Many of the storms engulfing our part of the world can be attributed to the fact that the movements practicing politics in the name of "political Islam" are still governed by a coup mentality, still acting as underground movements rather than as modern political institutions that respect and observe the law.
Actually, the word "mentality", which assumes the use of mental faculties, is a misnomer in this case, as most of these movements rely more on their muscles than their brains, more on raw power than on minds governed by a respect for laws, constitutions, rationality and sound judgment.
Take the case of Lebanon, which has an elected government and a parliament representing the people. And yet the largest opposition movement, a religio-political organization, refuses to recognize the authority of the nation's elected representatives and listens only to strident voices calling for a return to the past. The religious firebrands seeking to drive Lebanon several centuries back in time are playing a game in which the muscles of blind power ride roughshod over the principles of democracy, constitutional legitimacy and laws. A single armed party is turning the tables on everyone, showing total contempt for the elected parliament that should be the ultimate arbiter instead of hordes of demonstrators manipulated from outside the country by a theocratic regime that is financing the destruction of Lebanon.
Then there is the situation in the Palestinian self-rule territories, where a theocratic movement, emerging from the cobwebs of medieval times, does not consider itself bound by any of the commitments undertaken by previous governments. As far as it is concerned, events only began to unfold the day it came to power. When Abu Mazen wisely, if somewhat belatedly, called for a return to the people, the source of authority, the government of theocrats whose understanding of democracy is limited to its usefulness as a means of reaching power rejected his call. A theocratic movement that is by definition democratically immature may be capable of understanding that democracy brought it to power but not that it will, by the same token, prevent it from hanging on to power indefinitely. Governed as they are by a coup mentality totally at odds with the very notion of democracy, the members of this movement are driven by religious hysteria [not religious faith] coupled with a violent and confrontational style of political action.
The third case in point is the shocking display put on by the young members of the Muslim Brotherhood in front of Al-Azhar University, which showed that political Islam is still a very immature blend of religious hysteria, a simplistic, not to say primitive, understanding of democracy and a propensity for violence, for the use of muscle power untrammeled by the constraints of reason.
Although the incident shocked and saddened all the lovers of this nation who want to see it achieve progress, stability and prosperity, it served as a wake-up call. Proving that every cloud has a silver lining, it opened everyone's eyes to the danger of allowing power to fall into the hands of people with simple minds and meager stores of knowledge who rely on the use of muscles not brains to achieve their aim of ruling the ancient land of Egypt.
I believe the childish display of naked power at Al-Azhar was detrimental to many people, including members of the People's Assembly affiliated ideologically [or organizationally] to the Muslim Brotherhood. How can the Egyptian people accept a political movement when the clear message they get from the bizarre behaviour of its young adherents at Al-Azhar is that it has, or could eventually have, organized militias? How can they, in an age of science and management, accept to place their fate in the hands of a callow movement driven by blind instinct not rational ideas, and relying on muscle power, not mental faculties to achieve their ends?
To my mind, the movements of political Islam have not yet gone through the necessary stage of threshing out their ideas, of separating the chaff from the grain, so to speak. Nor have these movements seen any internal ideological developments to speak of. Indeed, I would say that Muslim thinking was exposed to many more radical changes in the hundred years separating the death of the first of the four great Sunni jurists, Abu Hanifa el Noaman [in the middle of the second century of the Hejira calendar], and the death of the last, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal [just over a century later], than in the twelve centuries since Ibn Hanbal's death in the third century of the Hejira calendar. This stagnation, with its extremely detrimental effects, is a result of two phenomena. The first was when the door was slammed shut on deductive reasoning. The second was when the majority of Muslims turned their backs on the man who championed the primacy of reason, Abul Walid Ibn Rushd. Had they allowed themselves to benefit from the ideas of this outstanding philosopher, the Muslims would not have reached the low rung they now occupy on the ladder of human progress and development.
