Civilizations. Anyway, thanks for the suggestiong... I will try to get my hands on it soon.

"Regarding the Qu'ran separating church and state can you point me to specific passages. Everything I have read is contrary starting with the Caliphate/Ottoman empires" Quran 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower" If there is no compulsion in religon it has been left to the INDIVUDAL. Government has no right to dictate religon to anyone. God is the jugdge not the man on the throne. The actions of the Empires knows as Chalipates and the bloody and repressive Ottoman state are not Islamic in anyway. They used Islam, as many have used religon, to control the masses. However it is clear that they were at odds with the above quoted verse from the Quran. Their justifaction of this rises from "saying of the Prophet". These were easy to forge and unlike the Quran they were not words of God even if they were accuarate. Many times they contridicted the Quran. Including this Quran Verse which seperates Mosque and state. We can find many saying of the prophet in direct contridtion to the above verse. The large bulk of these sayings are inaccurate... i would say about 95%. NOTE: these saying were complied starting 200 years after the prophet died. Also intresting is the largely dogmatic feelings they generate in the Muslim world. Makes who wonder what religon they are following when they follow a state dicateted religon rather than the world of God. Sickening.

Actually, for a general analysis of Islamic culture from a Western viewpoint, I favor Bernard Lewis over Huntington. I do, otoh, think the "Clash of Civilizations" model is, in the broadest terms, basically correct. (Lewis does, too, btw.) In any case, I'd suggest reading Fukiyama not as an alternative to Huntington or Lewis, but as a complement. There are some others who might be good. Mmmm...Hayek. For that matter, you could do a lot worse than finding a good work on the political philosophy of James Madison. Most of the "secrets" of the West can be found in the American Constitution; either right there in black and white, or by implication, as assumptions behind specific sections. I wouldn't quarrel with your criticisms of this specific factual claim or that. I don't see any point, for instance, in a debate of the finer points of the definition of "civilization". Of course, under the general heading, "Islamic civilization", there are many specific subsections. Persian civilization is distinct from Turkish which is distinct from Arab. Egyptian Arab is not the same as the Baghdad Caliphate. And, so on. However, the point being made by that choice of language is that one can usefully distinguish, as analytical catagories, "Islamic" from "Western" civilization. In this regard, of course, one could similarly and usefully distinguish between Catholic and Orthodox Christian western civilization. Or, between pre and post Reformation western civilization. And, one might or might not want to try to winkle out the many contributions of the Jews to the few hundred years of Western civilation from that of Christians. None of this negates the utility of "Western civilization" as an analytic concept. Indeed, an attempt to deny any legitimacy to the notion of "Islamic civilization" flies in the face of the history of Islam which, itself, insists on the unity of Islamic society. (Hmmm...the "ummah"? Sorry, this is not my area.)

"Indeed, an attempt to deny any legitimacy to the notion of "Islamic civilization" flies in the face of the history of Islam which, itself, insists on the unity of Islamic society. (Hmmm...the "ummah"? Sorry, this is not my area.)" Sound like an Islamist. There is no need for political unity. Each state has its own intrests. Brefily , that Islamic civilzations are as follows 1) Arabic 2) Persian (Iran Agfanistan) 3) Turkish (C.Asia and Turkey) 4) Indian Muslim (Pakistan, Indonensia, India, Maylsia) The fact is that Religon is the only things that we share. "In this regard, of course, one could similarly and usefully distinguish between Catholic and Orthodox Christian western civilization." Such distinctions are infact made by the author. "In any case, I'd suggest reading Fukiyama not as an alternative to Huntington or Lewis, but as a complement. There are some others who might be good. Mmmm...Hayek" Fredrick V. Hayek? I read "Road to serfdom". That was good enough to convince me to move away from a very socalist ideology i previously held. "Actually, for a general analysis of Islamic culture from a Western viewpoint, I favor Bernard Lewis over Huntington. I do, otoh, think the "Clash of Civilizations" model is, in the broadest terms, basically correct. (Lewis does, too, btw.)" Please suggest somehting by Lewis. Even in borad terms I will tend to disagree with Hunington. However there are quite a few things that I found to be true, and very disturbing. "Most of the "secrets" of the West can be found in the American Constitution" I agree.I think I have stated this before; I consider your constitution to be the best document produced by man.

