Ahmadinejad: Let's all love one another! [Archive]

PenguinHunter

19 Sep 2006, 12:57 AM

Or the Sudan, Taliban Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran, each of which is or has been presented by Islamists as some their finest work?

"Islamist" is quite a broad category. Certainly some who claim to be Islamists would cite Iran and Afghanistan as fine work but I think that most still view them as having failed to acheive the elusive label "Islamist State." The average Arab's (and Islamist's) view of Afghanistan was negative. Most Arabs considered Taleban rule, horrendously backwards and uncivilized, not anywhere near the ideals of Islam or pan-Arabism.

As for Iran, it promotes itself as the one true Islamist state, but in reality Iran's constitution and rule have little to do with Islam. This is quite simply because Islam has little to say about nation building and government structure. It is also because of this, that all Islamist endeavors ultimately failed and were forced to either rely on nationalism or stay somewhere between non-governmental organization and rebel group (Muslim Brotherhood for example). Once that nationalism is present it makes pan-Arabism impossible which is normally the end goal of Islamism. Post-Shah Iran built itself more on the likes of Fanon, and theories of post-armed revolution nation building, than Islamic ideals. The Islamism served (and still serves) merely as a back-drop through which the revolutionaries could quickly whip up support. One only has to look to the Iran-Iraq war to see that nationalism was far more important in the shaping of Iran, than religion.

So when we talk about the rise of Islamism, or the far left providing means to the ends of Islamists, who and what are we talking about? I would argue that Islamism is on a decline and has been since the 80s (this is an argument I've taken from Giles Kepel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad:_The_Trail_of_Political_Islam), but he doesn't fully develop it the way I'd like). Islamists barely exist anymore. Osama bin Laden was a last gasp attempt to draw the world's attention back to Islamism and pan-Arabism but now the movement he tried to generate is stuck in a simplistic (but unfortunately deadly) cycle of rebellion. Those who are poor and oppressed take up the cause because they have nothing to lose; but naturally, any cause without clear definition will fail. Unlike Maududi and Qutb, modern "Islamists" have no guiding ideals or purpose and therefore can no longer be called Islamists - they are simply terrorists.

If Chavez supports Iran, he is not supporting an Islamist cause, he is simply supporting the Iranian government - nothing more than another dictatorship.

I think rather than asking "what are the ends of Islamists?" we should be asking why the West is still worried about "Islamist ends" at all when there no longer appear to be any Islamists - or at least none who have any clear and popular philosophies regarding the formation of an Islamist nation/pan-Arab state. Where exactly is this Islamist threat and if it does exist, how is Iran a part of it?

(I don't have time to write more to make this clearer at the moment - I'll come back to it. Please do attack the argument if you disagree, I don't have a complete theory here and debate helps me develop my thoughts.)

demagogic_schizoid

19 Sep 2006, 01:16 AM

Setting American relations with dictators is not a strong argument against moral opposition to dictatorship, especially since a) most Cold War authoritarians working with Washington under the Kirkpatrick doctrine were mutually opposed to the Soviet Union's totalitarian expansion, and though mouldering client states are the locus of Islamist fascism today, b) historical reference shows little practicability during the last century for an absolutist policy forfending alliances with dictatorships and actively dealing with them all as enemies, and c) tolerating authoritarianism is, if anything, the strongest argument for supporting or administering liberal reform, insofar as it is rectification.

And, too, there is an element of anthropomorphization in that list -- as if "America" is this creature whose history is a diary. Governments and policies change, and generations not responsible for previous actions cannot possibly be held accountable. What, exactly, are you saying here? That circumstances leading to mutualities with dictatorial governments makes Iran something other than a totalitarian state? That if an error is committed by one government it condemns all future governments from divergent policies? You have got here a long list with very weak implications.

In fact, I would like to see the governments brought into stable electoral democracy with American material and succor. The inclusion of Chiang Kai-Tsek above is especially problematic, since the protection of the Kuomintang (and authoritarian governments of South Korea) led to Taipei's and Seoul's elected governments in 1987. Contrast this with the fates of Beijing and especially Pyongyang.

That's a brilliant post, probably the best politicial post I ever read on this website.

Madrigal

19 Sep 2006, 03:23 AM

htb, I remember you. You're the one that called me a Nazi because I posted against Israel pulverizing Lebanon. Hello again.

Setting American relations with dictators is not a strong argument against moral opposition to dictatorship,

I'm not arguing against moral opposition to dictatorship.

especially since a) most Cold War authoritarians working with Washington under the Kirkpatrick doctrine were mutually opposed to the Soviet Union's totalitarian expansion, and though mouldering client states are the locus of Islamist fascism today,

I can't oppose stalinism and totalitarian islamic states? I certainly can.

b) historical reference shows little practicability during the last century for an absolutist policy forfending alliances with dictatorships and actively dealing with them all as enemies,

They can and will do both when the need arises, for strategic or tactical purposes. I believe they know the difference between the two. I just don't think you do.

And, too, there is an element of anthropomorphization in that list -- as if "America" is this creature whose history is a diary. Governments and policies change, and generations not responsible for previous actions cannot possibly be held accountable.

Tell me how policies have changed over the course of the 20th century toward supporting dictatorial governments for the sake of U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. I'd love to hear it.

What, exactly, are you saying here? That circumstances leading to mutualities with dictatorial governments makes Iran something other than a totalitarian state?

No, I'm saying that I'm amazed how puny countries such as Iran incite such democratic fervour and outrage, while the monstrosities perpetrated by the U.S. government don't seem to kindle even a tiny flame of disgust. You have an answer to that question? Or maybe Fox News can provide it for you.

That if an error is committed by one government it condemns all future governments from divergent policies? You have got here a long list with very weak implications.

I've got a long list of dictators involving a long list of US governments who supported them. What have you got? Iran? You're gonna have to do a whole fucking lot better than that.

Helios

19 Sep 2006, 03:36 AM

Oh, definitely. And the U.S. showed a lot of love for these gems:

Abacha, General Sani - Nigeria
Amin, Idi - Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo - Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio - Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal - Brunei
Botha, P.W. - South Africa
Branco, General Humberto - Brazil
Cedras, Raoul - Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio - Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek - Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo - Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo - El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn - Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel - Liberia
Duvalier, Francois - Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude - Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, - King Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco - Spain
Hitler, Adolf - Germany
Hassan II - Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand - Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez - El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko - Zaire
Montt, General Efrain Rios - Guatemala
Noriega, General Manuel - Panama
Ozal, Turgut - Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza - Iran
Papadopoulos, George - Greece
Park Chung Hee - South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto - Chile
Pol Pot - Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni - Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios - Guatemala
Salassie, Halie - Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira - Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. - Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. - Nicaragua
Smith, Ian - Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo - Paraguay
Suharto, General - Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas - Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael - Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed - Pakistan

Darling, you know I love you. Granted, the US, like every great power prior and all those that shall follow has done ugly things. But to blame this republic forthe ills of some these guys is reaching. True the US backed the Shah, but Persia had been ruled by emperors thousands of years before Columbus even was born! To blame America for the imperial houses of Ethiopia and Morrocco as well seems reaching a bit.

Oh, but you did omit one ruthless brutal monster from your list who recived massive backing from both the US and the British......Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. Remember him? The parts of my family that failed to flee before 1917 sure do. Or should I say "did', when they were still alive.

Nemesis

19 Sep 2006, 03:42 AM

That's a brilliant post, probably the best politicial post I ever read on this website.
You obviously have very, very low standards.

htb

19 Sep 2006, 03:59 AM

You're the one that called me a Nazi because I posted against IsraelI believe the phrase began with an expletive, and "Zionist media" followed. I didn't notice any references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is good.

In any case, I called you "Sunshine," Sunshine.

That's a brilliant post, probably the best politicial post I ever read on this website.Thank you. Even though we come from different places, politically and geographically, it's good to see you and Stoned Rider standing up.

Edit: Penguin, I just noticed your post. I shall read it when I have a bit more time.

Madrigal

19 Sep 2006, 03:59 AM

Darling, you know I love you. Granted, the US, like every great power prior and all those that shall follow has done ugly things. But to blame this republic forthe ills of some these guys is reaching. True the US backed the Shah, but Persia had been ruled by emperors thousands of years before Columbus even was born! To blame America for the imperial houses of Ethiopia and Morrocco as well seems reaching a bit.

Oh, but you did omit one ruthless brutal monster from your list who recived massive backing from both the US and the British......Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. Remember him? The parts of my family that failed to flee before 1917 sure do. Or should I say "did', when they were still alive.

Hey dear. :)

Stalin killed my people too. He killed the best one. I'm not blaming the US for all of the ills in the world, just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to target one's anger at USA's hated dictator of the moment. This outrage over Iran is not innocent. Naive people are not innocent. Targeting Iran is currently one of the essential elements of US justification for the barbarity it is currently unleashing in the Middle East, the genocide it has backed and the destruction it will continue to support in order to continue plundering these nations. Targeting Iran is strategic. While I oppose the Iranian regime, I am aware that the hype over the threat it poses has been created for the purpose of implementing a far more sinister and all-encompassing scheme, one that only the sole Superpower on the planet is capable of carrying out. While only tin-pot dictators are demonized.

Nemesis

19 Sep 2006, 04:03 AM

standing up.
I prefer to call it selective vision, or even myopism, but hey, a one man's ignorant boob is a neocon's righteous freedom fighter.

Madrigal

19 Sep 2006, 04:04 AM

I believe the phrase began with an expletive, and "Zionist media" followed. I didn't notice any references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is good.

In any case, I called you "Sunshine," Sunshine.

You said my post was only missing the swastica. Ironically for speaking up against Israel's fascism. Very original of you, btw.

omnirook

19 Sep 2006, 04:12 AM

Governments and policies change, and generations not responsible for previous actions cannot possibly be held accountable.
Ah, then, you agree that modern Germans should not have to continue paying Holocaust reparations? I don't think that they should. Germany has a very young population. Most Germans that are alive today were born after WWII.

But they go on paying out reparations.

The United States has a very long and very ugly history of supporting the worst monsters if those monsters suited the United States' foreign policy needs at the moment - which was one of my chief reasons for NOT supporting our invasion of Iraq once the Bush mis-Administration got around to telling that particular lie - once its other lies were simply not tenable any longer. "Saddam is a bad man, and he's mean to his people" - oh, yeah, like America really gives a damn about that!

Not until the US gives up its policy and practice of supporting anybody if that anybody furthers the American agenda will there be reason to overlook my country's past transgressions (aggressions!). Right now, the US is still actively trying to undermine democratically elected socialist regimes. Why? Socialists have a track record of nationalizing resources and not letting corporations run riot over people. We can't have that. After all, the whole of our foreign policy is aimed at making it possible for businesses to use and abuse everybody and everything: rape the whole fucking world and wrap up the whole thing in a bit of nonsense about "freedom." Well, the nonsense has worn very thin, and people all over the world are fed up w/it. And it's not just Islamic fundamentalists who hate the United States at this point, not by a long shot.

Helios

19 Sep 2006, 04:14 AM

I totally see where your coming from. And yes this obsesion with Bush is retarded, as if things were perfect prior. He is as much a controled by the machine as he controls it. But whatever.....he is a moron

The truth is that if the circumstance was reversed do you think Iran would have any qualls about crushing the West? You my dear would be promply locked up for you thoughts I am sure (after being wrapped in burka of coarse).

Even Lenin, who may have been sincere about his beliefs, was a ruthless murderer. (rarely/never admited to the crimes). When is truth and goodness built on a foundation of blood and lies?

I will freely admit the US is a brutal exploitive super power. But so is (or would be) everyone else if given the chance. The flaw isn't in the type of state but in the very core of humanity. To think you can legislate morality and socailize good-will is hopeless. The powerful will always exploit the weak. Short of major change in humanity on both a spiritual and biological level this will not change regardless of the color of the flag it is done under.

macr0

19 Sep 2006, 04:17 AM

I totally see where your coming from. And yes this obsesion with Bush is retarded, as if things were perfect prior. He is as much a controled by the machine as he controls it. But whatever.....he is a moron

Every regime has their own little battles to fight. Regardless, this country was bought and paid for a long time ago.

Can't wait until another election to make the people feel like their opinion matters.

Helios

19 Sep 2006, 04:29 AM

Can't wait until another election to make the people feel like their opinion matters.

Good word choice!! That is all this is ,what packaging feels warm and good to each side. Underneath they are all the same.

Neppy

19 Sep 2006, 07:08 AM

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

I basically hate this song with all the passion of a thousand fiery supernovas.

