Democracy in the Arab world is a threat to the US

[YmirGF]

USA's government are ********. I'm ashamed of them.

USA's people, though, are great. Well, there are (like anywhere else) backwards people, but it often amazes me how we got stuck with such a crappy governmental body with a people that would never agree to such awful tactics.

Given that the people elect their government, does say something about those "great" people, Ms. KittyMix.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Given that the people elect their government, does say something about those "great" people, Ms. KittyMix.

Indeed, we get the choice of electing generally one of two or so candidates who are almost all rich, power hungry sociopaths. Stupid voters.

 

[lunakilo]

That is partly why you have to be careful around Chomsky. He is far from being a stupid man. What may be helpful in understanding his comments is his seething hatred for the American political system, the "western" media and capitalist systems, relentlessly stated throughout the course of several decades. Chomsky is a self-described Anarcho-syndicalist which is about as radically left wing as one can get without being into violet revolutionary jockstraps. In short, a brilliant mind, addled by what could be described as "Leftist Derangement Syndrome".

Ok, so he is a brilliant, left-wing man who hates the American political system.

But is what he said wrong?

 

[lunakilo]

Yeah, there are some people that are really skillful at sounding not stupid.

I am still waiting for the explanation of why what he said is stupid.

I mean the USA (among others) does have a habbit of supporting dictators around the world.

 

[Badran]

I am still waiting for the explanation of why what he said is stupid.

I mean the USA (among others) does have a habbit of supporting dictators around the world.

To me what he said makes pretty good sense. There are basically two questions:

1) Which would the US government rather have?

a) Free, powerful country(s) in the middle East run by governments that meet its people's views, opinions and hopes regarding issues in the region (which for the main part contradicts those of the US government).

b) Weak undemocratic country(s) that are ruled by authoritarians that have their people under control and are considered allies to it.

2) How far is the US government willing to go to get what it wants?

The answer seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Sahar]

...which is what the Muslim Brotherhood did in 1952, according to the article. It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood tried to stall for time so that they might be more successful at implementing theocracy instead of having a secular state back then, but you don't decry their actions back then -- why are you decrying the actions of the secularists for trying to stall for time instead of having a theocracy now if you're not going to decry the actions of the MB in 1952?

Huh? :sarcastic
I don't support any undemocratic oppressive action whether by the secular Arab nationalist Gamal Abdel-Nassir then or by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that run the affairs of the country now. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Because if we opened the door for accepting the undemocratic actions now, it would harm both the Islamic and secular parties like what our recent history taught us.

I certainly hope for the sake of the Egyptian people that the state is non-religious, though I hope it never has to involve military intervention -- that does seem a little over the top!


The "disaster" will be theocracy if the MB is allowed to implement it. Theocracy in Egypt will ruin lives. There's no need for it. Let Egypt be secular and free and everyone wins. I'm not saying let it be a puppet of the West -- in fact, I hope that it's not. Let Egypt be a secular and free state that can become a beacon to all those states in the area toiling under brutal dictatorships and petty theocracies to say "huh, Egypt did it -- we can do it too!"

There is no one who is going to make Egypt "theocracy" and there is nothing called theocracy in the Islamic thought.
Actually there is a law now regulating the political parties formation and which prohibit the formation of any theocratic party. After this law, multiple un-theocratic Islamic parties were formed including the Freedom and Justice Party that belongs to the MB.

The MB calls for a modern democratic constitutional state. The MB will not be a disaster as long as they come through the public will. The secular regime of Mubarak ruined a lot of lives, so thanks "secularism" doesn't prevent ruining people's lives. We experienced the secular regime and it was pretty much oppressive and tyrant.

The Islamic political movements like the MB call neither for a theocracy nor for a secular state (naturally). There is a middle ground between both. Also, there is no secular party that calls for a comprehensive secular state in Egypt.

In fact, there is no fundamental disagreement between the Islamic political parties and the secular parties on the main constitutional principles including the article that says: "Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Islamic Sharia)". I emphasize again, the secular parties don't disagree on that article/principle.