Many hurdles stand between the trends espousing political Islam and political maturity. Perhaps the most insurmountable is the insistence of these trends, including the Muslim Brotherhood, to cling to the theory of hakameya or "divine dominion" propounded by Abul 'Ala' el-Mawdoody and Sayed Qutb. Derived from the Arabic root "hokm", which means rule, the theory has a certain superficial glitter that appeals to some people. In fact, however, it is based on an untenable proposition that renders it meaningless. It postulates that mortals are not ruled by mortals but by God. This is dangerous sophistry, as there is no direct recourse to the Supreme Being – in the literal sense of the word 'direct' – given the existence of a religious caste ruling in His name according to their understanding of His intentions. I believe el-Mawdoody and Qutb came up with their theory, a fanciful notion that can obviously not be implemented in practice, each in reaction to his own personal traumatic experience. Both men experienced what we now call a culture shock, Mawdoody in the face of the strong and vibrant culture of India, Qutb, who spent less than two years in the United States nearly sixty years ago, in the face of an American culture that shocked him to the core. Unable to cope with the realities of the age, they chose to escape into a less challenging past.
Thus the first obstacle that the movements of political Islam must overcome if they want to live in the modern age at peace with the rest of humanity is the theory of hakameya to which all adherents of these movements subscribe. For it is a theory cannot be applied unless we turn the clock back more than a thousand years and regard all other cultures as mortal enemies.
The next step is for the leaders of these movements to develop a better understanding of and a stronger faith in democracy among their followers. They need to explain democracy as a process distinct from Shura [consultation]. For although there is no contradiction between them, Shura is but one part of a whole, namely, democracy. To those who consider this as belittling Islam, I would like to point out that while it is true that Islam spoke of Shura and not of democracy, it is also true that it spoke of pack animals and not of cars and planes. This in no way detracts from the greatness of Islam. After all, the purpose of Islam's message was not to predict the achievements of future ages, such as democracy, planes, human rights, lasers, medical breakthroughs, civil management systems, information technology, etc.
The leaders of movements of political Islam must breed a new generation of followers who believe that the nation is the source of authority, that the Constitution is the law of laws and that in this day and age societies cannot be led by men of religion [especially when the religion in question does not allow a caste of clerics to act as intermediaries between man and God] but by the latest discoveries in science, management, ideas and information technology.
Until at least some of these leaders break away from the doctrinaire approach to religion that has plagued the Muslim mind for over a thousand years, unless they can groom generations capable of understanding that the nation is the source of all power and that societies can only be run by science and management, we should not be surprised to find the young members of Islamist movements trying to form militias in a bid to govern us with wild emotions, strident voices and muscle power untamed by reason or common sense.
Right-wingers do not understand humor, nor do they understand irony.
The title of your article, "Disastrous "Steadfastness", perfectly describes the disasterous administration of The Current Occupant of the White House.
Your second paragraph said it all:
"Many of the storms engulfing our part of the world can be attributed to the fact that the movements practicing politics....rely more on their muscles than their brains."
The true Winds of Change are that for even most wingnuts the kool-aid is wearing off, and we will soon be able to try, imprison, and perhaps execute Bush and his corrupt cronies for the damage they have done to our beloved nation.
Sic semper tyrannis!
I understand humor, Tommo, and was chuckling quite loudly throughout your comment.
Have you heard about Unity08:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity08/?
Sorry, wrong thread....
Tommo perfectly illustrates the deranged reaction that Liberals and Muslims have to the challenges of modernity.
Tommo seems to believe that if we are just "nice" to the Muslim Brotherhood, bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, and every other tin-pot brutal religious dark ages fanatic we can go back to the fantasy of the 90's. The world as a Disneyland Ride. With children singing and dancing.
Tommo's real objections are GWB halting steps to identify national American interests and however unsteadily try and achieve them. He hates the idea that the interests of the wealthy leisure class of upper class Liberals might be sacrificed on the altar of US national interests. Since no one "important" died on 9/11. Merely the "little Eichmans."