Ferrus

19 Sep 2006, 08:18 AM

To be fair John Lennon was a talented, but monumentally conceited fop.

htb

19 Sep 2006, 02:39 PM

Ah, then, you agree that modern Germans should not have to continue paying Holocaust reparations?Of course. Postwar Germany has committed other acts of self-flagellation, however, so the choice is ultimately Berlin's. I also support Tokyo's prerogative to amend Article 9 of its constitution to grant the country a clear mandate for standing armed forces, and haven't the slightest problem with Japanese prime ministers visiting the Yasukuni shrine.

And Madrigal, I referred specifically to the thread's title, and the connotation of the watchwords used. Minor difference, but significant enough.

It is also because of this, that all Islamist endeavors ultimately failed and were forced to either rely on nationalism or stay somewhere between non-governmental organization and rebel groupPrecisely -- I am very circumspect about my association of Islam with Islamism. The word "Islamism" itself I employ it for the sake of recognition; "Near East fascism" seems more accurate, since the region is a cynosure for "Islamist" governments and terrorist organizations from South Asia to Africa to southeast Europe. Here I would disagree with someone like Stoned Rider: I reject the notion that religion is the catalyst for belligerence, instead considering it an unfortunate reactant, not unlike the appropriation of Christianity for the Crusades. The cause is authoritarianism, which is, I suppose, a metaphysical term for concentrated and unmitigated criminal and psychopathic activity.

Those four countries -- Somalia more of a lurid work in progress -- are presented by their architects as successes, when in fact what has happened is that men who are hardly more than gangsters have gotten ahold of the Koran and used it as a how-to book for the construction of police states. Claims that Islam has shaped the region immemorially must contend with the middle of the 20th Century, when secular collectivism and Hitlerian fascism were adopted by appointed leaders -- as well as radicals who took power immediately following the Second World War. Ideological fidelity aside, the four countries in consideration are frightening places to be, and in sharp relief to accomplishments of the West, which was the thrust of my initial statement.

If Chavez supports Iran, he is not supporting an Islamist cause, he is simply supporting the Iranian government - nothing more than another dictatorship.Yes. A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. Islamism is a trademark for the same product. Memes are necessary for general discussions, however, so I use them. Thus, when I write that leftists are in danger of advancing the cause of Islamists -- usually implying moral legitimacy by asserting equivalence with the liberal West -- I mean that they are giving less help to the free half of the world than they are the dictatorial one.

Stoned_Rider

19 Sep 2006, 10:41 PM

Precisely -- I am very circumspect about my association of Islam with Islamism. The word "Islamism" itself I employ it for the sake of recognition; "Near East fascism" seems more accurate, since the region is a cynosure for "Islamist" governments and terrorist organizations from South Asia to Africa to southeast Europe. Here I would disagree with someone like Stoned Rider: I reject the notion that religion is the catalyst for belligerence, instead considering it an unfortunate reactant, not unlike the appropriation of Christianity for the Crusades. The cause is authoritarianism, which is, I suppose, a metaphysical term for concentrated and unmitigated criminal and psychopathic activity.

Those four countries -- Somalia more of a lurid work in progress -- are presented by their architects as successes, when in fact what has happened is that men who are hardly more than gangsters have gotten ahold of the Koran and used it as a how-to book for the construction of police states. Claims that Islam has shaped the region immemorially must contend with the middle of the 20th Century, when secular collectivism and Hitlerian fascism were adopted by appointed leaders -- as well as radicals who took power immediately following the Second World War. Ideological fidelity aside, the four countries in consideration are frightening places to be, and in sharp relief to accomplishments of the West, which was the thrust of my initial statement.

I see what you're saying, but I do believe you have made an honest mistake. You are assuming that Islamism is derived from an otherwise non-politically-natured Islam. You make it sound as if the Quran was never meant to be a political book, and that it is people who perverted its meaning and used it for a political purpose.

The fact of the matter is that Islamism is just a PC term for Islam. In fact, Islamists themselves reject the use of this term because it suggests that it is something different to Islam. They prefer to just call themselves Muslims.

Islam is meant to be a total way of life and that includes politics. If you actually read the Quran you will find that it has clear and direct instructions on how to run a state and manage its affairs.

Quran 5:44 Whoever does not judge and rule according to what Allah has Revealed, such are the disbelievers

The Quran goes so deep that it covers issues such as inheritance laws, taxes, criminal law, family law, wealth distribution etc etc..
Most Islamic countries today, including the more secular and non-sharia ones, base much if not most of their constitutions on the Quran.

ptGatsby

19 Sep 2006, 10:51 PM

If you actually read the Quran you will find that it has clear and direct instructions on how to run a state and manage its affairs.

Unlike, say, the Torah and the mitzvot?

Though I guess it makes sense... Judaism and Islam mingled a lot.

Stoned_Rider

19 Sep 2006, 11:03 PM

Unlike, say, the Torah and the mitzvot?

Though I guess it makes sense... Judaism and Islam mingled a lot.

Yeah, many laws in fundamental Judaism are just as barbaric as those of Islam. Judaism did go through several reforms though. And I don't see why we should make a big fuss out of it like Islamism, especially since the only Jewish state in the world today also happens to be one of the most democratic :D

Edit: Muhammad was influenced a lot by the teachings of the Talmud especially.

ptGatsby

20 Sep 2006, 12:04 AM

Yeah, many laws in fundamental Judaism are just as barbaric as those of Islam. Judaism did go through several reforms though. And I don't see why we should make a big fuss out of it like Islamism, especially since the only Jewish state in the world today also happens to be one of the most democratic

Exactly...? That's the point I was trying to make.

Both at the fundamental level (Islam was a rejection of some of the reforms, yes) and the common areas with diverging paths.

Religion is subject to the same human rules as everything else, to the same development paths. Social problems are the root of religion, good and bad, as well as the changes religion go through.

Tracing over history, it was just another religion until the beginning of the nation breakups in the 19th century. Its just wrapped in the same social paths that so many religions end up going through...

demagogic_schizoid

20 Sep 2006, 12:13 AM

[QUOTE=ptGatsby;421006]
Religion is subject to the same human rules as everything else, to the same development paths. Social problems are the root of religion, good and bad, as well as the changes religion go through.
[QUOTE]

What social problems has Islam specifically suffered which other religions have not? Have muslims throughout history tended to suffer more than, for example, the Jews?

PenguinHunter

20 Sep 2006, 12:28 AM

Yes. A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. Islamism is a trademark for the same product. Memes are necessary for general discussions, however, so I use them. Thus, when I write that leftists are in danger of advancing the cause of Islamists -- usually implying moral legitimacy by asserting equivalence with the liberal West -- I mean that they are giving less help to the free half of the world than they are the dictatorial one.

Ok, I see where you are coming from and we seem to more or less agree. I would simply suggest that the term "Islamism" is a misleading term to use in a modern context. (I do like the term "Near East fascism.") It creates a sense of "Other" suggesting that the political structure and ambitions of these Near Eastern dictatorships are fundamentally different from others because of the main religion in these states, when in fact - as you say - they are all the same.

(Although I have a feeling we would disagree on the quality of the political systems - which many view as dictatorships - of certain Middle Eastern countries, I won't bring that up now.)

ptGatsby

20 Sep 2006, 12:35 AM

What social problems has Islam specifically suffered which other religions have not? Have muslims throughout history tended to suffer more than, for example, the Jews?

Hmm, that begs the question, must all things be equal? Can all things be equal through time? It is also a strawman, since this is not the question I posed. I stated that religion is socially defined, just like most other things. The implication was meant to state that most things develop out of social conditions - like war (and terrorism as an extension), politics... even family lifestyles and moral values.

Islam was no more or less violent than its fellow religions at various stages of its development. Its high now, low in other times. It was one of enlightenment for several centuries, right up there with the rest. And it was of war, before outside war tore it apart.

At any given point, we could freeze time and look at the value of religion. It could be the crusades with Christianity. It could the Taoist persecution of Buddism... or any one of dozens of other periods. Its easy to condemn something on those merits. But history is fluid, conditions change.

Hell, the US is changing the face of Christianity, one step at a time.

The whole point is that it isn't a religious movement. Its a social movement. The Torah is no less fundamental (in fact, far worse, if you we talk about history). The development of the people were born from social factors. Religion is just a cross border social movement. Its like nationalism without borders.

But to answer your question - the underlying difference to the current effects would be; It underwent a reparcling of its lands in the ~19th century.

demagogic_schizoid

20 Sep 2006, 01:01 AM

Hmm, that begs the question, must all things be equal? Can all things be equal through time? It is also a strawman, since this is not the question I posed. I stated that religion is socially defined, just like most other things. The implication was meant to state that most things develop out of social conditions - like war (and terrorism as an extension), politics... even family lifestyles and moral values.

Islam was no more or less violent than its fellow religions at various stages of its development. Its high now, low in other times. It was one of enlightenment for several centuries, right up there with the rest. And it was of war, before outside war tore it apart.

At any given point, we could freeze time and look at the value of religion. It could be the crusades with Christianity. It could the Taoist persecution of Buddism... or any one of dozens of other periods. Its easy to condemn something on those merits. But history is fluid, conditions change.

Hell, the US is changing the face of Christianity, one step at a time.

The whole point is that it isn't a religious movement. Its a social movement. The Torah is no less fundamental (in fact, far worse, if you we talk about history). The development of the people were born from social factors. Religion is just a cross border social movement. Its like nationalism without borders.

But to answer your question - the underlying difference to the current effects would be; It underwent a reparcling of its lands in the ~19th century.

That looks to me like a non-religious, fairly educated and reasonable person, trying to redefine Islam on their own terms because they don't want to deal with the cold hard facts of what they see and hear.

Listen to what Islamofascists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban say they want. Call me unoriginal, but I believe this is the best way to come to a conclusion about what it is that they, well, really want.

Their beliefs and aims are based on them valuing their religion above else, and wishing to apply it in every aspect of everyone's life. They feel a personal duty to Allah to do so. I don't mean some vague idea of right or wrong, driven by personal morals derived from their religion but with it's practical implementation and attitude to day to day events defined by the world they see around them - I mean they believe that Mohammed came to earth and told them exactly what they have to do, and that through reading his teachings they have come to know Allah, and that he is as real a being as anyone made from flesh and bones, and that as well as their God he is their leader in day to day life, and that they must do exactly as he says.

I don't see how this is a social movement instead of a religious one. Just because you may have never felt "the love of God" (or whatever you want to call it) in your heart, doesn't mean that others haven't.

I hope that made sense.

Jacque

20 Sep 2006, 01:07 AM

Those who are poor and oppressed take up the cause because they have nothing to lose; but naturally, any cause without clear definition will fail. Unlike Maududi and Qutb, modern "Islamists" have no guiding ideals or purpose and therefore can no longer be called Islamists - they are simply terrorists.

The idea that terrorist are poor, have nothing and are therefore motivated by haste is a cultural bias that contaminates our analysis of Mid-East terrorism. In fact, coalition forces have profiled the typical suspects as being well moneyed, well educated, married, young Arab males. Meaning that before they give their life for/to the cause, they are well propositioned in their finances and their plans are well thought out. These are not anxious, mentally unstable individuals whittling away in squalor and idleness. As much as I appreciate the class-based analysis, I am disappointed to inform you neo-cons that Karl Marx doesn't explain foreign policy.

This misconception prevents us from forming a coherent position regarding "Islamofascism", "Islamic fundamentalism" or "Jihadism" because our first and most critical error is in disregarding these people as irrational. Instead we invent new figurative terms for this enemy catching many in this broad dragnet giving the appearance that we do not know exactly who we're after, targeting suspects with less selection than our enemies and indicating that we are ourselves irrational.

An Army general said once of the Iraqi insurgency that if America was ever invaded, he'd hope that we would be smart enough to fight the way they're fighting. Before you mistake this as appreciation of Al-Quaeda, the insurgents are nationalistic or tribalistic in nature as opposed to the Islamist Al-Queada. Though, the two are coalescing under Bush's newest reinvention of the "War on Terror", a terms which lends itself quite well to alterations.

If Chavez supports Iran, he is not supporting an Islamist cause, he is simply supporting the Iranian government - nothing more than another dictatorship.

In the public sphere calling another foreign government a dictatorship has clout only because we can barely name the three branches of our own government never mind those of foreign governments of which we couldn't identify on a map.

I think rather than asking "what are the ends of Islamists?" we should be asking why the West is still worried about "Islamist ends" at all when there no longer appear to be any Islamists - or at least none who have any clear and popular philosophies regarding the formation of an Islamist nation/pan-Arab state.