EGYPT: Liberals approve cleric's suggestion for new constitution

A document drafted by the leading cleric at Al Azhar institution, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, to guide the writing of a new constitution for a "modern democratic state" has been widely endorsed by Egypt's liberal and secular politicians.
The consensus was announced during a meeting that was held under the auspices of Azhar’s top cleric Ahmed el Tayeb on Wednesday and attended by nine potential presidential candidates, representatives of 22 political parties and a number of intellectuals and religious leaders.

"Those who attended the meeting at Al Azhar, agreed that Azhar’s document is a general guiding frame for the constitutional committee,” said presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei. Presidential aspirant Ayman Nour described the document as seeking to unite "political forces over the values and principles of a modern democratic and constitutional state."
Initially brought to light by Tayeb in June, the document consists of 11 principles, proposing that Egypt has an Islamic identity but is committed to a "civil and democratic state governed by law and the constitution." The principles include articles calling for respect of freedom of opinion, faith and for human rights.
EGYPT: Liberals approve cleric's suggestion for new constitution - latimes.com

No matter who will come, it should be no other government's business as long as it's the people choice. The OP is about how the representation of the public will is going to clash with the American domination and interests in the region and this is absolutely true. And not to forget that the American governments supported the Arab dictators over the years. Then only at the last moment, the Obama government supported the revolutions after they became sure there was no chance for the dictators to stay in power.

 

[Sunstone]

The US government seems to have a history of pretty much perceiving democracy anywhere outside of Europe, Canada, Israel, and Japan as a threat to its interests.

 

[Sahar]

I am still waiting for the explanation of why what he said is stupid.

I mean the USA (among others) does have a habbit of supporting dictators around the world.

I am still waiting too.

To me what he said makes pretty good sense. There are basically two questions:

1) Which would the US government rather have?

a) Free, powerful country(s) in the middle East run by governments that meet its people's views, opinions and hopes regarding issues in the region (which for the main part contradicts those of the US government).

b) Weak undemocratic country(s) that are ruled by authoritarians that have their people under control and are considered allies to it.

2) How far is the US government willing to go to get what it wants?

The answer seems pretty simple to me.

Great questions and the answer is obvious.

 

[Meow Mix]

Given that the people elect their government, does say something about those "great" people, Ms. KittyMix.

Given that we're given the choice between garbage and more garbage to "elect," how can we be blamed -- other than the fact that we can be blamed for inaction at changing the system?

 

[Meow Mix]

There is no one who is going to make Egypt "theocracy" and there is nothing called theocracy in the Islamic thought.

Everything I know about Sharia -- including from conversations with you and other Muslim friends on this forum -- indicates that Sharia is theocratic and oppressive unless interpreted so liberally that it might as well not be "Sharia" at all.

Actually there is a law now regulating the political parties formation and which prohibit the formation of any theocratic party. After this law, multiple un-theocratic Islamic parties were formed including the Freedom and Justice Party that belongs to the MB.

So, nobody is going to try to make Islam a state religion or the law of the land Sharia? I know I'm not Egyptian, but somehow that seems doubtful to me -- or I'm misunderstanding you. If you don't equate Sharia to theocracy, let me be clear that I do -- again, unless it's interpreted very liberally such that it doesn't apply whatsoever to non-Muslims (i.e., non-Muslims would be free to own pork businesses, imbibe alcohol on a public patio, criticize even Islam if they wish to make an argument against it, homosexuals holding hands even in public, etc.). I find it hard to believe that the MB would be willing to support those things.

But again, I'm not Egyptian, so maybe I'll ask you. Would the MB support those things, and more?

The MB calls for a modern democratic constitutional state

. The MB will not be a disaster as long as they come through the public will. The secular regime of Mubarak ruined a lot of lives, so thanks "secularism" doesn't prevent ruining people's lives. We experienced the secular regime and it was pretty much oppressive and tyrant.

