Why have Islamic nations been so easy to corrupt?

[FearGod]

I think the analogy here is apt. In terms of countries, are you anywhere of anything that might bolster or weaken the "immune system" of a country?

Security will left it up, invasions will weaken it and give opportunity for the opportunists.

 

[dust1n]

Security will left it up, invasions will weaken it and give opportunity for the opportunists.

Undoubtedly. Just one more question, if you don't mind me asking, but what do you think, I guess, is the least corrupted, or I suppose most secure Islamic country at this time?

 

[NoX]

Oh I see. When you said that it wasn't easy to corrupt a true Muslim, you actually meant it's impossible to corrupt a true Muslim?

Nothing impossible, human is human and there is no human without mistakes, prophets too You cant veer the way of a real Muslim by offering money or offering power, offering some other things pleasing to the human soul, not impossible but close to the impossible, even if its %0.0000000000000000000000000001, there is always a probability and if a real Muslim does such a thing, he cant be considered as Muslim anymore. The problem is non-Muslim people thinks that there are some invisible boundaries that circles Muslim countries and every single person in this circle is PERFECT Muslim and representive of Islam. No there is no such circles all the US is perfect christian people ? or perfect atheist people ? every single of them ? Everyone who defines themselves as Christian are perfect Christians ? Stalin was representive of Atheist people ? Hitler was the representive of Christians ?

 

[FearGod]

Undoubtedly. Just one more question, if you don't mind me asking, but what do you think, I guess, is the least corrupted, or I suppose most secure Islamic country at this time?

I can tell you the ones who are corrupted by now, Iraq,Syria and Libya.
You know that the 3 of them have lost their security before being corrupted.

 

[Deidre]

lol at the term ''corrupted''

Are you speaking of morality? Who decides this?

 

[dust1n]

I can tell you the ones who are corrupted by now, Iraq,Syria and Libya.
You know that the 3 of them have lost their security before being corrupted.

What do you mean by corrupted in this instance? Whether or not anyone should have invaded Iraq, I don't think many Muslims would have catagorized Saddam Hussein as non-corrupt before the first Gulf War, let alone the war in 2001-2003.

 

[dust1n]

Nothing impossible, human is human and there is no human without mistakes, prophets too You cant veer the way of a real Muslim by offering money or offering power, offering some other things pleasing to the human soul, not impossible but close to the impossible, even if its %0.0000000000000000000000000001, there is always a probability and if a real Muslim does such a thing, he cant be considered as Muslim anymore.

Wouldn't a Muslim who committed an act of corruption not be able to make a tawba?

 

[dust1n]

lol at the term ''corrupted''

Are you speaking of morality? Who decides this?

Ah, and I'm usually so good at addressing this sort of thing ahead of time: For all intensive purposes, lets go with:

"In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is the abuse of bestowed power or position to acquire a personal benefit. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.

The word corrupt when used as an adjective literally means "utterly broken".[1] The word was first used by Aristotle and later by Cicero who added the terms bribe and abandonment of good habits.[2] Morris,[3] a professor of politics, writes that [political] corruption is the illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest. Economist I. Senior[4] defines corruption as an action to (a) secretly provide (b) a good or a service to a third party (c) so that he or she can influence certain actions which (d) benefit the corrupt, a third party, or both (e) in which the corrupt agent has authority. Kauffman,[5] from the World Bank extends the concept to include 'legal corruption' in which power is abused within the confines of the law - as those with power often have the ability to make laws for their protection."

Added emphasis there.

Corruption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FearGod]

What do you mean by corrupted in this instance? Whether or not anyone should have invaded Iraq, I don't think many Muslims would have catagorized Saddam Hussein as non-corrupt before the first Gulf War, let alone the war in 2001-2003.

Iraq was a secure state in Sadam era, but if you mean corruption by bribes and similar stuff then i think that is existing everywhere.

 

[Sees]

Iraq was a secure state in Sadam era, but if you mean corruption by bribes and similar stuff then i think that is existing everywhere.

Not secular by Western standards of course

 

[FearGod]

Not secular by Western standards of course

There were no place for religion in Sadam's regime, his beloved PM was a christian and bars were everywhere, there were no place for the Islamists.

 

[dust1n]

Iraq was a secure state in Sadam era, but if you mean corruption by bribes and similar stuff then i think that is existing everywhere.

Oops, I meant 2002-2003, but apparently I remembered wrong. It all happened 2003.