The future of a grand Islamic state is as complicated as the future of an Iraqi democracy. There is no consensus on who will rule, only on who shouldn't rule. You only have yourself to trust. Such is the white man's plight.

demagogic_schizoid

20 Sep 2006, 01:23 AM

PenguinHunter

20 Sep 2006, 01:32 AM

I see what you're saying, but I do believe you have made an honest mistake. You are assuming that Islamism is derived from an otherwise non-politically-natured Islam. You make it sound as if the Quran was never meant to be a political book, and that it is people who perverted its meaning and used it for a political purpose.

I assume this would be directed at me as well since I brought it up. I freely admit I do not know the Quran well because I cannot read Arabic and I have never read a full translation. My knowledge is in Middle Eastern political theory and history, so I have to answer mostly from that perspective.

Islam is meant to be a total way of life and that includes politics. If you actually read the Quran you will find that it has clear and direct instructions on how to run a state and manage its affairs.

The Quran goes so deep that it covers issues such as inheritance laws, taxes, criminal law, family law, wealth distribution etc etc..
Most Islamic countries today, including the more secular and non-sharia ones, base much if not most of their constitutions on the Quran.

This is where I have to disagree. The Quran does not give clear and direct instructions on how to run a modern political system or economy. It may have been useful several hundred years ago but for a modern Middle Eastern state, the Quran is not enough and has not been used, beyond a superficial dressing-up, significantly in the constitution of any state.

Iran certainly does not adopt medieval economic theory. Look through the constitution yourself. Here: http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-4.html

The introduction with the "General Principles" is the only section that appears to use Islam as a main guide. It claims that all aspects of the constitution must be based in Islam but this it is clear from the main body of the constitution that this is nothing more than rhetoric - optimistically hoping to fool the rest of the world into believing that they have managed an Islamist utopia. Once you get to the actual workings of the government and the economy it just looks like most post-revolutionary constitutions. Lots of socialist influences and lots of avoiding outside superpower interference. Islam is merely loosely patched on here and there throughout the rest of the document.

PenguinHunter

20 Sep 2006, 02:43 AM

The idea that terrorist are poor, have nothing and are therefore motivated by haste is a cultural bias that contaminates our analysis of Mid-East terrorism. In fact, coalition forces have profiled the typical suspects as being well moneyed, well educated, married, young Arab males. Meaning that before they give their life for/to the cause, they are well propositioned in their finances and their plans are well thought out. These are not anxious, mentally unstable individuals whittling away in squalor and idleness. As much as I appreciate the class-based analysis, I am disappointed to inform you neo-cons that Karl Marx doesn't explain foreign policy.

It was my post you quoted, not htb's.

I believe you are talking about something different here. My statement was to suggest that modern "Islamists" do not have a clear definition of their cause the way Islamist scholars in the 60s through the 80s did. This does not mean that I think they are irrational. They may be but of course they may be simply using Islam as a cover for other highly rational ambitions. Similarly there maybe a few rational traditional Islamists left, who are quite different from those the West now refer to as "Islamist" - or what I call here "modern Islamists." (Note my distinctions between Islamist and "modern Islamist" in the next paragraph.)

When I refer to modern "Islamists," (or lack thereof) I am not talking about those fighting for the freedom of their country in Iraq or those reacting to Western interference in the region generally. My point is that there are no more Islamists in the traditional sense of the word. The modern "Islamists" are those still trying to use Islam to back up their violence or dictatorships. They are not Islamists however, because they have no realistic long-term goals and their guiding principles are not meticulously alligned with Islam, rather Islam is used to garb other ambitions for a number of reasons. These people no longer have a clear vision of an Islamic State; they do not have clear political, economic, or moral theories at all let alone those based in Islam.

The Islamist vision(s) has become disjointed and fractured to a point where it is no longer anything more than an abstract ideal. This ideal cuts across classes it's true, but those taking up arms in Afghanistan and the Syrians crossing the border to fight in Iraq are not generally wealthy. And further, to what extent is this religiously motivated and how many of these men go to fight because they see the West's disrespect for their people's autonomy and individual rights? (I believe you say something along these lines later so I don't think we have much reason to be arguing here).

If you mean big-scale terrorism in the Nairobi bombing and September 11th sense, then your profile is definitely appropriate.

And how am I a neo-con?

This misconception prevents us from forming a coherent position regarding "Islamofascism", "Islamic fundamentalism" or "Jihadism" because our first and most critical error is in disregarding these people as irrational. Instead we invent new figurative terms for this enemy catching many in this broad dragnet giving the appearance that we do not know exactly who we're after, targeting suspects with less selection than our enemies and indicating that we are ourselves irrational.

I have not disregarded them as irrational. See above.

An Army general said once of the Iraqi insurgency that if America was ever invaded, he'd hope that we would be smart enough to fight the way they're fighting. Before you mistake this as appreciation of Al-Quaeda, the insurgents are nationalistic or tribalistic in nature as opposed to the Islamist Al-Queada. Though, the two are coalescing under Bush's newest reinvention of the "War on Terror", a terms which lends itself quite well to alterations.

I think you may have made a lot of assumptions about my views based on one post. I don't know how. You're pretty much preaching to the choir here.

I see you may have misinterpreted one paragraph and carried that impression through the rest of my post. I hope I clarified somewhat here with my first response.

Note here: According to my redefinitions, your "Islamist Al-Quaeda" - as the West refers to it as well - is not Islamist at all. It is a modern form of Islamism, (which I only use for lack of a better word) which has no realistic long-term goals and is more a product of the modern world and a reaction to the West, than anything rooted in the Quran. To refer to a group like Al-Quaeda (arguments as to how they actually exist aside for a moment) as Islamist is misleading and causes unnecessary religious and cultural tensions.

Does this make sense or do I need to try to reformulate this in a different way?

In the public sphere calling another foreign government a dictatorship has clout only because we can barely name the three branches of our own government never mind those of foreign governments of which we couldn't identify on a map.

Again, I know a fair bit about Iranian the government and constitution, and I certainly know where it is on a map. I've argued in favor of certain things in the Iranian government elsewhere. It's quite a complicated state to analyze, partly because the government itself doesn't seem to have a clear position on a lot of issues and dresses up their post-revolution politics superficially with Islam. This is more of a projection for the rest of the world than a fundamental aspect of Iranian existence.

ptGatsby

20 Sep 2006, 04:11 AM

That looks to me like a non-religious, fairly educated and reasonable person, trying to redefine Islam on their own terms because they don't want to deal with the cold hard facts of what they see and hear.

Heh, yah... cold hard facts, that's what's I'm ignoring. One side ignores all that non-islamic terrorist stuff over the last hundred years... all those that had social causes and call this one different. I look over history, talk about history, talk about selecting understanding and everything else... but instead, the rhetoric is the factual truth?

Islam is a bad influence because of its cross-border nature, like any religion. Its particularily dangerous right now because it was concentrated in the most socially broken areas. Sure, it needs to evolve - its kind of outdated and what not.

What I argue against is the blind devotion to blaming it as the source of all ills. Its a tool... a transport for underlying social problems. Just like religion in the states, now.

Listen to what Islamofascists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban say they want. Call me unoriginal, but I believe this is the best way to come to a conclusion about what it is that they, well, really want.

Well, why don't we run down a redneck from down south in the US to represent all of christianity too. Or perhaps, one of the abortion bombers. Or any one of the extremist groups. Perhaps one of those 'nuke all of the middle east' types to represent the US.

The task of dismantling the terrorist groups will be a long and difficult task now. But they are terrorist groups with popular support. You cannot destroy a social movement ie: popular support - and that's why the terrorist will keep coming, over and over.

Until that is delt with, all the 'Islam is the root of all evil' talk will just be a counter-social movement, a polarisation. Like every other attempt to stamp out a popular social movement, it will be counter productive and force the issue.

Its easy when its a national force. Kill a few tens of thousands of people, the problem goes away. Festers, but goes away. That's not an option with a billion people spread out all over the world.

I don't see how this is a social movement instead of a religious one. Just because you may have never felt "the love of God" (or whatever you want to call it) in your heart, doesn't mean that others haven't.

That's irrelevant. Even if you argue from a position of absolute certainty, all but one religion are not true. Thus, they are social creations. As a result, it can be said that all religions are social creations. They are created and run, maintained and exploited... all by humans.

A person feeling the 'touch of god' is part of a social movement, true or not. Group think, crowd movement, etc. Its human nature expressing itself, manifesting. The direction it has and gives is born in the times, and then molded by the times that follow... just like everything else.

Stoned_Rider

20 Sep 2006, 11:24 AM

Religion is subject to the same human rules as everything else, to the same development paths. Social problems are the root of religion, good and bad, as well as the changes religion go through.

Any Muslim trying to reform Islam faces a serious problem; he is directly contradicting the words of Allah:

Quran 5:3 This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.

Which leads me to another point...

The Quran does not give clear and direct instructions on how to run a modern political system or economy. It may have been useful several hundred years ago but for a modern Middle Eastern state, the Quran is not enough and has not been used, beyond a superficial dressing-up, significantly in the constitution of any state.

Yes I fully agree with that. However, this is not what the Muslims believe. Islam is meant to be a perfect way of life, valid for all times and all places. This is one of the main tenets of Islam, as proven by the Quranic verse I quoted above.

I hope you appreciate how difficult it is for a Muslim to accept what you just said. A Muslim cannot be a Muslim anymore if he realizes there is any sort of flaw in the Quran, no matter how trivial. It is supposed to be no less than 100% perfect, 100% right, 100% valid for all times and places.

Therefore, Muslims believe that all the solutions to the problems humanity is facing today can be found in the Quran.

Well, why don't we run down a redneck from down south in the US to represent all of christianity too. Or perhaps, one of the abortion bombers. Or any one of the extremist groups. Perhaps one of those 'nuke all of the middle east' types to represent the US.

If it can be proven that a redneck's interpretation of Christianity is the correct one then yeah, he represents all of Christianity. This is exactly what I'm doing with Islam. There is only one true interpretation of Islam and it is that of the terrorists/islamists, therefore they are the best representers of Islam.

PS - I never said Islam is the root of all evil. That's putting words into my mouth. For me, it is enough for people to acknowledge that Islam is indeed evil, full stop.
Using your logic, I can argue that criticizing Nazism is wrong because it is not the root of all evil!

Note here: According to my redefinitions, your "Islamist Al-Quaeda" - as the West refers to it as well - is not Islamist at all. It is a modern form of Islamism, (which I only use for lack of a better word) which has no realistic long-term goals and is more a product of the modern world and a reaction to the West, than anything rooted in the Quran. To refer to a group like Al-Quaeda (arguments as to how they actually exist aside for a moment) as Islamist is misleading and causes unnecessary religious and cultural tensions.

But, what other reason would cause a billionnaire to leave everything behind, travel to a far-away country (Afghanistan) and participate in a war that has absolutey nothing to do with him, and live the rest of his life hiding in caves, if it's not Islam?

You consider Al-Qaeda's long-term goals to be unrealistic but they certainly don't think this is the case. In fact, they expect nothing less than achieving their goals, because it is what Muhammad promised them. Their whole freaking life and worldview revolves on that. They believe it is simply a matter of time.

Do you think that all those "Islam will conquer Rome" slogans are just dreams? No! To Muslims, it is a reality because that is exactly what Muhammad promised them.

Fuck. This is complicated and my English sucks. I hope demagogic schizoid doesn't mind me using his words:

Their beliefs and aims are based on them valuing their religion above else, and wishing to apply it in every aspect of everyone's life. They feel a personal duty to Allah to do so. I don't mean some vague idea of right or wrong, driven by personal morals derived from their religion but with it's practical implementation and attitude to day to day events defined by the world they see around them - I mean they believe that Mohammed came to earth and told them exactly what they have to do, and that through reading his teachings they have come to know Allah, and that he is as real a being as anyone made from flesh and bones, and that as well as their God he is their leader in day to day life, and that they must do exactly as he says.

Stoned_Rider

20 Sep 2006, 11:48 AM

And further, to what extent is this religiously motivated and how many of these men go to fight because they see the West's disrespect for their people's autonomy and individual rights?
Shahada - Martyrdom.