I don't equate secularism with not being tyrannical -- after all, I agree that Mubarak ruined a lot of lives even though his regime was secular. Saddam Hussein was relatively secular, too. What I meant by my comment was that I just hope the people don't abandon a secular tyranny for theocracy because that's just another form of tyranny: I'm saying it would be false to assume that since one secular government was tyrannical that secular government is the problem; and that therefore a theocracy would be better -- that would be false.

The Islamic political movements like the MB call neither for a theocracy nor for a secular state (naturally). There is a middle ground between both. Also, there is no secular party that calls for a comprehensive secular state in Egypt.

What is a middle ground between both? Governments with religious freedom are included in the "secular government" category. I suppose there are shades of secular governments, since I guess a militantly atheist country can be considered "secular," but I hope everyone is against an anti-theocracy as much as I hope they're against a theocracy.

The principles include articles calling for respect of freedom of opinion, faith and for human rights.

EGYPT: Liberals approve cleric's suggestion for new constitution - latimes.com

Great! I certainly hope so! But I hope they keep their word on this. For instance, in a thread we both participated in a while back, there was a person who was arrested for posting negative comments about Islam online -- even though the country in question supposedly had religious liberty and freedom of speech.

So, I certainly hope that civil liberties and human rights do get cemented in the Egyptian constitution. I'm just nervous that it just end up as lip-service to civil liberties like we find in some countries; such as from the story I mentioned.

No matter who will come, it should be no other government's business as long as it's the people choice. The OP is about how the representation of the public will is going to clash with the American domination and interests in the region and this is absolutely true. And not to forget that the American governments supported the Arab dictators over the years. Then only at the last moment, the Obama government supported the revolutions after they became sure there was no chance for the dictators to stay in power.

I agree that it's no other government's business, I'm ashamed of the way my country acts to the rest of the world. The people in my government are scum.

 

[Sahar]

Everything I know about Sharia -- including from conversations with you and other Muslim friends on this forum -- indicates that Sharia is theocratic and oppressive unless interpreted so liberally that it might as well not be "Sharia" at all.

Islam is about justice and freedom, not oppression.

So, nobody is going to try to make Islam a state religion or the law of the land Sharia? I know I'm not Egyptian, but somehow that seems doubtful to me -- or I'm misunderstanding you. If you don't equate Sharia to theocracy, let me be clear that I do -- again, unless it's interpreted very liberally such that it doesn't apply whatsoever to non-Muslims (i.e., non-Muslims would be free to own pork businesses, imbibe alcohol on a public patio, criticize even Islam if they wish to make an argument against it, homosexuals holding hands even in public, etc.). I find it hard to believe that the MB would be willing to support those things.

As I said, many liberal parties don't disagree with the principle that says the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Islamic Sharia).
Non Muslims will not be subjected to Islamic Shari'a in the matter of their religions. This is not "very liberally", this is Islam. I believe Al-Azhar Document emphasized that too.

The MB represents the moderate Islamic political movement. There are other streams that are much more strict.

What is a middle ground between both? Governments with religious freedom are included in the "secular government" category.

Islam emphasizes the freedom to embrace any religion and the right to practice it. This is Islam, my religion and the religion of most Egyptians.

Great! I certainly hope so! But I hope they keep their word on this.

Don't forget the parts that acknowledge the Islamic identity of Egypt and Islamic Shari'a as a source of legislation.

 

[Meow Mix]

Islam is about justice and freedom, not oppression.

I believe it can be interpreted that way by some. Ssainhu's interpretations come immediately to mind. Not that you don't, mind you! I just know we've disagreed on some Sharia issues in the past. I love you as a person and friend, but I might not be comfortable living under a system that I've seen you describe.

As I said, many liberal parties don't disagree with the principle that says the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Islamic Sharia).
Non Muslims will not be subjected to Islamic Shari'a in the matter of their religions. This is not "very liberally", this is Islam. I believe Al-Azhar Document emphasized that too.

Well, would people have the freedom to criticize Islam?