Note his objections are "moral" ones; he's part of the new priesthood. For most Americans the most telling criticism of GWB is that he has not advanced the national interest enough relative to the challenges of Muslim obscurantism. When most Muslims are either intimidated or willingly go along with the hard men with guns who Heggy describes, Americans expect to see something done other than the policies of Nixon-Clinton (abject appeasement of the hard men) or half-thought out attempts to kill some but not all without any measureable improvement (GWB).
While Mr. Heggy's diagnosis of the problem of Muslims world-wide is correct, I am very pessimistic that anything will be done about it. Muslims have contact with the West since Napoleon and have been appraised of how pathetic their civilization is in comparison to others. In 2000 Finland had more exports in dollar terms than non-fossil fuels of the entire Arab World. Finland: population 5 million. Arab world: population 300 million. There is not a single world class Muslim company, medical research university, etc. There are AFAIK no Muslim Nobel science winners, certainly not from Muslim lands. Muslims go to the West for medical treatment, weapons, etc. Not the other way around. As Bernard Lewis notes, the printing press was initially adopted in Turkey in the 1830's, then destroyed and not resumed until the 1880's.
While it would be nice if I won the lottery or reformers like Mr. Heggy somehow changed Islam to some sliver of accommodation with modernity and the West, both are pretty unlikely. Muslims have had over 200 years to make this accommodation and have refused. Perhaps the NRO assertion of Cousin Marriage keeps Muslim minds trapped in Amber through social control, or perhaps the effects of Cousin Marriage have led to lower IQs along with the much higher rate of birth defects reported by the WHO (as opposed to other regions). Certainly you can't have more than 1500 years of Cousin Marriage and not expect some major negative genetic consequences. The Hapsburgs practiced this Cousin Marriage for about 500 years and produced drooling idiots. The challenge for the post-Bush Administrations is to manage the seething Muslim masses determined to bring about a New Dark Ages by whatever means are required. The possibility that the entire Muslim World is metaphorically riding the Short Bus through Cousin Marriage ought to give everyone pause. I don't know if that's true but wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Because modern technology makes the seething Dark Ages masses jostled right next to the modern world. As in 9/11.
The ancient history about Islam is all very interesting, but the reasons why contemporary Muslims are reaching backwards for ideological weapons are quite contemporary. In fact, as I expect you know, the various new versions of Islamic fundamentalism are actually quite innovative. There are plenty of groups around that are far more traditionalist than Qaddafi or Qutb or Bin Laden. The inspiration of these movements is not the angel Gabriel, but European, American, and Israeli policy.
We complain, not without reason, of the violent tactics of various Islamic groups; but Western governments have promoted this supposedly eternal mentality by a long series of interventions, many of them violent. Democratic and reformist trends have been afoot in the Middle East for a couple of hundred years, but the only country in which they have resulted in a polity with some democratic features is Turkey. Not accidentally, Turkey is also one nation in the region that managed to preserve real independence from Western interference. From the point of view of the inhabitants of the region the only democracy we support is the right of groups to vote the way we want them to. When mass movements attempt to take power through elections, as occurred in Algeria, for example, they are put down by force with the active support of the West. We don't support democracy. We support "Democracy".
Turkey is also one nation in the region that managed to preserve real independence from Western interference.
Check your calander, its 2007. Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Turkey was considered the most singularly Western nation in the Middle East. In any event, two of the countries the West least historically interfered with are Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, prime locations for the Islamic innovaters.
When mass movements attempt to take power through elections, as occurred in Algeria, for example, they are put down by force with the active support of the West.
The United States condemned the cancellation of elections in 1992 and the related human rights abuses, but it had little influence in Algeria, which it traditionally gave no economic or military assistance.
My point about Turkey is precisely that they adopted Western-style political institutions on their own accord after kicking out the Brits and Greeks. It worked because it was created locally. In fact, I think that the region as a whole would probably evolve in the direction of more liberal forms of government if it weren't the arena of international conflicts about oil and Israel. Unlike the Neocons and even many of the liberal hawks, I actually have some faith in democracy.