Muslims jump at any opportunity for martyrdom. I don't think the Moroccans who travel all the way to Iraq to fight are actually genuinely concerned about the Iraqis, to the extent that makes them give up everything in their lives (friends, family, loved ones) and travel halfway around the world, just so they can die. Martyrdom is the highest possible achievement for any Muslim. Hell, at one point I even contemplated to travel to Palestine and fight alongside the Palestinians in the second Intifada, for no other reason than martyrdom.

htb

20 Sep 2006, 02:55 PM

It was my post you quoted, not htb's.He misfired, I think.

It creates a sense of "Other" suggesting that the political structure and ambitions of these Near Eastern dictatorships are fundamentally different from others because of the main religion in these states, when in fact - as you say - they are all the same.And that can lead to an increasingly narrower definition of state and non-state threats to free countries. Madrigal's list was helpful if for reasons she didn't intend: by the end of the Cold War categorical divisions between communist/pro-communist dictatorships and anti-communist and neutral dictatorships had become so indelible that when the Soviet dominion fell, those in the latter group were largely omitted from consideration in foreign affairs. Francis Fukuyama may be a (traditionalist) rightist, but his supposition that the world had reached "The End of History" resonated in popular thought.

Following that, if "Islam" is defined as the threat, not only will it be targeted in error but at the exclusion of authoritarian parties that lack Islamic pretensions. It could be conceivable that a monster like Robert Mugabe, if he were to somehow be of strategic value against Islamists, would win Zimbabwe especial and protected status like the West's client states in the Near East -- and we would be right back to where we were fifteen years ago. Not surprisingly, the push to indict Islam is driven largely by a faction on the Western right that is skeptical of the prospects of Third World liberalization.

Although I have a feeling we would disagree on the quality of the political systems - which many view as dictatorshipsDo we, though? If so, can we reconcile differences for a common understanding? Again, even though we reference the region by synecdoche, the "Near East," which acceptably includes North Africa, can be divided in terms of polity into four groups: belligerent totalitarian states, authoritarian states, reforming authoritarian/illiberal states and free states. Using Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org) and the Economist Intelligence Unit (authoritative on empirical analysis of political and civil rights) as a guide, the first group is comprised of Iran and Syria, arguably Libya; the second group Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Egypt, Qatar, Oman, Algeria, Tunisia, Palestinian Terroritories; the third group Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon; the fourth group Israel and arguably Iraq.

You are assuming that Islamism is derived from an otherwise non-politically-natured Islam. You make it sound as if the Quran was never meant to be a political book, and that it is people who perverted its meaning and used it for a political purpose.PtGatsby and PenguinHunter made good counterpoints; the Pentateuch, particularly, is laden with what most of us would consider draconian statutes. As far as political influence, the Protestant Reformation and English Reformation speak for themselves. If the Bible had been substantially altered between then and now, I would find more reason to believe that Islam itself drives tyranny.

ShadyShady

20 Sep 2006, 04:11 PM

Anybody else watch his UN speech? I saw the whole thing on tv but heres a clip somebody put on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjfhdH7foAw

thats 8 minutes, he talked for around 30 minutes, I was expecting cnn to cut him off because of some things he said but they played the whole thing.

charred_heart

20 Sep 2006, 04:31 PM

Hell, at one point I even contemplated to travel to Palestine and fight alongside the Palestinians in the second Intifada, for no other reason than martyrdom.

so you just wanted to kill till someone stopped you? The whole point is that you have to be sure you are doing the right thing. I'd expect a sharp person like you to at least settle the matter in their own mind before thinking about martyrdom.

There are those who think this way, but I find it hard to believe you did.

I have no problem risking my life for a good cause. No shame in that.

Stoned_Rider

20 Sep 2006, 04:44 PM

so you just wanted to kill till someone stopped you? The whole point is that you have to be sure you are doing the right thing. I'd expect a sharp person like you to at least settle the matter in their own mind before thinking about martyrdom.

Yeah, obviously I would have had to been convinced that it was a legitimate war for Allah's cause, which I was.

charred_heart

20 Sep 2006, 04:52 PM

Yeah, obviously I would have had to been convinced that it was a legitimate war for Allah's cause, which I was.doesn't that sound a litte vague?

demagogic_schizoid

20 Sep 2006, 05:00 PM

Heh, yah... cold hard facts, that's what's I'm ignoring. One side ignores all that non-islamic terrorist stuff over the last hundred years... all those that had social causes and call this one different. I look over history, talk about history, talk about selecting understanding and everything else... but instead, the rhetoric is the factual truth?

Islam is a bad influence because of its cross-border nature, like any religion. Its particularily dangerous right now because it was concentrated in the most socially broken areas. Sure, it needs to evolve - its kind of outdated and what not.

What I argue against is the blind devotion to blaming it as the source of all ills. Its a tool... a transport for underlying social problems. Just like religion in the states, now.

Well, why don't we run down a redneck from down south in the US to represent all of christianity too. Or perhaps, one of the abortion bombers. Or any one of the extremist groups. Perhaps one of those 'nuke all of the middle east' types to represent the US.

The task of dismantling the terrorist groups will be a long and difficult task now. But they are terrorist groups with popular support. You cannot destroy a social movement ie: popular support - and that's why the terrorist will keep coming, over and over.

Until that is delt with, all the 'Islam is the root of all evil' talk will just be a counter-social movement, a polarisation. Like every other attempt to stamp out a popular social movement, it will be counter productive and force the issue.

Its easy when its a national force. Kill a few tens of thousands of people, the problem goes away. Festers, but goes away. That's not an option with a billion people spread out all over the world.

That's irrelevant. Even if you argue from a position of absolute certainty, all but one religion are not true. Thus, they are social creations. As a result, it can be said that all religions are social creations. They are created and run, maintained and exploited... all by humans.

A person feeling the 'touch of god' is part of a social movement, true or not. Group think, crowd movement, etc. Its human nature expressing itself, manifesting. The direction it has and gives is born in the times, and then molded by the times that follow... just like everything else.

Fair enough, but I think you need to differentiate a social movement from a religious movement which has come into being partly due to social causes.

Stoned_Rider

20 Sep 2006, 05:00 PM

doesn't that sound a litte vague?

Why? I saw it as a war between oppressed Muslims and Zionists invading our holy lands! The perfect recipe for a legitimate holy war!

charred_heart

20 Sep 2006, 05:09 PM

Why? I saw it as a war between oppressed Muslims and Zionists invading our holy lands! The perfect recipe for a legitimate holy war!sounds like you were forcing yourself to believe in that, even though you didn't. Explains the simple reason.
It's understandable, it's not easy to admit to yourself that you are in disagreement with everyone around you.

Now that you're honest with yourself, what do you think about the Israel-Palestine crisis? Any ideas on achieveing a settlement?

Stoned_Rider

20 Sep 2006, 05:29 PM

Now that you're honest with yourself, what do you think about the Israel-Palestine crisis? Any ideas on achieveing a settlement?
Funny you should mention this. I was thinking this over a spliff the other day and came up with this solution:

Two nations. One land. One venue (Jerusalem). One football match. Twenty-two men. Ninety minutes.

Israel vs the Arabs. Let's fucking have it!! :duel:

Nemesis

20 Sep 2006, 05:36 PM

Funny you should mention this. I was thinking this over a spliff the other day and came up with this solution:

Two nations. One land. One venue (Jerusalem). One football match. Twenty-two men. Ninety minutes.

Israel vs the Arabs. Let's fucking have it!! :duel:
I agree. Send the Athens 2004 Iraqi soccer team... Or football team if you're a heathen :)

Stoned_Rider

20 Sep 2006, 05:53 PM

I agree. Send the Athens 2004 Iraqi soccer team... Or football team if you're a heathen :)

Haha the Iraqi team in 2004 was a fluke :p
Most of the Arab team would be made up of Moroccans :cool:

Zero Angel

20 Sep 2006, 06:01 PM

You cannot just love things in order to heal society, because you are simply treating the symptom, not the problem. You can address hatred on its own, but again, you are simply treating the symptoms. In order to heal society, you must treat the cause, and that is the 'ends justify the means' attitude that everyone seems to think is right. The 'ends justify the means' attitude and pride that causes people to act dishonorably and that spreads dissonance (pride based), confusion (ie: selective honesty), and hatred through society.

It is not honorable to kill a busload of people (and children), nor is it honorable to manipulate the world's balance of power (ie: through the deposition of sane but opposing governments in favor of 'puppet' dictatorships that are oppressive to their people). If you need an enemy, look at the ones who are not behaving honorably, but are behaving on other principles. If you were to look at an activity through the eyes of a terrorist, they will see themselves as honorable (willing to die for a cause) however, this is based on the philosophy that the ends justify the means, and that they are an honorable vessel in which the ends are carried out.

HOWEVER, An honor motivated action is not done on the philosophy that the ends justify the means, but in that the means themselves are important. Ignoring the means allows terrorists to kill women and children.

Now, for those arguing that liberals are similar to terrorists, I will make this point. It is not the "Liberals" you should be opposing, but rather the ones who believe that the ends (ie: freedom) justify using less than honorable means to carry out (ie: in the name of expediency). So long the other camp is honorable, then you cannot engage them without coming to a resolution at the end.

If you need something to fight, then first go after the ones who believe that the ends justify the means, because you won't find any honor there, just bigotry and self-righteousness.

Honor, not pride, is what allows two enemies to shake hands and have mutual respect for each other despite their opposing views, or to say 'OK, upon recieving this new information I realize that i *am* wrong' rather than trying to maintain their position to maintain their pride.

You might not think this is relevant, but the only thing that will truly heal society is honor, and the only thing that will justify conflict will be honor (not pride or receptivity). Why? Because honor is one of the highest forms of reason, and a lot of the conflict and dissonance that you see is based on individuals behaving dishonorably.

This is the kind of thing that allows the bush administration to circumvent the constitution and do things like secretly tap phones, bomb villaiges (not out of malicious intent, but rather out of apathy and the 'ends justify means' attitude, knowing that their precision bombs aren't so precise after all).

Nemesis

20 Sep 2006, 06:02 PM

Haha the Iraqi team in 2004 was a fluke :p
Most of the Arab team would be made up of Moroccans :cool:
I'm reading a bit about Morocco. Are you guys basically the most secular/free society in the Islamic world, outside of say Kuwait or the UAE?

charred_heart

20 Sep 2006, 06:09 PM

The only thing that truly justifies such fighting is honor (not pride). It is not honorable to kill a busload of people (and children), nor is it honorable to manipulate the world's balance of power. Now in a sense, if you were to look at an activity through the eyes of a terrorist, they will see themselves as honorable (willing to die for a cause) however, this is based on the philosophy that the ends justify the means, and that they are an honorable vessel in which the ends are carried out.

HOWEVER, An honor motivated action is not done on the philosophy that the ends justify the means, but in that the means themselves are important. Ignoring the means allows terrorists to kill women and children.

Now, for those arguing that liberals are similar to terrorists, I will make this point. It is not the "Liberals" you should be opposing, but rather the ones who believe that the ends (ie: freedom) justify using less than honorable means to carry out (ie: in the name of expediency). So long the other camp is honorable, then you cannot engage them without coming to a resolution at the end.

If you need something to fight, then first go after the ones who believe that the ends justify the means, because you won't find any honor there, just bigotry and self-righteousness.

Honor, not pride, is what allows two enemies to shake hands and have mutual respect for each other despite their opposing views.great post. I totally agree

Zero Angel

20 Sep 2006, 07:37 PM

Thanks! Though I edited it a LOT and finally ended up splitting it off to a New Topic (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=421693).

PenguinHunter

20 Sep 2006, 09:34 PM

It seems I can't avoid going this direction, so I'll start with Islam and work my way forward.

As I said, I have not read the Quran but for my argument that is irrelevent. I have followed your discussions about Islam with CH and I do not see a clear conclusion. This is because both sides are interpretations of a book/religion which is not clear to begin with. There are metaphors to be analyzed, seemingly direct statements to be questioned and the problem of translation on top of it all. (Incidentally, if you feel your English is weak why are you so sure of your Quranic translations?) So long as a work can be interpreted in a variety of ways - you and CH have certainly not shown the Quran to be otherwise yet - any action that results of these interpretations can only be the responsibility of the interpreter not the work itself.

You said that you yourself once considered going to fight for the sole purpose of martyrdom and you somehow feel this proves corruption in the Quran. CH can say the opposite. He is an example of a Muslim who has never had these feelings. Does this prove that the Quran should be interpreted as peace-loving etc? No, but neither does your experience. I genuinely do not want to offend you, obviously I know little about you so keep in mind that the following statement is based solely on your posting here and I am freely willing to admit I may be wrong:

I feel you may be currently unwilling to take responsibility for thoughts and (almost) actions which scare you deeply. It is much easier to blame the Quran than to look down inside yourself and find out why, for a time, you wanted "martyrdom." Why would you not look at the factors that influenced this interpretation of a fairly ambiguous and at times contradictory book?