Would men and women have the same legal rights, such as receiving the same amount of restitution and inheritance; and their testimony having the same weight?

Could I sit on a public patio at a restaurant outside and drink a margarita?

Would homosexuals have to hide their relationships from the public, or if it's publicly known they're intimate lovers would that be fine?

These are just very small questions about potential abuse from an Islamic theocracy. If it's truly not an oppressive theocracy, then there would be no blasphemy laws and people would be free to criticize Islam if they want. Men and women would have complete legal equality; and wouldn't have religiously expected roles to fulfill by the law. Homosexuality is only a religious taboo and so shouldn't be taboo on the whole populace or in public.

The MB represents the moderate Islamic political movement. There are other streams that are much more strict.

Islam emphasizes the freedom to embrace any religion and the right to practice it. This is Islam, my religion and the religion of most Egyptians.

I'm interested in how you think Sharia would respond to the examples I raised above, then.

Don't forget the parts that acknowledge the Islamic identity of Egypt and Islamic Shari'a as a source of legislation.

If so, then unfortunately Egypt will be some form of theocracy and people will have gone from one tyranny to another -- unless your answers to the above questions have changed since last time we talked about it.

 

[lunakilo]

To me what he said makes pretty good sense. There are basically two questions:

1) Which would the US government rather have?

a) Free, powerful country(s) in the middle East run by governments that meet its people's views, opinions and hopes regarding issues in the region (which for the main part contradicts those of the US government).

b) Weak undemocratic country(s) that are ruled by authoritarians that have their people under control and are considered allies to it.

I think that to a government in any country foreign countries are kind of like a black box. You put something into it and something else comes out. Fx. you put in money and oil comes out.
Why should you care what goes on within them as long as they do what you want/expect them to do.

I think it is quite understandable that a government would first worry about conditions in its own country before worrying about the conditions within another country.

If something happens to cange what happens within one of these black boxes called foreign countries, this risks having an influence on you own country. Especially if the black box in question produces oil and you live in a country where people love driving around in big cars and get very upset if the price of oil rises. They may get angry at you and not vote for you at the next election .
And even if they do vote for you it will still be bad in general because conditions within your own countries will deteriorate.

It would be pretty irresponsible of you (the government) not to try and do something about that wouldn't it

I don't think the USA is worse than other countries in this sense, the difference is that in contrast to most other countries, the USA has the power to actually do something about it.

And to be honest I think they would rather go for option :
c) I friendly country where people are happy

2) How far is the US government willing to go to get what it wants?

I think that depends on who happens to be in charge at the time.

 

[Badran]

I think that to a government in any country foreign countries are kind of like a black box. You put something into it and something else comes out. Fx. you put in money and oil comes out.
Why should you care what goes on within them as long as they do what you want/expect them to do.

I think it is quite understandable that a government would first worry about conditions in its own country before worrying about the conditions within another country.

If something happens to cange what happens within one of these black boxes called foreign countries, this risks having an influence on you own country. Especially if the black box in question produces oil and you live in a country where people love driving around in big cars and get very upset if the price of oil rises. They may get angry at you and not vote for you at the next election .
And even if they do vote for you it will still be bad in general because conditions within your own countries will deteriorate.

It would be pretty irresponsible of you (the government) not to try and do something about that wouldn't it

There's nothing wrong about doing something regarding your interests in other countries. The question is what are those interests and what are you doing to get them.

I don't think the USA is worse than other countries in this sense, the difference is that in contrast to most other countries, the USA has the power to actually do something about it.

And to be honest I think they would rather go for option :
c) I friendly country where people are happy

The thing is though a country being happy (free, powerful, prosperous etc...) and friendly with the US doesn't mean the US will get whatever it wants, or even most of what it wants, unlike option B. Also i don't think option C actually exists in this scenario, when we talk about Arab countries that is. Since like i said most of these countries populations wishes and aspirations contradicts those of the US government.