Anyways, I agree Iraq was stable during the Saddam period, but Saddam engaged in what is almost genocides before America ever stepped foot in the 1990's. All while basically taking American money and weapons, as America at the time was happy to ignore any of this.

American politicians have rather easily be bribing most Islamic governments in one way or another since the end of WW2, and more importantly the Iranian revolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nice question but this is not a religious matter of debate, this is something directly related with politics.

I must disagree. If anything, it is a religious matter with political consequences.

 

[FearGod]

Oops, I meant 2002-2003, but apparently I remembered wrong. It all happened 2003.

Anyways, I agree Iraq was stable during the Saddam period, but Saddam engaged in what is almost genocides before America ever stepped foot in the 1990's. All while basically taking American money and weapons, as America at the time was happy to ignore any of this.

American politicians have rather easily be bribing most Islamic governments in one way or another since the end of WW2, and more importantly the Iranian revolution.

Can you tell me when did the genocides happen ? in which date ?

 

[dust1n]

Can you tell me when did the genocides happen ? in which date ?

The al-Anfal Campaign (Arabic: حملة الأنفال‎), also known as the Kurdish Genocide,[4] Operation Anfal or simply Anfal, was a genocidal[5] campaign against the Kurdish people (and other non-Arab populations) in northern Iraq, led by the Ba'athist Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid in the final stages of Iran–Iraq War. The campaign takes its name from Surat al-Anfal in the Qur'an, which was used as a code name by the former Iraqi Baathist government for a series of systematic attacks against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, conducted between 1986 and 1989 and culminating in 1988. The campaign also targeted other minority communities in Iraq including Assyrians, Shabaks, Iraqi Turkmens, Yazidis, Jews, Mandeans, and many villages belonging to these ethnic groups were also destroyed.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

The other example I had in mind isn't so much a genocide, as it is forced removal due to small uprisings. In return:

1993

"The encirclement and destruction of the Marsh Arabs and the annihilation of their 5,000-year-old culture have been brought about by the deliberate draining of their unique habitat - the 6,000-square-mile marshes of southern Iraq. This environmental and human disaster has been long in the planning. The Iraqi regime continues to deny it. It claims the draining is part of an agricultural improvement plan which will benefit the people of the region.

Documents captured during the Kurdish uprising show that President Saddam approved the plan for the marshes in December 1988. Burning, terror, murder and starvation of the marsh people, poisoning the water, economic blockade and damming the rivers - were all part of the plan. When the Shia revolt had been crushed in the cities, President Saddam turned his fury against the people in the marshes.

According to the Iraqi army, in December 1991 and January 1992 over 70 marsh villages were destroyed and 50,000 people removed. The assault continued throughout 1992. There are records of attacks almost every day. Huge tracts of the marshes were drained by using earth barriers to block the tributaries of the Tigris which feed the Amara marshes and by damming the Euphrates below Nasiriyah."


Of course, Britain drew up many of the modern borders, and it was done so in a way so that each country would contain multiple parties who were not on friendly terms at any point.

 

[FearGod]

The al-Anfal Campaign (Arabic: حملة الأنفال‎), also known as the Kurdish Genocide,[4] Operation Anfal or simply Anfal, was a genocidal[5] campaign against the Kurdish people (and other non-Arab populations) in northern Iraq, led by the Ba'athist Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid in the final stages of Iran–Iraq War. The campaign takes its name from Surat al-Anfal in the Qur'an, which was used as a code name by the former Iraqi Baathist government for a series of systematic attacks against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, conducted between 1986 and 1989 and culminating in 1988. The campaign also targeted other minority communities in Iraq including Assyrians, Shabaks, Iraqi Turkmens, Yazidis, Jews, Mandeans, and many villages belonging to these ethnic groups were also destroyed.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

The other example I had in mind isn't so much a genocide, as it is forced removal due to small uprisings. In return:

1993

"The encirclement and destruction of the Marsh Arabs and the annihilation of their 5,000-year-old culture have been brought about by the deliberate draining of their unique habitat - the 6,000-square-mile marshes of southern Iraq. This environmental and human disaster has been long in the planning. The Iraqi regime continues to deny it. It claims the draining is part of an agricultural improvement plan which will benefit the people of the region.

Documents captured during the Kurdish uprising show that President Saddam approved the plan for the marshes in December 1988. Burning, terror, murder and starvation of the marsh people, poisoning the water, economic blockade and damming the rivers - were all part of the plan. When the Shia revolt had been crushed in the cities, President Saddam turned his fury against the people in the marshes.