Yes I fully agree with that. However, this is not what the Muslims believe. Islam is meant to be a perfect way of life, valid for all times and all places. This is one of the main tenets of Islam, as proven by the Quranic verse I quoted above.

I hope you appreciate how difficult it is for a Muslim to accept what you just said. A Muslim cannot be a Muslim anymore if he realizes there is any sort of flaw in the Quran, no matter how trivial. It is supposed to be no less than 100% perfect, 100% right, 100% valid for all times and places.

Therefore, Muslims believe that all the solutions to the problems humanity is facing today can be found in the Quran.

Just because there are not explicit instructions doesn?t mean they can?t claim a kind of superficial alignment of their state with the Quran. This is what most states do. I do not think many have serious difficulties with this because, unlike yourself, they use a more liberal approach - liberal Islamic life philosophies rather than strict Quranic obedience and pain-staking interpretation for its application to modern life. Again this comes back to the concept of interpretation that I was talking about above.

But, what other reason would cause a billionnaire to leave everything behind, travel to a far-away country (Afghanistan) and participate in a war that has absolutey nothing to do with him, and live the rest of his life hiding in caves, if it's not Islam?

Again, this is personal identity rather than a matter of religion. For whatever reason, he believes this is what he should do. This man is responsible for his interpretations and his actions. What purpose does it serve to try to blame an inanimate object (the Quran) which may be interpreted a number of ways?

You consider Al-Qaeda's long-term goals to be unrealistic but they certainly don't think this is the case. In fact, they expect nothing less than achieving their goals, because it is what Muhammad promised them. Their whole freaking life and worldview revolves on that. They believe it is simply a matter of time.

My point is that they don't have clear goals. They have adopted bits and pieces of previous Islamists? visions and the result is now little more than an abstract concept of rebellion against the West. ptGatsby explains this quite reasonably based on the geo-political history of the Middle East. Unlike their predecessors they have no concept or theory of an Islamist political structure or society. Their main goal at all stages is to bring down Western decadence and oppression NOT to raise Islam up. The latter is secondary and this is why many theorists (myself included) are beginning to suggest that these groups are both modern (as opposed to Islamo-medieval) and are in direct reaction to Western post-colonial encroachment and interference. They have no framework to carry this vision out, other than violence. Since violence on its own is not going to gain support they do their best to dress it up with religion. Islam is the religion of choice because it is the religion of the majority of those who have dealt with Western (post) colonialism for the past 50-60 years. (All ideologies can be manipulated in such a way that they appear to support violence - unless that ideology is explicit pacifism and nothing else.)

It makes no sense to suggest that Al-Qaeda has a medieval level of awareness. They clearly adopt very innovative and modern approaches to "bring down" the Western world.

Fuck. This is complicated and my English sucks. I hope demagogic schizoid doesn't mind me using his words:

"Their beliefs and aims are based on them valuing their religion above else, and wishing to apply it in every aspect of everyone's life. They feel a personal duty to Allah to do so. I don't mean some vague idea of right or wrong, driven by personal morals derived from their religion but with it's practical implementation and attitude to day to day events defined by the world they see around them - I mean they believe that Mohammed came to earth and told them exactly what they have to do, and that through reading his teachings they have come to know Allah, and that he is as real a being as anyone made from flesh and bones, and that as well as their God he is their leader in day to day life, and that they must do exactly as he says."

Notice how much emphasis is put on individual beliefs (i.e. interpretations) here. Mohammed said nothing about bombing a US embassy in Nairobi. This is interpretation.

Think about Zero Angel's post as well. It's not directly related but it certainly has relevance.

(I'm at work so this was a bit rushed. I think it came out clearly though.)

EDIT: I'll be back later to reply to you, htb.

PenguinHunter

21 Sep 2006, 05:07 AM

Following that, if "Islam" is defined as the threat, not only will it be targeted in error but at the exclusion of authoritarian parties that lack Islamic pretensions. It could be conceivable that a monster like Robert Mugabe, if he were to somehow be of strategic value against Islamists, would win Zimbabwe especial and protected status like the West's client states in the Near East -- and we would be right back to where we were fifteen years ago. Not surprisingly, the push to indict Islam is driven largely by a faction on the Western right that is skeptical of the prospects of Third World liberalization.

Absolutely. This is the kind of thing we see in Saudi and Libya now. Both are authoritarian governments receiving significant "special considerations" for fighting "Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism." There is a surprisingly large and popular push in Saudi for governmental liberalization and improved civil rights - quite contrary to the typical stereotype of the average Saudi as backwards and close-minded, recent polls and demonstrations suggest otherwise. Rather it is the government and a small circling elite, kept in place by massive oil revenues, that maintains the highly restrictive and conservative air.

Do we, though? If so, can we reconcile differences for a common understanding? Again, even though we reference the region by synecdoche, the "Near East," which acceptably includes North Africa, can be divided in terms of polity into four groups: belligerent totalitarian states, authoritarian states, reforming authoritarian/illiberal states and free states. Using Freedom House ( http://www.freedomhouse.org) and the Economist Intelligence Unit (authoritative on empirical analysis of political and civil rights) as a guide, the first group is comprised of Iran and Syria, arguably Libya; the second group Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Egypt, Qatar, Oman, Algeria, Tunisia, Palestinian Terroritories; the third group Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon; the fourth group Israel and arguably Iraq.

I had to laugh at the Freedom Maps - "Free" "Partly Free" and "Not Free." Doesn't get any simpler than that.

As to the (your?) groupings I would make some adjustments but not many significant ones. The UAE, Oman and possibly Qatar I would place somewhere between 3 and 4. I base this on a fun debate I had with Johnny (feels like ages ago now). We mostly discussed the nature of democracy and how that applies to a nation like the Emirates in comparison to the USA. It's here if you are interested: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6664

So I would have to disagree with Freedom House's statement that "Economic reform has not been matched by political reform in the UAE, which has a closed political system in which the views of citizens are not taken into account."

My view is that the claim that nations such as the UAE and Oman are "unfree" dictatorships arises from a poorly defined vision of democracy in the West -- the USA especially -- and a lack of understanding of the political culture in these states.

I also believe the Palestinian Territories and Tunisia deserve a higher placement (although I haven't read a lot about Tunisia lately, maybe this has changed). No one could have asked for smoother elections in Palestine. I've argued several times on here that, had the West and Israel not been so quick to dismiss the Hamas victory, there would have been a golden opportunity for negotiations and possibly a settlement. (I think one of those discussions was with Johnny too. I like talking to him; haven't seen him around for a while though.)

I'm not sure where to place Algeria. They have a lot of issues to work out. There are still factional tensions but they've had a stable past few years and what appeared to be open elections. I wasn't sure about Bouteflika at first but he seems to be setting the country on a good path - I'm actually quite optimistic about Algeria's future.

In my mind Saudi deserves to be at the bottom of the list despite its lack of "belligerence." Are Iran, Syria and Libya really belligerent? Iran likes to posture but ultimately does very little. Syria is similar. They are strange because they are far more culturally liberal than the regime in Saudi Arabia and yet are portrayed in the media as far more backwards because it's in the best interest of the West to keep good relations with the massively oil-rich state. Iran and Syria are politically closed but culturally open (in comparison) and deserve to be above Saudi because of this. This cultural aspect is rarely considered on political freedom charts like this even though many cultural restrictions are politically motivated. For the sake of the scale, let's give Saudi a 1.25 and Iran and Syria a 1.75.

The others seem reasonable I suppose although I would bump Egypt up half a spot because I believe it is slowly liberalizing as well.

I don't know much about Libya and what I do know confuses me so I suppose I'll leave it alone for now.

I've made a lot of pretty general statements here to give a bit of an outline of my opinions. If you are particularly interested in discussing any specific states, regions or ideas in more depth I'm all for it.

Stoned_Rider

21 Sep 2006, 01:49 PM

PenguinHunter,

The Quran is so vague and ambiguous, often contradictory. I totally agree with that. In fact it is good enough for me to know that you hold such a view, because that alone is sufficient to totally destroy the Islamic fable that the Quran is 100% perfect. That alone is enough to make Muslims think twice about their choice of religion. The Quran repeatedly claims that it is a clear and complete guide to all humanity.

Guidance to humanity proclaimed in the Quran is complete and applicable to all societies and all times. Whether we are living in the Stone Age or the Space Age, riding in horse pulled carriages or flying in Space Shuttles, we haven't changed a bit. We still possess physical and emotional desires, we live in societies, interact with one another, establish social, political and economic systems; thus the relevant need for guidance by our Creator in all these spheres of our life. Islam is the only religion which is totally compatible with scientific facts and provides complete, explicit and clear guidance in all spheres of life.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:lL1dlzjpKisJ:www.jannah.org/articles/quransci.html

Before I proceed, I'd like to give charred_heart something to ponder upon:
The way I see it, if the Quran really was from God why would he make it so vague, knowing that people would honestly interpret it the wrong way and use it to kill other people, and still claim that it is a clear guide to all humanity?
It seems to me that Allah is deliberately deceiving and misleading his own creation, since surely it would have been no big deal for an all-knowing god to rephrase his words and make them clearer. This totally does not fit into the concept of a loving, merciful god.

Having said that, I still insist that there is an inherently evil message in the Quran that people have to acknowledge. If some Muslims interpret the Quran peacefully, it does not mean that the message is not there. They are simply choosing to ignore it. Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha) is a fine example of a Muslim who believed it was not enough to ignore this message, he called on Muslims to honestly acknowledge it, totally denounce it and remove it from the Quran in order to avoid violent interpretations. Result? He got executed.

PH, I think your irrational Islamic bias - irrational because you insist on defending Islam despite admitting not to have read the Quran - is filling in the blanks for you and making you see things that aren't really there. You tend to make generalisations based on what you know about other religions and apply them to Islam. This is probably the most common mistake for Islam sympathizers. For example, you believe that CH does not agree with my views on martyrdom when in reality he said absolutely nothing of the sort! Read his posts again carefully and you will realize this is true. He did not deny that martyrdom is the highest possible achievement for a Muslim. In fact, the Quran promises martyrs that they will enter the highest level of paradise, reserved exclusively for them. Sort of a VIP lounge! One of the important reasons why Islam became so powerful is that Muhammad promised either victory or martyrdom for his followers - a win-win situation!

You also brought up the issue of translation, presenting it as the main obstacle in interpreting the Quran, when in reality me and CH never argued about Quranic translation. That's right! You can check this for yourself as well.
In fact you proved you were ignorant to the extent that you assumed the Quranic translations I provided are my own, not even bothering to do a simple google search, and not realizing that Islamically-approved English translations of the Quran are widely and freely available on the Internet.

If you really did follow my conversations with CH closely as you claim, surely you would have noticed that he still has a lot to answer for (by his own admission). Especially in this thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=12873). In that thread I made a considerable effort to show that the interpretations are not my own, but are endorsed and supported by the most respected and knowledgeable scholars in Islam such as Ibn Kathir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir). All my claims about Islam are in fact taken directly from the earliest Islamic sources available (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari etc..).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today.

As for Al-Qaeda, this might provide a better insight to their mentality although I am by no means presenting this as conclusive evidence:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=346570&postcount=16

Stoned_Rider

21 Sep 2006, 02:21 PM

I'm reading a bit about Morocco. Are you guys basically the most secular/free society in the Islamic world, outside of say Kuwait or the UAE?
I would say it is probably even more secular/free than Kuwait and the UAE. Media in the UAE is still subject to rigorous censorship laws and even the Internet is not safe from such laws. There is also the famous case of Touria Tiouli, who couldn't Islamically prove that she was raped by three men (Sharia requires 4 male witnesses), so she got charged with adultery instead!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,868508,00.html

Morocco is taking huge leaps towards secularism and freedom. A new family law, unprecedented in Islamic countries, was recently introduced that ensures fair and equal treatment of women:

The wife is no longer legally obliged to obey her husband.

The adult woman is entitled to self-guardianship, rather than that of a male family member, and may exercise it freely and independently;

The right to divorce is a prerogative of both men and women, exercised under judicial supervision;

The principle of divorce by mutual consent is established.