Pakistani, I have read both. To be honest the conclusions that Mr. Huntington states are stretched but his analysis is right on target. You state that any culture can change and you are right but the change takes generations upon generations. This is where Mr. Huntington is closer to the truth than Fukiyama. (To hear Mr Huntington in person and to listen to his analysis is one treat from my undergraduate days. I strongly recommend you read a commentary by Robert Kaplan about Mr Huntington published in the December Atlantic Monthly. It is an excellent synopsis of the man and his work.) Before you read Fukiyama's "Trust" read his "End of History" that was re-released in 1998(?). I agree with his basic conclusions that eventually Secular Liberalism/Market Capitalism will be the prevailing model but the train could still come off the track. Here is my reasoning. You and I as well as most of the board posters are part of the "Overclass" as defined in the late 80's. This class is egalitarian and advancement is based on education and achievement. I equate it to the French speaking aristocracy of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. This overclass educated in Western Universities are imbued with the Capitalist model (but not necessarily to democracy since you know better than I the stunted development of most of the non-European world.) You being in a Western University is an example. A tenet is that nationality is not so critical a factor in our identity. This is why Gore was actually suprised at the angry response when he praised some parents for there sons death because of their service for the United NATIONS! But the overclass sits over a populace that does not have the same vision. Just as the French speaking aristocracy was swept away by revolution the overclass can be overthrown and replaced by more nationalist governments. Ie the underlying culture can reassert itself. I believe that part of the Islamic fervor is this culture reasserting itself because the current governments are so bad. Huntington is pointing this out and I agree with his analysis here. This is the predicament the Saudi royals have today. So this is how I can keep some continuity on this board. Finally please define the 4 Islamic civilizations and describe what is so different between them than ethnicity. Also what is your major in your current university?

Pakistani, It is very interesting that you state the saying of Mohammed contradict the Qu'ran. You would be considered a heretic and killed by the very radical Islamics. You do bring a really good point on how culture breaks into religion and "bends" it to it's will. In our case for Christianity the suborning of women is an example. In the early church women did has standing higher than what was customary in those times. It was when Christianity became the state religion that women were put into lower orders. (You can argue that Paul puts women in a lower place i.e. Ephesian 5:22 but a closer mature reading will show that it is a symbiotic relationship based on equals. (Ephesians 5:29) But enough about religious dogma.) To finish this post when I read that quote it doesn't appear to me to be a definitive statement against church and state being separate. In Islamic commentaries does it state this? If so which ones. Are there contrary commentaries ie that the Wahabbi's would cite and rely on for understanding? If this is too heavy duty a request you can say so and we can drop it.

"It is very interesting that you state the saying of Mohammed contradict the Qu'ran. You would be considered a heretic and killed by the very radical Islamics. " True. But this belif is not uncommon nor new. It existed in the now non-existant 'Mutizila' school of thought. Needless to say they were also considered heritics and killed. However most Islamic philospohers either respected them or were a part of the school of thought. Mohammad was a man, he could have made mistakes. To suggest otherwise is nonsense and Blasphmey. The Quran is the word of God. If they contridict in any way the Quran is superior. And as I did point out the compilation of the saying did not start for 200 years after the prophets death. This proves: a) Early Muslims did not consider them to be the message of Allah b) The would have gone through a process of minipulation by then Elevation of the saying of Mohammad into LAW or into a dogmatic advice is making an equal to Allah. The greatest sin of Islam. "In the early church women did has standing higher than what was customary in those times. It was when Christianity became the state religion that women were put into lower orders." Intresting, agian we see a good rational for seperation of Religon and Politics. What early church are you talking about? The one in Palastine or Egypt or in Europe? "To finish this post when I read that quote it doesn't appear to me to be a definitive statement against church and state being separate. In Islamic commentaries does it state this? If so which ones. Are there contrary commentaries ie that the Wahabbi's would cite and rely on for understanding? If this is too heavy duty a request you can say so and we can drop it." I dont care much for what Wahabbis site. They tend to use State minipulate religon that I would not call Islam. Infact all support for theocracy are based on state minipulated sayings of the Prophet. If you would like more insight into the school of thought that follows just the Quran and hence has no such problems as state minipulation go to http://www.submisson.org/ Make sure you type .org because .com is another site. Its down at the moment but I have seen many refrences to the quote classifying seperation of Curch and state. As for the Seperation of Mosque and state here is my argument, which I should have given with the quote. If a) The diffrence between right and wrong is clear b) There is no compulsion in Relgion The state has no right to dictitate Religon. Hence a state has to accept the most basic HUMAN morality... Protection of property (Economic and of Person) as its primary reason for existance. However since indivudals are freewithout "compulsion" in matters of religon they are free to makes such choices themselves. Hence the state has no right to say , for example, that all women must cover their head or that everyone must pray or that a muslim citizen is better than a non-muslim citizen.