According to the Iraqi army, in December 1991 and January 1992 over 70 marsh villages were destroyed and 50,000 people removed. The assault continued throughout 1992. There are records of attacks almost every day. Huge tracts of the marshes were drained by using earth barriers to block the tributaries of the Tigris which feed the Amara marshes and by damming the Euphrates below Nasiriyah."


Of course, Britain drew up many of the modern borders, and it was done so in a way so that each country would contain multiple parties who were not on friendly terms at any point.

Do you think the US decided to invade Iraq once it heard about these news ?

 

[YmirGF]

Nothing impossible, human is human and there is no human without mistakes, prophets too You cant veer the way of a real Muslim by offering money or offering power, offering some other things pleasing to the human soul, not impossible but close to the impossible, even if its %0.0000000000000000000000000001, there is always a probability and if a real Muslim does such a thing, he cant be considered as Muslim anymore. The problem is non-Muslim people thinks that there are some invisible boundaries that circles Muslim countries and every single person in this circle is PERFECT Muslim and representive of Islam. No there is no such circles all the US is perfect christian people ? or perfect atheist people ? every single of them ? Everyone who defines themselves as Christian are perfect Christians ? Stalin was representive of Atheist people ? Hitler was the representive of Christians ?

So, what you are really saying is that virtually any Muslim can be corrupted. Nice work.

 

[dust1n]

Do you think the US decided to invade Iraq once it heard about these news ?

Well, in terms of Kurds, no. America was supplying Saddam Hussein with weapons to fight a war that he aggressively started against Iran because Iran was in collusion with Soviet Union at the time. After that, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Than we decided to attack because Kuwait was an ally of ours.

After that, then Saddam began targeting various groups, especially the Marsh Arabs, and this was independent of American influence. America was helping to Kurds at this point now, but I don't even think America was even aware of local groups of southern Iraq very well. America pretty much did nothing to help them. If I remember correctly, no one was wanting to help them too much, except Iran which took in some refugees.

 

[DawudTalut]

....my question is, why has it been so easy for Islamic nations to be manipulated from outside forces. I'm just curious as to what all the possible answer might be. Thanks.

Why has corrupting specific Muslims at leadership positions in various Islamic countries been so easy?

Peace be on you.
1- IMO Your question is very valid and it is the basic question of current era with respect to Islam, weaknesses in its practice and its promised revival.

2- Holy Quran and Holy Prophet (pbuh) of Islam had prophesied that various weaknesses would enter in Muslims in latter days. The reasons were told too. The corruption at leadership level (clergies and otherwise), loss of true knowledge, hunger for glitter of world etc.

3- When one falls from height one is hurt more. Once Muslims were leaders of world in lot of good things, but then they gravitated, there practices weakened. They were granted bounties of nature by Allah but they did not use them with thankfulness and good of brethren. Take the example of oil. It just came out as bounty of Allah. It was drilled out by foreign help, then the same oil is used for killing those Muslims who differ in interpretations......For years, two Muslim countries fought each other and wasted their resources.

4- Internally they have various religious groups mostly with militant wings. One does not see them generally, working to establish morals and spirituality, but focus is to get political power. If a clever foreign ambassador comes and offers them financial and weapon help to them to get top political position on country in return for certain facilities (like trade routes, buying obsolete arms or approach to hidden natural resources), they go for it.

5- Beware, you are missing one thing in your question. Though they get easily corrupted but they fool west too. When they reach to a certain level of power, they start terrorism in west.

6- So picture is larger. West is drifting away from religion (because of incompetency of existing religion of theirs) and it is East, getting corrupt on the name of religion.

7- The solution (prophesied in major religions and in Islam) is the only solution. Believe in latter days reformer sent by God as mercy. [Ref: Ahmadiyya DIR in Islam DIR in RF]. The tragedy is that when God sends reformers for their benefits, people start calling them false. But eventually they prevail as it is a destiny.

In short, current Muslims are easy to get corrupted because:
=corruption at religious and political leadership level and lack of knowledge.
=abuse of gifted resources.
=role of foreign anti-truth forces.
=denial of God's sent reformer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you move the thread to economic debates you will find more answers than in the religious debates. Trade between the East and West has traditionally involved a lot of money, and the Near East/Middle East has always stood in the way. We have found ways around, and even over, but today the dispute revolves around more specifically the trade routes of oil. There is also a tremendous Western influence, which has only further deteriorated social conditions as this gives people an even lesser sense of control over their lives and culture.