Polygamy is subject to the judge?s authorization and to stringent legal conditions, making the practice nearly impossible;

The woman has the right to impose a condition in the marriage contract requiring that her husband refrain from taking other wives;

The woman is given the possibility of retaining custody of her child even upon remarrying or moving out of the area where her husband lives;

http://www.learningpartnership.org/advocacy/alerts/morocco0204

It goes without saying that this new law is being fiercely opposed and criticized by the Moroccan Islamist parties :rolleyes:

The current king, Mohammed VI, came as a breath of fresh air and totally revolutionalised how things are handled in Morocco, unlike his father Hassan II who ruled with an iron fist.

However, all this is in serious risk of going down the drain if the Islamist parties come into power. More here: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=408738&postcount=157

Nemesis

21 Sep 2006, 04:18 PM

I would say it is probably even more secular/free than Kuwait and the UAE. Media in the UAE is still subject to rigorous censorship laws and even the Internet is not safe from such laws. There is also the famous case of Touria Tiouli, who couldn't Islamically prove that she was raped by three men (Sharia requires 4 male witnesses), so she got charged with adultery instead!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,868508,00.html

Morocco is taking huge leaps towards secularism and freedom. A new family law, unprecedented in Islamic countries, was recently introduced that ensures fair and equal treatment of women:

http://www.learningpartnership.org/advocacy/alerts/morocco0204

It goes without saying that this new law is being fiercely opposed and criticized by the Moroccan Islamist parties :rolleyes:

The current king, Mohammed VI, came as a breath of fresh air and totally revolutionalised how things are handled in Morocco, unlike his father Hassan II who ruled with an iron fist.

However, all this is in serious risk of going down the drain if the Islamist parties come into power. More here: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=408738&postcount=157
I knew there was a reason I found Morocco to be so interesting. I'd like to visit someday.

So is it a constitutional monarchy? I seem to remember that being one of the conditions of the French relinquishing control.

Stoned_Rider

21 Sep 2006, 04:28 PM

I knew there was a reason I found Morocco to be so interesting. I'd like to visit someday.

So is it a constitutional monarchy? I seem to remember that being one of the conditions of the French relinquishing control.
Sort of.. I'd love for Morocco to one day be a true constitutional monarchy like the UK. The king still has the majority of the power, and can appoint or remove the prime minister, dissolve the parliament etc.. at will. But I'd say it is definitely heading there.

PS - You are welcome!

Heleuiski

21 Sep 2006, 04:50 PM

Sort of.. I'd love for Morocco to one day be a true constitutional monarchy like the UK. The king still has the majority of the power, and can appoint or remove the prime minister, dissolve the parliament etc.. at will. But I'd say it is definitely heading there.

PS - You are welcome!

The food is great.
Yum yum.
And the mint tea.

htb

21 Sep 2006, 05:05 PM

My time is limited, Penguin, so I'll take up your offer of narrowed discussion.

To start with, we may be operating on different definitions of the word "democracy." Particularly in your exchange with Johnny, you interpreted the word literally in a point made against American polity -- which is, strictly speaking, republican and federalist (each attribute accounting for indirect representation such as Article I, Section 3 prior to the 17th Amendment; and the electoral college). From there, your conclusion of the Emirates being closer to the Greek root of "democracy" than the United States seems to have been accomplished by semantics. The leaders of the U.A.E. do not permit a fraction of the civil and political liberties of the United States -- that is empirical and irrefutable. If the definitions of said liberties are not mutually agreed upon we may be at an impasse.

By association I question the assertion that "the entire population is happy" with dynastic leaders who do not allow a great range of criticism nor their electoral replacement. First, that runs counter to the observed behavior of any population liberated from an authoritarian society, to wit, once it isn't illegal, people speak their minds; second, it implies, however inadvertantly, that people in an illiberal culture have an innately underdeveloped sense of self-determination. The other side of that is Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," so by analogy a population with no shared experience of civil or political liberties may not realize the stark differences in free expression, enterprise and assocation between a liberal country and the U.A.E.

As for Freedom House -- I appeal to you to give its soundly justified methodology (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2006) greater consideration.

PenguinHunter

21 Sep 2006, 08:27 PM

PH, I think your irrational Islamic bias - irrational because you insist on defending Islam despite admitting not to have read the Quran - is filling in the blanks for you and making you see things that aren't really there. You tend to make generalisations based on what you know about other religions and apply them to Islam. This is probably the most common mistake for Islam sympathizers. For example, you believe that CH does not agree with my views on martyrdom when in reality he said absolutely nothing of the sort! Read his posts again carefully and you will realize this is true. He did not deny that martyrdom is the highest possible achievement for a Muslim. In fact, the Quran promises martyrs that they will enter the highest level of paradise, reserved exclusively for them. Sort of a VIP lounge! One of the important reasons why Islam became so powerful is that Muhammad promised either victory or martyrdom for his followers - a win-win situation!

Unfortunately you seem to have completely missed my point. I don't even want to be in this discussion.

I never sought to defend Islam because in my mind there is no one single Islam, there are many Islams - such is the nature of interpretation of texts. I was deflating your irrational and unnecessary attacks. In all seriousness I care very little about the Islam is good - Islam is bad debate. In my post I tried to show you that the problem can only come from the individual (and their interpretation), not the work itself, because the nature of language is such that ambiguity is almost unavoidable. The text is inanimate; it is the person that gives it meaning. If you give it a violent meaning and live your life by that meaning the problem lies in you. If you have taken this interpretation from another source and accepted it as your own, then the problem lies with both of you. This will be the case in all but the most basic of texts.

Regarding martyrdom. I was implying that charred_heart never had the ambition to become a martyr through violence in the name of the Quran, as you once did. If he has said otherwise, I will retract this, but it is hardly relevent to my main point. I simply dislike the misrepresentation of my posts.

You also brought up the issue of translation, presenting it as the main obstacle in interpreting the Quran, when in reality me and CH never argued about Quranic translation. That's right! You can check this for yourself as well.
In fact you proved you were ignorant to the extent that you assumed the Quranic translations I provided are my own, not even bothering to do a simple google search, and not realizing that Islamically-approved English translations of the Quran are widely and freely available on the Internet.

It is this specific instance I was referring to:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=420604&postcount=96
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=420608&postcount=98
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=420620&postcount=99

It was only a minor point in my post however. You have stated your sources many times and I am well aware of official Quranic translations. I just brought this up because you were discussing it in the other thread. The problem with any translation is that, in case of complex metaphors, it is often impossible to directly convey the meaning. If I was truly interested in studying the Quran I would not be satisfied until I had read the Arabic. My experience with this is from taking foreign translated literature and looking at different "official" translations of the same works. Even "official" texts differ.

If you really did follow my conversations with CH closely as you claim, surely you would have noticed that he still has a lot to answer for (by his own admission). Especially in this thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=12873). In that thread I made a considerable effort to show that the interpretations are not my own, but are endorsed and supported by the most respected and knowledgeable scholars in Islam such as Ibn Kathir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir). All my claims about Islam are in fact taken directly from the earliest Islamic sources available (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari etc..).

Once again, I didn't post to try to mediate your squabble. I posted to show that your attacks are irrational and unnecessary because of the nature of language and interpretation. Assuming free will, you are responsible for your actions. The Quran is not responsible for your interpretation of it.

As for Al-Qaeda, this might provide a better insight to their mentality although I am by no means presenting this as conclusive evidence:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=346570&postcount=16

This is something I'm more interested in. I think it more or less shows what I was saying earlier. These people should not be viewed as irrational but should not be viewed as Islamists either because of their lack of clear structure, organization and political theory. They are coming up with (very loose) strategies to take down the West but are not trying develop Islam into a political theory. As I said earlier, raising Islam up to the political realm is secondary to the destruction of the West and its replacement by the "Muslim armies."

PenguinHunter

22 Sep 2006, 01:56 AM

To start with, we may be operating on different definitions of the word "democracy." Particularly in your exchange with Johnny, you interpreted the word literally in a point made against American polity -- which is, strictly speaking, republican and federalist (each attribute accounting for indirect representation such as Article I, Section 3 prior to the 17th Amendment; and the electoral college). From there, your conclusion of the Emirates being closer to the Greek root of "democracy" than the United States seems to have been accomplished by semantics.

Yes, as I said, the definition of democracy was a large part of that discussion. I do stand by my statements though. The system in the UAE is normally misinterpreted as "no system" when in fact there are feedback loops in place, through which citizens' voices are heard. Part of the argument is also simply small government versus large government and the effectiveness of each.

The leaders of the U.A.E. do not permit a fraction of the civil and political liberties of the United States -- that is empirical and irrefutable. If the definitions of said liberties are not mutually agreed upon we may be at an impasse.

This is untrue. I agree that civil liberty would rank lower in the Emirates than in the the US or Canada. The open censorship in the UAE is on a larger scale there than in most Western countries (though remember that censorship exists in all countries). Pornography is banned and pornographic websites are blocked. However, you are free to import whatever literature you like - which is not the case in the US, UK, Canada or Australia (which is particularly bad).

(EDIT: Until recently there were problems of censorship of Israel in textbooks. I think this is not the case now, though I'll admit I'm not sure. I believe now schools tend to be quite selective about what textbooks they use but they no longer take to them with a black marker as they did a few years ago (when I was at school there). Now that I think about it, I remember in my last year of high school some of the teachers protested at the principal's a request to black out Israel on a map in a history text book and the decision was overturned as a result.)

There is freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I know you question the freedom of speech but minus pornography it is pretty reasonable. (And if you really need porn, you can easily get the satellite channels completely legally). As a citizen you are perfectly free to criticize the government. The comment that normally comes up is "self-censorship" but in reality I think this is an inaccurate portrayal. I'll continue with this point in a moment.

There are other factors to consider as well. Middle Eastern culture is late night culture and when combined with a solid legal system, and a wealthy populace, crime rates are remarkably low. Even in the larger cities Dubai and Abu Dhabi, you feel very safe wandering the streets at 4am. This is not something I can say about most similarly sized Western cities.

Without this kind of personal security, civil liberties are of secondary importance and I think this may be at least one flaw in the methodology of your link. They say they consider this in their surveys but the fact that Afghanistan is rated higher than the Emirates proves there is a problem in that evaluation.

By association I question the assertion that "the entire population is happy" with dynastic leaders who do not allow a great range of criticism nor their electoral replacement. First, that runs counter to the observed behavior of any population liberated from an authoritarian society, to wit, once it isn't illegal, people speak their minds; second, it implies, however inadvertantly, that people in an illiberal culture have an innately underdeveloped sense of self-determination. The other side of that is Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," so by analogy a population with no shared experience of civil or political liberties may not realize the stark differences in free expression, enterprise and assocation between a liberal country and the U.A.E.

I speak as a past expat who has experienced both the inside and the outside of the cave, to use your analogy, and I don't find them significantly different.

So to continue with the freedom of speech train of thought. You have to understand Emirati society first, which is a little hard to explain - especially since I'm not Emirati myself, but I do my best to observe. Within the local population poverty is non-existant. I don't know precisely how the system works, but as a local you get some of the massive oil wealth just for being a citizen. Much of the Emirati (not expat) work-force is in the public sector because there is no need for them to have regular jobs. The distribution of wealth comes through these public sector "jobs" which are little more than a title in some cases.

Now be honest with yourself here. If you essentially didn't have to work (or could work extremely soft hours) because you and all the rest of your population had public sector jobs which provided you a very comfortable lifestyle, what complaints would you make about the government?

Self-censorship does exist to some extent within the expatriot community. This has little to do with the government, and much to do with the employer (although sometimes those two overlap). If you start burning Qurans and stirring up anti-government demonstrations, you'll simply be deported. I don't find that unreasonable. I think most expat communities anywhere in the world try to tread softly though. You are a guest and if you don't like it you are free to go.

The Emirates is not the standard oppressed society dictatorship itching to remove its chains and go out to bash the government. Because it is small government for a small population, a higher level of dynamism is possible, allowing the government to adjust its policy according to a shift in the needs of the population.

I think rather than viewing it as a dictatorship it is more like a business which all the employees co-own. Not quite a co-operative but close. The government wants to make sure its citizens are satisfied because they all have a stake in the success of the business/nation. With such high profits and a low employee roster it's easy to keep everyone highly motivated and pleased with where they are and the direction their country is going.

As for Freedom House -- I appeal to you to give its soundly justified methodology greater consideration.

I don't have time at this exact moment, but I'll look more closely at the link later. As I said earlier, I already see a problem if Afghanistan is rated higher than the Emirates. Especially considering issues of personal and public security as factors impacting "civil liberty."