Your take is that an overclass is a bad thing because we "sit over a populace that does not have the same vision". With all due praises to democracy aside I would just like to say that a similar situation existed right before the Renassiance. The aristocracy was getting more and more powerful. That overclass was in part inspired by Islamic Philosophers and pulled Europe out of the dark ages and shattered theocracy. Could the West now be returing the favor to a possiable Islamic Renassiance? Islamic Civilization did get its booast from the Greek Philosophers and Europe did get its boost from Spain and the rest of the Arab ruled world. Could the same transfer of liberal values be happening once agian from a liberal world to a chained one?Surely this would take time but signs do point to that direction. "Finally please define the 4 Islamic civilizations and describe what is so different between them than ethnicity" Well a better question would be what do we have similar aside from Religon? Let me use Mr Huntington's definition of Civilization, found on page 48 (in my copy) in a sub-note where he wondrs if Judaism is a civilization. He states that "Religon, Lanuage, Costoms, Literature, Institutions, and terroortial and political home" togetaher make up a civilization. Religion: Between these 4 civilizations there is a commonality in religon but a vast difference in outlook. I had not met such radical and hardline views of Islam until I encountered Arabs here in the States. Similarly the Persian and Indian Islam (both Shia and Sunni Varity) is more Mysitical in outlook than Turkish or Arabic versions of the same. Turkish Islamic is probally the most autocratic. That is probally why Mustifa Kamal did have some sucess. He just told Turkey to be secular and most people agreed. Arab Islam was at one time more liberal but become more subsertviant to the state after the Ottoman empire. Perisan and Indian muslims were not subjected to the cruelty of that state. Lanuage:- Clearly we dont share the same lanuage. Arabic is an Afro-Asiatic lanuage. All other Islamic Civilizations do however share Indo-european lanuages. Costoms:- Cultural Costoms such as marriage and contracts and festivels. Perisan muslims still celebrate the Persian new year. Indian Muslims have marriage festvites close to Indian Hindus. I am sure that Arabic and turkish have their own costoms too. However the west on the whole has the same Calander and similar marriage festivities. They celebrate the same religous holidays and that is what sperates them from Orthodox Christans. As I said , we Muslims too have our own seperate celebarations even if they are secular celebration and if we share Religous celebreations. Infact the only holidays we share are religous holidays. Literature: Here this gets intresting. There is an overlap between Persian and Arabic Civilzations in teh Umayiad and Abbasid periods, and between the Turks and the Arabs in the Ottoman period. Persian and Indian Civilizations also have an overlap with both Urdu and Hindi owing much to persian influnce and poetry. "Institutions" Turks brought in their own Institutions to the Ottoman empire. Indian Muslims have Westrenised Common law traditions and a constant fixitation over democray wich I can assure you the population is just not ready to give up on in Pakistan. "terroortial and political home" Political home? Well this is one thing i really disagree with Huntington over. He misunderstands Pan-Islamic desires. They are just not as popular outside the Arab world as he thinks they are. They are popular in the Arab world for no reason other than the fact that they are ruled by monarchies that were CHOSEN by the west. Their boundires chosen by the west. They dont owe an alligence to their countires because they dont feel they are worth anything. Their fustrations with not having any control over their political lives translates Pan-Arab feelings into Pan-Islamic feelings. However I do conceed that a certian portion of all Islamic countires feel that the only solutions is a Pan-Islamic state. However for reasons I will not go into right now that would not be all that wise. It just would not solve anything but the energy problem and would creat a huge amount of other problems.

" Also what is your major in your current university?" Forgot to answer this with the rest of the post. 2 majors. Economics and Journalism.