I was just wondering-have any Arab governments announced any aid for the victims of the terror attack on NYC? and if so, how much? Bush announced that the USA will donate $320 million worh of food to feed starving Afghans-there seems to be a bit of imbalance here. Is Islam compassionate? Why don’t we see Islamic countries going to the aid of the Afghans?
Just an innocent question!
Well, Pakistan has taken in well over 700,000 Afghan refugees, and its an Arab country, and I’m sure there has been donations from Jordan, and Saudi Arabia… so I think your question is invalid.
In order for a country, company, or individual to donate assistance, they (he, she, or it) need to actually have something to donate. You’re talking about some people who cannot even feed the people they have and they’re being overrun with refugees fleeing imminent American attacks. I respect the sentiment (we help everyone, why don’t they help us), but it’s not really valid here. We don’t need their financial assistance. We do need their dimplomatic assistance.
Pakistan is a Islamic country but I don’t thing that the people there are Arabic.
Maybe some of the “frozen assets” presumably of Taliban associates will ultimately be taken and used to aid NYC, etc.?
Perhaps the irony is more apparent when you consider that the US was already the biggest donor or aid to Afghanistan before sept 11 and will continue. Perhaps the Taliban supporters shown on news reports see the US flag as something to be burned and reviled but the villagers in the hills (a majority of the population) see the us flag stamped on lifesaving food supplies. Winning of hearts and minds…
Afghans aren’t Arabs.
Neither are Pakistanis.
How much aid will the US government pledge for the latest
Palestinians to be shot?
Although IANAM, as a rule, Islam is compassionate, with
specific rules about helping orphans and other needy people.
I thought the more interesting question buddy1 asked was: *Why don’t we see Islamic countries going to the aid of the Afghans? *
As has been pointed out already, Pakistan and Iran both are absorbing a large number of refugees. That certainly counts for something.
I have tried to track down how much aid is going to Afghanistan by country, but I haven’t been able to do it yet. I’m sure there must be a good bit from Saudi Arabia and some of the other more affluent Islamic nations, but I haven’t been able to find reference to it. Can anyone point me to a site with such info?
RR
Although I’m generalising to an extent, the wealth of the West is partly responsible for poverty in other parts of the world.
I wouldn’t feel comfortable as a citizen of the developed world if we were to demand cash from those in the developing world.
Remember, wealth is always relative.
This is a Great Debate impersonating as a factual question. From the tone of your OP, I surmise that you are more interested in a debate than in a factual answer. Off to GD.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Because the lion has what the ox does not.
-Yes, but in regards to the original topic, is said “absorption” willing and welcome, or simply a matter of there’s a million people leaving Ground Zero and nowhere near enough soldiers to guard and close the entirety of the borders?
At least as far as the OP is concerned, there’s a difference. Pakistan may tolerate the refugees, but will they provide significant quantities of aid, food and shelter? Or are they simply putting up with them since they had no real way to keep them out?
I asked the question because I suspect that Islam is not all that merciful. For instance, why doesn’t saudi arabia (with its vast oil wealth) help its poor co-religionists in Somalia, Afghanistan, and the Sudan. Instead, it is the US and Europe that are always sending aid to these places. I think it is high time that the US review its foreign aid policies. I have no wish to help those who want to harm us. So perhaps, we should send aid with some strings attached.
That describes Saudi Arabia to a tee!
Why doesn’t the US help the poor people in Latin America, rather than trying to control their governments?
It’s not a question that can be answered, I’m afraid.
buddy1 writes:
“Islam” is not all that merciful in the same sense that “Christianity” is not all that merciful. I think it’s well documented that supposedly Christian countries often act in a most non-christian way; while I will not propose the blanket statement that Islam is entirely benevolent, since most religions contain some inconsistencies, I would think that the MAIN reason Islamic countries are not doing more to help their neighbor is a failure to live up to the ideals of the religion, and not a failure of the teachings of that religion.
The surrounding Arab nations are allowing (to different degrees, depending on the situation) US and UK forces to use their bases. That is as much aid as we need right now to stop things like the WTC attack happening again.
Please explain - unless you are going to spout some uninformed illogical bit of antiglobalism claptrap. If that is the case, please don’t explain.
Sua
The obligatory Guinastasia hijack to South America. Personally, I am glad we smacked those Sandanistas down. Nyah! Why? Because they were violent Soviet-backed revolutionaries who killed just as many people as the Contras did. It is old fashioned, I know, but I think opposing Soviet expansionism was a good thing. If you want to debate this topic in every post, I suggest you have an itch that needs the scratch of its own thread.
Why don’t the Latin American governments give a rat’s ass about their own poor people? That is a better question. Does the United States beat and shoot street kids in Rio? Ah, before you can drop the big conspiracy theory on me, the answer is NO!
As for the OP, not South America, I often wonder (as many of the rest of you do) why the rich gulf nations don’t do more for the poor in the rest of the Islamic world. The poor Islamic countries are too blinded by hate for the United States to even notice that their “brothers” don’t give a damn.
Fiendish Astronaut I was wondering exactly how we made the rest of the world poor? Especially since much of it was poor for thousands of years before the wealth formation of the “developed” nations. Oh, wait, I get it now. Because there are now wealthy countries, one can compare them to the countries that have always been poor. The fallacy of causation by existence rears its ugly head again. Here is your hero, he loved to speak of “the (evil) wealth of the West” also. “Wealth is relative,” if you know this, how can you defend the selfish Saudis? Do you have any idea just how incredibly !RICH! the Saudis are?