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 05:30 PM

Fair enough PH, I won't drag you into a discussion you don't want to be part of. You did raise up an interesting point about personal interpretations and for that I will start a thread on Monday morning hopefully. CH, brace yourself :reading:

PenguinHunter

23 Sep 2006, 09:52 PM

htb

24 Sep 2006, 11:51 PM

Within the local population poverty is non-existant. I don't know precisely how the system works, but as a local you get some of the massive oil wealth just for being a citizen. Much of the Emirati (not expat) work-force is in the public sector because there is no need for them to have regular jobs. The distribution of wealth comes through these public sector "jobs" which are little more than a title in some cases. Now be honest with yourself here. If you essentially didn't have to work (or could work extremely soft hours) because you and all the rest of your population had public sector jobs which provided you a very comfortable lifestyle, what complaints would you make about the government?Without question, a dominant public sector supported by oil wealth is going to preclude a lot of social problems. But the Emirates' system is anodyne, built on a narrow category of natural resources currently in high demand. What happens if the energy market weakens or shifts away from fossil fuels? Statist economies are both ponderous and inefficient -- how long can sinecures be guaranteed to the native population? If that guarantee is retracted, what will workers do? What can they do?

1930/40s Germany and 1950/60s Russia were the only modern authoritarian countries capable of innovation which notably exceeded the efforts of free countries with market economies. Dictatorships otherwise emulate and counterfeit the science and technology of free countries (one of the most humorous examples is the Chinese microphone industry and its reverse-engineered intellectual theft). In an age of independent service occupations and individual enterprise, countries whose governments deny or restrict citizens' property rights and political power are deprived the fundaments of adaptation and growth. The Emirates, qualifying as such, have found a temporary solution in a transitory commodity.

The open censorship in the UAE is on a larger scale there than in most Western countries (though remember that censorship exists in all countries).In the general sense that statement is true, since a country like North Korea immediately confirms it, but in the particular it isn't. In the United States, there are very few instances of local, state or federal government interference or abridgment of speech and press; public broadcast frequencies are subject to certain criteria and lately Congress has placed minor restraints on political advertising in the name of "campaign finance reform" (unconstitutionally, I believe, but that's another topic). Even then the definition of censorship is derived, through debate and review, from a constitutional amendment explicitly limiting the government's powers to control speech, press, association and assembly -- stricture that is absent from the Emirates. That nearly all western citizens can be elected to office and change those very definitions sets the two categories even further apart.

Deportation is a mild form of regulation, yes, but a country that is not a police state is not necessarily a country whose population is allowed to discuss or act to effect matters of consequence. The freedom of speech is understood to provide four vital needs for a free society: 1) a safety valve, through which one can criticize policy, government itself and elected officials; 2) education, through which the arts and sciences are pursued; 3) social obligation, through which private citizens, rather than the government, can regulate mores; 4) and, by way of vigorous debate, the discovery, clarification and refinement of verities. To return to economics: if these provisions are lacking, what means do citizens have, ultimately, to enrich or even satisfy themselves? The Emirates' petroleum fortune can be seen as even more circumstantial -- and precarious.

There are other factors to consider as well. Middle Eastern culture is late night culture and when combined with a solid legal system, and a wealthy populace, crime rates are remarkably low. Even in the larger cities Dubai and Abu Dhabi, you feel very safe wandering the streets at 4am. This is not something I can say about most similarly sized Western cities. Without this kind of personal security, civil liberties are of secondary importance...Such is the price of the license to exercise self-determination. I could expound, but an observation from a Sunni Baghdadi -- a blogger named Mohammed Fadhil -- challenges the assertion that the value of security, more than freedom, is absolute. After visiting Cairo, Mohammed wrote:

"Back in Cairo I was sitting in the hotel's garden reading a book when I was surprised by a man, who reminded me of one of Saddam's security guys, interrupting my quiet afternoon reading and telling me without any introductions 'Don't believe them!'. 'Who are they?' I asked 'those people' he said pointing at the book in my hand and added 'we have a very good system that is represented by the government and Islam. Maybe we need some minor improvements but those people want to blow up our culture, history and beliefs'.

"I could feel that these remarks would be followed by an informal interrogation with questions about my colleagues so I quickly ended the conversation and avoided going into details. However this came as a flashback from the dreadful era of dictatorship that I've forgotten over the past three years.

"I could feel eyes following me and walls recording every word I say that for the first time in years I feel I need to watch my mouth in front a simple cleaning worker in the hotel who was cleaning up the conference hall after one of the sessions. He said 'if you want to change know that we're on your side' it may sound like a friendly gesture but I got scared and my immediate response was 'No, no! this is not about any change!'

"I wouldn't worry about talking about a change when I'm in Iraq; pluralism is a fact here and every party is seeking a change of one sort or another but I was afraid to talk about a change in a place where only one opinion rules and dominates everything. At that moment I felt the difference and wished I could immediately go back to Baghdad. I know the balance is a tough one but those who seek temporary safety will never get safety."

Mohammed's opinion of the cave he left is certainly stronger, as that one was complete as a place of confinement. But the relationship between freedom and human dignity is a correlative one; deprivation and depravity on a similiar parallel. So we need to consider: how much do men need to be protected from themselves?

PenguinHunter

25 Sep 2006, 07:27 AM

Without question, a dominant public sector supported by oil wealth is going to preclude a lot of social problems. But the Emirates' system is anodyne, built on a narrow category of natural resources currently in high demand. What happens if the energy market weakens or shifts away from fossil fuels? Statist economies are both ponderous and inefficient -- how long can sinecures be guaranteed to the native population? If that guarantee is retracted, what will workers do? What can they do?

Fortunately for the Emirates your analysis is inaccurate. The UAE is by far the most innovative petro-state in the Middle East. Dubai’s economy operates nearly free of oil-wealth. Dubai has established itself as THE stopping point for nearly all commercial trade vessels between Asia, Africa and Europe. The free-trade zones are massive. They have also been reinvesting internally to develop their tourism and aim to become the tourist centre of the Arab world. You may be familiar with the Palm Islands and the World Islands, the world’s tallest building (to be finished next year I believe), the underwater hotel and the skiing dome. However, over the next ten to fifteen years the Emirates will also be investing in a place called Dubailand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubailand). Tacky as it sounds, it is going to be massive (ridiculously massive). Its main target is to tap into Arab tourism but it will draw crowds from all over the world. A Middle Eastern Disney Land times 1000.

Added to that is the massive finance sector. The future Islamic Banking center of the world will be Dubai. Bahrain is probably still the big one but Dubai is close second, and Bahrain can’t compete with the continued investment that will be going into Dubai over the next 20 years.

It’s not just Dubai either (although Dubai alone will be enough to support the rest of the Emirates). Abu Dhabi, the main oil-producing Emirate, is beginning to do similar things with their economy, especially banking and service industries. Ras Al Khaimah, one of the poorer Emirates (though all the economies are connected) is growing fast as well. The population is only about 60 000 but their tourism is booming. Recent hotels and package deals from Europe are bringing a lot of money into the smaller Emirates' economies because, in spite of the growth, there are still beautiful beaches, “authentic” desert treks and preserved forts (although I have to admit that Oman has nicer ones).

Dubai is on track to be a city that people categorize with London and New York.

1930/40s Germany and 1950/60s Russia were the only modern authoritarian countries capable of innovation which notably exceeded the efforts of free countries with market economies. Dictatorships otherwise emulate and counterfeit the science and technology of free countries (one of the most humorous examples is the Chinese microphone industry and its reverse-engineered intellectual theft). In an age of independent service occupations and individual enterprise, countries whose governments deny or restrict citizens' property rights and political power are deprived the fundaments of adaptation and growth. The Emirates, qualifying as such, have found a temporary solution in a transitory commodity.

You are making assumptions here. There are no restrictions on property rights unless you are foreign and even the restrictions on foreigners are becoming insignificant. Real-estate in the Emirates is through the roof and increasingly this is because of foreign investment. Everyone wants a piece of Dubai because they can see where it’s headed.

Between this thread and the and the other one about UAE democracy, I did my best to explain how Emiratis are NOT actually deprived of political power. You may feel we’ll be at an impasse there and that is fine. But unless you show how I am wrong on that point, there is no sense in using it as an argument as to why the Emirates will fail.

Even then the definition of censorship is derived, through debate and review, from a constitutional amendment explicitly limiting the government's powers to control speech, press, association and assembly -- stricture that is absent from the Emirates. That nearly all western citizens can be elected to office and change those very definitions sets the two categories even further apart.

Deportation is a mild form of regulation, yes, but a country that is not a police state is not necessarily a country whose population is allowed to discuss or act to effect matters of consequence. The freedom of speech is understood to provide four vital needs for a free society: 1) a safety valve, through which one can criticize policy, government itself and elected officials; 2) education, through which the arts and sciences are pursued; 3) social obligation, through which private citizens, rather than the government, can regulate mores; 4) and, by way of vigorous debate, the discovery, clarification and refinement of verities. To return to economics: if these provisions are lacking, what means do citizens have, ultimately, to enrich or even satisfy themselves? The Emirates' petroleum fortune can be seen as even more circumstantial -- and precarious.

I see I may have not explained the Emirates’ free speech and democratic valves clearly enough. I have found a website that describes it in more detail. I would only request that you read the linked section (“Traditional Government (http://www.justlawlinks.com/GLOBAL/global/zae.htm#tradgov)” - no more than five or six paragraphs). If you really don't have time, see the quote below but some of the terms will be unfamiliar:

Just as the modern institutions have developed in response to public need and demand, however, so the traditional forms of tribal administration have adapted. With many relatively routine matters now being dealt with by the modern institutions, so the traditional ones, like the majlis, have been able to focus on more complex issues rather than on the routine matters with which they were once heavily involved. In the majlises, for example, it is possible to hear detailed, and often heated, discussions between sheikhs and other citizens on questions such as the policy that should be adopted towards the evolution of the machinery of government, or the nature of relations with neighbouring countries. On matters more directly affecting the individual, such as the topic of unemployment among young UAE graduates, debates often tend to begin in the majlises, where discussion can be fast and furious, before a consensus approach is evolved that is subsequently reflected in changes in government policy.

So yes, the citizens do have the right to freedom of speech on weighty matters. A good term that the website uses is “direct democracy.”

Broken down into your four points:

1) Citizens are free to criticize the government. I stated this earlier and my link supports me. (Incidentally expatriates are also allowed to attend the majlises and give their own input – something I was not aware of until I read this site.)

2) Many of the education systems are private and not touched by the government at all. The public schools and colleges place no limitations on subject matter (with the exception of sex education – something which is restricted in many societies). The subject of evolution is occasionally brought up as an issue by parents and I was told to read that section at home as a result, but this is not a political freedom of speech issue.

3) I am unclear on why you feel the citizens of the Emirates are not the ones regulating the mores of Emirati society.

4) Vigorous civilian-government debate is what the majilises are based on.

Further, to address your comment that the UAE has no explicit strictures “limiting the government's powers to control speech, press, association and assembly,” I direct you to the UN Development Program (http://www.pogar.org/countries/constitution.asp?cid=21)website. Unfortunately I couldn’t find a copy of the Emirati constitution online but this serves well enough. See the small civil rights summary section near the bottom of the page:

Traditional and modern forms of government coexist and supplement each other. Although political leaders in the emirates are not elected, citizens may express their concerns directly to their leaders via traditional mechanisms, such as the open majlis, or informal assembly.

The constitution prohibits torture or degrading treatment and prohibits arrest, search, detention, or imprisonment, and entry into homes without the owner's permission, except in accordance with the law. It provides for the independence of the judiciary, but its decisions are subject to review by the political leadership. The constitution also provides for freedom of speech and equality before the law with regard to race, nationality, religious beliefs, or social status.

Such is the price of the license to exercise self-determination. I could expound, but an observation from a Sunni Baghdadi -- a blogger named Mohammed Fadhil -- challenges the assertion that the value of security, more than freedom, is absolute. After visiting Cairo, Mohammed wrote:

….

Mohammed's opinion of the cave he left is certainly stronger, as that one was complete as a place of confinement. But the relationship between freedom and human dignity is a correlative one; deprivation and depravity on a similiar parallel. So we need to consider: how much do men need to be protected from themselves?

Very interesting. I have skimmed through his blog a bit since your post. I wanted to find out who he was so I looked at the opening November 2003 posts. He seems very. . . I don’t know. . . unquestioning? At least that’s my initial impression.