By the way, how could anybody think for a second that Afghanistan has not been interfered with by outsiders? Not to mention the various British invasions of the 19th Century, you may have heard that the U.S.S.R. invaded the place, only to be driven out by Jihadists financed and armed by us. Not much in this world is made in the U.S.A. anymore, but the Taliban sure was.
The Americans have overturned or tried to overturn the results of free elections in many countries, not just Middle Eastern ones: Iran, Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Venezuela. I'm not arguing that such interventions are never justifiable, though in most of these instances I think they turned out to be extremely counterproductive. I just think we should stop claiming that we're in favor of government by consent of the governed. Where democratically elected governments don't favor our interests, we subvert or attack them. When autocratic governments support our interests, we support and subsidize them. For example, we've been bribing the tyranical Egyptian government to the tune of a couple of billion a year for more than two decades now, although we call the tribute foreign aid.
I'm not sure why it should be a problem that US isn't always enthusiastic about democracy when it results in "One man. One vote. One time".
I used to be more open to the "one man, one vote, one time" bit, but looking back at Chile, Haiti, and Iran, I don't think it fits very many of the cases. It's a slogan substituting for analysis.
Jim you're forgetting a man and place wrt Turkey.
Man: Kemal Ataturk. Place: Megiddo (yes Armageddon).
Allenby's Army simply destroyed the Army of the Sultan. With air attacks strafing, artillery, machine guns, and the like. Mechanized infantry riding in trucks against men on horseback.
Ataturk had a Tokyo Bay moment. One where he conceded the complete and absolute superiority of the Western Way of war and the futility of fighting against that in a non-Western way. His efforts to Westernize Turkey and cast off the sultanate (the subject of much wailing in the Muslim world, the ending of the Caliphate) and even adopting WESTERN LATIN WRITING was all about that moment. That Ataturk died before he could successfully erase Islam from Turkey is why the place is still such a mess outside the thin veneer of Westernized coastal elites. Ataturk cited Megiddo to his fellow officers as the reasons for his decisions and they all backed him because they understood the defeat and it's nature: systemic of a backwards society against a modern one.
We do Muslims no favor when we pull back from their absolute and total military destruction. The Muslim world needs a good dose of humiliating and total defeats particularly of Islamic governments so that the argument made by Khomeni and bin Laden (the West can be beaten by "martial spirit" etc) is proven to everyone WRONG.
That to me seems the only avenue to produce more Ataturks. Not voting. Not Democracy. Total, unmitigated defeat. This is particularly true if 15 centuries of Cousin Marriage have made Muslims the equivalent of the Deliverance inbred hillbillies.
how could anybody think for a second that Afghanistan has not been interfered with by outsiders?
You did not read what I wrote. I said it was one of “two of the countries the West least historically interfered with.” By most accounts, neither Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia were ever colonized. Under your supposition, Western interference is to blame, yet a number of countries like India were subject to far more interference than the bread baskets of jihadism.
Turkey began moving toward Western systems in the face of military defeats, most particularly World War I.
You were wrong about Algeria too.
Algeria was the classic occasion on which the "one man, one vote, one time" bit was trotted out.
Racism, torture, and Schrecklichkeit are lousy solutions to the world's problems. How do you guys look at yourselves in the mirror? I guess the answer is you never look at yourselves in the mirror.
When mass movements attempt to take power through elections, as occurred in Algeria, for example, they are put down by force with the active support of the West.
The U.S. did not actively support the cancellation of elections in Algeria. Perhaps you mean a different Western country, like France, but then the whole point of the hypocritical West loses its luster.
I do not think even Turkey applies. If I remember, OBL is still bitching about that defeat. It was the end of his beloved Caliphate. They seek to roll the clock back to the bad old days of being ruled by hereditary descendants of the Prophet (may bees pee upon him).
I agree with Heggy for the most part. There need to be more voices like his in the dar al Islam.
As for tommo...............WOW! Glad he is not wearing his jackboots. Jim - Don't feed the trolls.
The Hobo
Jim Rockford #6....Please stop kicking Dick Nixon around.......