Also personally, i don't think governments of the likes of that of the US (and this includes most governments today) actually cares about anybody's happiness, including their own people. What matters is that they get what they want while scoring as much points with their people as they could (as they need that), and in some cases with the world in general (Since also how they're viewed in the eye's of other countries is important).

I think that depends on who happens to be in charge at the time.

Yes it does. However when we talk about the US government in particular it seems that regardless of who's in charge, there are certain things that don't change much. At least for the most part.

 

[Tarheeler]

Democracy in the Arab world is not a threat to the US.

It is a threat to American hegemony. And that's not a bad thing.
Every nation should be governed by the consent of its citizens.

 

[kai]

Democracy in the Arab world is not a threat to the US.

It is a threat to American hegemony. And that's not a bad thing.
Every nation should be governed by the consent of its citizens.

i agree! the trouble with Egypt is getting it governed with the consent of the people not the Army ,which was hand in hand with the previous regime all along.

 

[YmirGF]

Ok, so he is a brilliant, left-wing man who hates the American political system.

But is what he said wrong?

I am still waiting too.

I am sorry for appearing to ignore your question and I have been thinking about it for over a day now.
A wise person approaches Chomsky with extreme caution as the target is far more cunning that most allow for.

The first point with Chomsky is that he does not often say something that is outright, demonstratively wrong. For example, if memory serves correctly in his dialogue on another point, he casually stated, "America entered into an illegal war in Iraq". Now, that is not untruthful because indeed there are some legal experts, who form a minority opinion, that the war in Iraq WAS an illegal action for America to take. What Chomsky isn't telling you is that the majority of legal opinion says that America's action in Iraq IS quite legal. This point is similar to the legal status of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The majority opinion is that Israel is well within her rights, whereas the minority legal opinion is that Israel's actions are, in fact, illegal. Do you see what I mean?

The point is that it is a somewhat useless fact as either side of the question can state their view as being correct because they can each cite a litany of defenders of that viewpoint. In this respect, being fully aware of THAT FACT, Chomsky mentions it simply to color his dialogue in damning America. He does this repeatedly and so adroitly that the listener probably doesn't even sense when they are expertly being led down the proverbial garden path.

Then, as someone else noted, Chomsky does have a tendency to play footloose and fancy free with statistics, like MANY speakers, he narrowly cites statistics that would seem to support his narrative. Again, this isn't unusual these days, if it ever was, it is just that what he is feeding his audience isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal of events OUTSIDE of his ultra-left wing world view. The point is that there is some truth in what he is saying, but you would have to fact check each and every statement to determine how accurate his presentation is.

The last thing to keep in mind is that Chomsky is one of the leading experts in the world in Linguistics. He knows precisely how to use language to get his message across. The vast majority of people would never detect the nuances in his speech, in how he turns a phrase for maximum impact on his audience. That is why I said you have to be careful with Chomsky and try to distill what he is saying from what he is meaning and what his agenda is driving at.

In essence, Chomsky and his ilk would like to see a world like that of Stalinist Russian before Stalin's descent into madness. Those were indeed heady and remarkable times, but such political apparatuses depend on the Chomsky's to fuel them and direct the masses, creating an unhealthy dependency relationship between the architects and the masses.

Sadly, this is perilously close to derailing the thread and if the mods are so inclined, they could split this off into two threads.

 

[YmirGF]

i agree! the trouble with Egypt is getting it governed with the consent of the people not the Army ,which was hand in hand with the previous regime all along.

and will go merrily fist in hand with the new leaders of the land, who will serve at the pleasure of the army. When the Egyptian people finally realize that the army is their enemy and always has been - all hell will break loose.

 

[Father Heathen]

there is nothing called theocracy in the Islamic thought.

Then what is Sharia law?

Islam is about justice and freedom, not oppression.

So a bikini clad lesbian couple can waltz down the streets of Cairo while openly discussing why Mohammad was a fraud?

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Sharia is about freedom and justice, not oppression?

Tell that to those homosexuals they hung in Iran