“I've stayed awake late watching the news channels broadcasting the news about president bush's visit to Baghdad.
I tried to figure out the meanings behind this visit.
I shared the tears with him, tears of joy, anxiety, and care for the future of his country men.
I was also afraid for the future of my people and I felt some kind of unity of feelings with all the good on earth.
I expressed that today as I marched with my brothers in the demo. That fights the terrorism and defends freedom and democracy.”

The blog seems riddled with such platitudes as the “defense of freedom and democracy.” My first inclination is to suggest that, because of who he is, he does not find Baghdad dangerous.

I have been reading an Iraqi blog by a woman, who goes by the pseudonym Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/), over the last year and half or so and she provides a sharp contrast to your link. She argues that life, although difficult under Saddam, was still manageable. In her current situation she has sporadic electricity and water, she cannot work, she cannot go out by herself, she cannot speak her mind publicly, and she is in constant fear for the safety of herself and her family. She argues, what is the point of ridding Iraq of a dictator if now I cannot leave my house?

Now I don’t want to make this about Iraq. My point is this: this man, Mohammed Fadhil, does not appear to be similarly threatened. He feels he can speak his mind, but he also does in fact feel secure. I would suggest that the majority of Iraqis feel neither at them moment.

I’m going on a few assumptions here because obviously I can’t read the whole blog in between posts. He is male for one (which would make him more secure in present day Iraq, than Riverbend) but more importantly he doesn’t seem to speak about his neighborhood, his family or his fears about the security situation. Does he ever talk about arbitrary home raids by the occupying forces or the fact that vigilante groups are being established (and are needed) in many Baghdadi neighborhoods to ensure the safety of the residents? If not, I want to know what part of Baghdad he is living in. I don’t question his nationality but I do question your assumption that he feels civil liberties are more important than personal security. He seems to feel quite secure to me already so I don’t think he is comparing them in the same way we are.

htb

25 Sep 2006, 03:51 PM

Does he ever talk about arbitrary home raids by the occupying forces or the fact that vigilante groups are being established (and are needed) in many Baghdadi neighborhoods to ensure the safety of the residents?Of course, most recently (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/08/tale-of-two-tribes-gang-and-militia.html) on the cusp of September. What idealism Mohammed and his brother Omar have is tempered by the brothers' objectivity -- they recognize the challenge of liberalizing Iraq's center, west and south. Riverbend, for her part, is tendentious and reflexively Arabist, producing monotonous work for three years. For original and intellectually honest counterpoint I have read the work of Zeyad (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/), a skeptical physician colleague of the Fadhils'. Zeyad is in the States, now, but has been an indispensable observer, especially of Iraq's south. To each his own -- but the Fadhil brothers (three of them, actually) certainly aren't naifs.

Fortunately for the Emirates your analysis is inaccurate. The UAE is by far the most innovative petro-state in the Middle East. Dubai?s economy operates nearly free of oil-wealth. Dubai has established itself as THE stopping point for nearly all commercial trade vessels between Asia, Africa and Europe. The free-trade zones are massive. They have also been reinvesting internally to develop their tourism and aim to become the tourist centre of the Arab world.Is oil or isn't oil the Emirates' primary export? Is the public sector built on oil wealth or isn't it? You use the example of Dubai's diversification -- done in the face of diminished oil reserves -- as a refutation of my argument, and while we both applaud improvements the economic prospects of the federation are still a matter of central planning. In that, there is a paradox, so long as civil, political and economic liberties (I insist on this) remain marginal: oil still underpins public spending and occupation, each of which is relatively tremendous. If oil is stripped away, even gradually, but polity remains centripetal, there will be a) publicly demanded entitlements that b) will have no source of funding as miraculous as high-demand oil. How will the Emirates be on a different course than any number of statist economies in Europe and elsewhere across the world that have since gone moribund?

As it is now, Dubai may succeed in looking like London or New York. I won't begrudge the U.A.E. progress but at the same time see no sustained prosperity without greater political reform.

You are making assumptions here. There are no restrictions on property rights unless you are foreign and even the restrictions on foreigners are becoming insignificant.Whatever ease one may have in acquiring land, the integrity of ownership is subject to interpretation of the Emirates' rulers. Whenever a leader is accountable not to law but tradition, there is cause for concern.

I see I may have not explained the Emirates? free speech and democratic valves clearly enough. I have found a website that describes it in more detail. I would only request that you read the linked section (?Traditional Government? - no more than five or six paragraphs).This passage weakens your argument. The denotation of democracy is government by the people, not simple audience granted with a de facto leader for the redress of grievances. The latter, petitions to the crown, is found in English common law; it was delineated in the Magna Carta and later codified, and stands as the historical foundation for equity. The right preceded many political and civil liberties, notably the primacy of elected parliament. Until sovereignty itself is subordinate to popular will, matters decided in majlises will be superficial.

In terms of this specific exchange -- yes, we've made our statements (you're welcome to respond to this post). We could return to your first response and go from there.

PenguinHunter

26 Sep 2006, 07:12 AM

Of course, most recently (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/08/tale-of-two-tribes-gang-and-militia.html) on the cusp of September. What idealism Mohammed and his brother Omar have is tempered by the brothers' objectivity -- they recognize the challenge of liberalizing Iraq's center, west and south. Riverbend, for her part, is tendentious and reflexively Arabist, producing monotonous work for three years. For original and intellectually honest counterpoint I have read the work of Zeyad (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/), a skeptical physician colleague of the Fadhils'. Zeyad is in the States, now, but has been an indispensable observer, especially of Iraq's south. To each his own -- but the Fadhil brothers (three of them, actually) certainly aren't naifs.

Ah, excellent. Thanks for the link. This post was actually much more aligned with what I?ve read on Riverbend?s blog. (I do admit the usefulness of her insight has decreased since she began ? more rants and less analysis ? but I can?t blame her for it. I thought the first two-thirds or so was written superbly.)

This post does show what I was saying somewhat. These brothers are in a much safer area it would seem. Possibly because they are very well off? The security requirement is satisfied for him in Iraq, so of course Mohammed feels less comfortable in Egypt.

Is oil or isn't oil the Emirates' primary export? Is the public sector built on oil wealth or isn't it? You use the example of Dubai's diversification -- done in the face of diminished oil reserves -- as a refutation of my argument, and while we both applaud improvements the economic prospects of the federation are still a matter of central planning. In that, there is a paradox, so long as civil, political and economic liberties (I insist on this) remain marginal: oil still underpins public spending and occupation, each of which is relatively tremendous. If oil is stripped away, even gradually, but polity remains centripetal, there will be a) publicly demanded entitlements that b) will have no source of funding as miraculous as high-demand oil. How will the Emirates be on a different course than any number of statist economies in Europe and elsewhere across the world that have since gone moribund?

Of course oil is the Emirates? primary export. It would be absurd for the Emirates to not use oil as their primary source of income at the moment. (Oil exports make up less than a third of the country?s GDP by the way.) It would also be absurd for them to believe that they can rely on oil markets for 100 years (this is the amount of time they are estimated to have before their oil reserves are exhausted at the current rate of drilling). Most of this oil wealth comes from Abu Dhabi, however. As I said, Dubai can function independent of oil wealth ? the money that comes out of export helps speed up the expansion significantly, but Dubai?s economy does not require oil. Abu Dhabi and the other Emirates are now doing the same and will not suffer should energy markets change 30-50 years from now. I would say this time period is a reasonable estimate to go on.

I can argue my case two different ways to hopefully cover all areas.

1) First, let?s assume that oil markets decline over the next 40 years, and after 50, oil is no longer a valuable commodity. I would suggest that, thanks to wise investment over the past 30 years and continued wise investment for the next 40, the Emirates will be both independent of oil and still be fabulously wealthy. Banking and finance, trade, real-estate, tourism (on a massive scale) ? all of these will gradually replace oil over the next 50 years to the extent that oil is nothing more than an excellent subsidy to a powerful economy. I don?t see your suggestion that the society will demand more than can be given by the state. The economy of the Emirates is always going to be far larger than the local population can manage on their own. This will mean continued importation of labour but also continued benefits for the local population ? well-paid and reasonably comfortable jobs.

You might suggest that this importation of labour will cause a hemorrhaging of wealth as expatriates take their money and go. However, much of the wealth will still be coming from exports but instead of oil it will be tourism, free-trade and the finance sector generating the income - more foreign bankers instead of engineers but a similar result. In addition to this, Dubai will become (and already is to some extent) a millionaire retirement community ? something like Florida, except attracting the wealthiest of the world not just the US.

Even if I were to concede that the political freedoms were inadequate (which I am not), I just cannot see the Emirates suffering as a result of the continued political situation.

2) I find your continued comparison of statist economies in Europe to the Emirates very strange. Can you explain it? I do not see the two as comparable in any way.

a) The wealth generated from resources is not comparable. The Emirates has massive far more to work with to create a stable economy independent of natural resources. As I have explained
b) The populations are not comparable sizes (something that has a significant impact on the economics and politics of the Emirates).
c) There is far more political freedom in the Emirates than there was in most post-Second World War European states.
d) Related to c) - Are you talking about the Soviet satellite states? I just don?t see the basis for comparison here.

Maybe you are simply suggesting that the Emirates will end up a poor dictatorship. I believe I have shown this will not be the case (or if not proven, at least speculated convincingly).

This passage weakens your argument. The denotation of democracy is government by the people, not simple audience granted with a de facto leader for the redress of grievances. The latter, petitions to the crown, is found in English common law; it was delineated in the Magna Carta and later codified, and stands as the historical foundation for equity. The right preceded many political and civil liberties, notably the primacy of elected parliament. Until sovereignty itself is subordinate to popular will, matters decided in majlises will be superficial.

In terms of this specific exchange -- yes, we've made our statements (you're welcome to respond to this post). We could return to your first response and go from there.

2-continued) Johnny said exactly the same thing and we eventually came to an impasse over what constitutes democracy, or representation of the people. I did my best to explain that it is not just a simple audience with a leader. It?s the population size that is key to this scenario. I hoped my co-op analogy would help convey this point but I guess it did not. The local population is so small that if you are Emirati, you are basically family to any other local (not genetically obviously but in a wider sense of the word). It?s not that the leaders are out to maintain power. They have been accepted by the population and have been allowed to ?lead the family business? if you will.

The power filters down through local leaders as the passage explained. The local leaders who run the weekly majlises (normally attended by the local sheikh) are agreed upon by the community they represent. These local leaders are then directly responsible for making sure that all the voices in the community are heard ? any problems are addressed to the sheikh. If a member of the community feels their voice is not being heard they can demand an audience with the current ruler of the Emirates. And it will be granted because, with such a small population, they can operate this way. All these individual voices are considered directly.

The problem I think you are having with seeing value to my argument, is that you are constantly trying to apply this system back on a place like the US, Canada or Britain. That will fail because, in a population of 300 million, (consider that the Emirati population is probably only about 300, 000, likely less) you cannot generate the same sense of community needed for this government to work. You cannot make each individual voice heard ? the best you can do is offer a series of choices which may roughly match your views. I know there is the argument that any man or woman can hold office, but realistically this is not the case. Not only are local representatives all but useless, there are still only a handful of elite who will have the opportunity to be selected for office. This is especially true in the US ? think of your 300 million possible presidential candidates and somehow the country winds up with another Bush? Family ties can mean as much in Western democracy as in Emirati democracy ? maybe a lot more.

Keep in mind my argument is not that one is better than the other, simply that the Emirates comes closer to providing the ideal of direct representation than any Western democracy and therefore has no reason to change their system of government at the moment (if they and others desire ?democracy?).

As it is now, Dubai may succeed in looking like London or New York. I won't begrudge the U.A.E. progress but at the same time see no sustained prosperity without greater political reform.

Whatever ease one may have in acquiring land, the integrity of ownership is subject to interpretation of the Emirates' rulers. Whenever a leader is accountable not to law but tradition, there is cause for concern.

I?ll quickly note something here. It is almost certain that the Emirates will eventually adopt a Western style democracy. There has been some experimentation with it at low levels and I?ve heard talk of a slow introduction of elected government. This is mainly because of pressure from the West (primarily the US). It has been initiated directly by the government of the UAE and is not a response to popular demand for elected government.

My argument is simply that this is unnecessary and not inherently better than what currently exists. In the end, regardless of the outcome (or lack thereof) of our discussion, we should both be optimistic about the future for the Emirates.

I suspect, because of the small population, they will be able to maintain the majlises and other traditional structures, which I believe are absolutely essential to maintaining a government that is directly representative of the population?s desires at all times.