It is interesting to speculate on the similarity between what Hizbu'allah did in Lebanon a few days ago and what Hamas did in Gaza a year ago. Is the fact that both displayed the same pattern of behavior no more than a coincidence; or is it that the mindset shared by all Islamic fundamentalists, Sunni and Shiite alike, makes them behave in a similar fashion? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the second proposition is the right one. Theocrats, whose political beliefs are a function of their religious convictions,] may claim to believe in democracy, modern state systems, pluralism and diversity [that is, the acceptance of and respect for the rights of the Other], but do so purely for reasons of expediency. They know full well that paying lip service to such noble sentiments – if only at a certain stage – can serve their interests and avert problems.
In fact, however, a fundamentalist who practices politics is driven by the conviction that God is on his side and that that he is the conduit through which the Almighty’s will is transmitted to the world of politics. There is thus no room in a fundamentalist’s system of beliefs for such notions as democracy, rotation of power, pluralism or diversity.
In Iran, for example, it is the Supreme Guide who not only lays down higher state policies but also enters into such minutiae of the country’s political life as deciding whether or not a candidate is entitled to run for parliamentary elections.
Then there is the case of Palestinian political life, where we have seen the brazen disregard for democracy displayed by the Hamas leadership. Although it was democracy that brought them to power, no sooner were they installed in the seat of authority than they set out to trample it underfoot. Transformed into an instrument of tyranny and repression, the Hamas government began to systematically eliminate its opponents, not symbolically but physically. In some cases, they were executed in particularly brutal fashion, such as being thrown off high buildings. It comes as no surprise to me that those who mix religion with politics should resort to such barbaric practices. Political religion – not religion itself – is an example of a closed system where any deviation from the official line – the only true path – is not tolerated. It is reminiscent of how men like Stalin in the Soviet Union, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and countless others in recent history behaved after coming to power.
What Hizbu'allah did in Lebanon is a new version of the diabolical game that mixes politics with religion. Not content with taking Lebanon to war without the consent of the state, a war from which it claimed to have emerged victorious thanks to divine intervention [a victory that exists only in the imagination of some deluded souls] Hizbu'allah, which is a state within a state, more accurately, a state outside the state, installed a private cable communication network. After the government issued a decree outlawing the network, Hizbu'allah militias swept through Beirut and, in an act that epitomizes the way their mind works, set fire to the building housing the Mostaqbal television channel.
The similarity between the actions of Iran’s Supreme Guide Ali Khomeini [the infallible authority on all things temporal and spiritual in the eyes of his followers] when he banned a large number of moderates from running in the parliamentary elections; the actions of Hamas in Gaza, from throwing their opponents off high buildings to instigating incursions across Egypt’s borders; and the actions of Hizbu'allah in occupying Beirut to impose its will on its political opponents is no coincidence. All these actions attest to the medieval mindset of their protagonists, a mindset that is inimical to freedom, democracy and modern state systems. The world will pay a heavy price if it stands passively by while this farce unfolds and drags entire societies back to the first millennium as humanity moves into the third millennium.
In this connection, I recall a discussion I had with Dr. Saadudin Ibrahim, who expressed the belief that the Muslim Brothers in Egypt, Hamas in Gaza and Hizbu'allah in Lebanon are committed to the principles of democracy! Perhaps he will now reconsider his position and issue a statement more in keeping with reality – a statement admitting that he was the victim of wishful thinking.
...is no coincidence...
Nor is it a coincidence that both of Hamas and Hezbullah, and their sponsor and backer, Iran, are dedicated to the overarching goal of eliminating the Jewish State.
Things may be worse than you say: Hamas and Hisbollah may both be capable of winning free and honest elections.
Nor is it a coincidence that both of Hamas and Hezbullah, and their sponsor and backer, Iran
While Iran is responsible for supporting Hezbullah, Hamas is mostly supported by Saudi Arabia
Kieth,
IMHO there is an intrinsical contradiction in that: there cannot be free and honest elections if terrorist group members are eligible.
IMHO there is an intrinsical contradiction in that: there cannot be free and honest elections if terrorist group members are eligible.
Israel managed. Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Oh now, I'm sure they love democracy, so long as they can control who wins... and that would be them.
"#5 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 8:45 pm on Jun 04, 2008
IMHO there is an intrinsical contradiction in that: there cannot be free and honest elections if terrorist group members are eligible.
Israel managed. Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Yes Mr Lazarus they certainly did and I do believe sometime back an article in an Egyptian newpaper said is was shameful that until Afghanistan and Iraq, the only place in the Mid East were an Arab or Muslim, could participate in a Free Election was Israel.
The Founding Fathers of America may very well have been seen by the British Monarchy as terrorists rather than Freedom Fighters.
How you tell the difference is what happens AFTERWARDS.
Throwing your political opposition off the top of a building sounds more like terrrorists to me.
[Carl, you were banned on 29 May. Take the hint. Please. --NM]
#7, I quite agree. I would think your argument is with those who have lists of "terrorists" they wish to exclude from elections a priori.
#8 from Carl Gordon
Might try rephrasing that diatribe and use a few more paragraph breaks.
If communication is your goal that is.
You sound a lot like a typical Liberal Politician, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
#8 Carl Gordon and any other interested readers might check out French theorist Emile Durkheim's "The Division of Labour in Society" (1893) and look at his description of mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. (You can cheat, as did I, and find the illustration of this on Wikipedia). What Tarek Heggy describes as moving back to the first millenium as we enter the third is quite clearly defined in this text written over 100 years ago. BTW, I believe this well predates the GOP/Liberal mind warp many of us seem to be stuck in currently....
Wow, Carl, just ... Wow!
Did that mean something or was it just mentally masturbatory? AJL at least, though he is often wrong, makes sense and is reasoned.
Oh, and Mr. Heggy makes the perfect argument why there is a separation of church and state in this country and in most modern western countries. When the church becomes the state we open ourselves up to some of the worst abuses. And conversely when the state is all that is allowed, as in the old USSR, the worship of the state fills the gap.
It may well be that the brief period in the march of history when reason met belief and made decent compromises is over. We may very well be entering a new dark age. This one could be really, really dark though.
Israel managed. Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Maybe during the cold war, not today.
A terrorist today could be defined as someone who does not respect the rules of Democracy, carrying out violence against civilians in order to create a state of the public opinion favourable to his interests.
In some, if not all, cases, the terrorists' interests are coincidental to the ones of some important groups. Then, it can be affirmed that one man's terrorist is another man's puppet, or gunman, or thug... but as long as a democracy exists, they can never be freedom fighters.
But Islam, like Communism, has a different definition of freedom. (This is apart from the feeing of slaves, because slavery is still "live" as a legal issue and sometimes a practice in Islam.) It is Muslim domination and ideally Muslim rule according to Allah's law, so that all obstacles to everyone becoming a Muslim and complying with all Islamic rules are removed.
- Muslim domination = free to do Allah's will in living a completely Muslim life = free.
- Domination by unbelievers and their man-made, non-divine law = barriers to everyone converting to Islam and living fully Islamic lives = not free.