Islam: the disease

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:28 pm

The Malady of Islam

Arabs have shown by their conduct that tyranny is their preferred response to modernity.

March 8, 2009

- by Salim Mansur

Since 9/11, the West, and the United States in particular, has been wrestling with the problem of how to deal with the pathology, or what Abdelwahab Meddeb, the Paris-based Tunisian writer, calls the “malady of Islam.” There seems to be no relevant past experience that the West might draw upon in confronting this malady.

The pathologies of German-Italian fascism and Japanese militarism were eventually severely dealt with by the Allied powers, and their defeat followed by reform of those societies made the world more secure and prosperous. Similarly, a combination of diplomacy and military force by the West contained the pathology of the former Soviet Union until the communist system collapsed. But presently, there is great reluctance in the West — especially from the new Obama administration in Washington — to learn from the past and to tackle the challenges the Arab-Muslim world will continue to pose in the years ahead if the malady remains uncured.

Much has been written in recent years about Islam. I will comment here on an aspect of the problem of Islam and our modern world as a Muslim drawing upon my own lived experience.

First, the Arabs constitute less than a fifth of the world’s Muslim population. Yet despite their minority position Arabs are the center of gravity in the Islamic world. Non-Arab Muslims, for a host of reasons, look to Arabs for their understanding and practice of Islam. Hence, the malady of the Arab-Muslim world is intimately bound with the cultural norms of Arabs. Region-wise, the most affected areas extend from the Atlantic to the River Indus.

Secondly, the malady has been exacerbated by the Arab response to modernity. Modernity has multiple meanings: industrialization, urbanization, adoption of liberal values, women’s rights, elected governments, etc. I want to emphasize here the concept of citizenship as a core component of modernity. The idea of citizenship is linked to the idea of individuals in society possessing unalienable rights. The evolution of this idea has meant that even though society is a collection of individuals, individual rights override collective rights and distinguish modern society from mob rule. On this idea rests the modern democratic society, wherein political leaders are elected by citizens to whom they are accountable. They hold office with citizen approval; they make laws, but none might be passed that override the unalienable rights of citizens written into the constitution. They govern with support of the citizens and are replaced when they fail to meet the goals that saw them elected.

Let us now consider the malady of Islam given the above description of the problem as I see it. Modernity, and its concept of individual rights, is Western in origin. It evolved through centuries of philosophical and political debates, and then equally long periods of war to defeat those who opposed the principle of individual liberty. Eventually modernity and its off-shoot, citizenship, prevailed over the opposition and were more or less firmly established in the West and places beyond by the end of the last century.

Arabs were in close proximity to these ideas and the struggle that accompanied them. What, it might be asked of the Arabs, was their response to modernity? Even with all the apologia and obfuscation, the answer that cannot be evaded is that the collective Arab response has shown a preference for totalitarian ideology. In the period following the end of the World War II and European colonialism, there were three ideological responses that marked out the Arabs into three groups: secular Muslims, and orthodox Muslims divided into the majority Sunni and minority Shi’i sects.

Secular Muslims were mobilized by Arab nationalism embodied in the Ba’ath party. Sunni Muslims chose Wahhabism/Salafism embodied in the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban. Shi’i Muslims followed Khomeinism embodied in the politics of the clerical regime in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Sadrists in Iraq.

All three ideologies and movements they spawned are totalitarian. For all their professed belief in Islam’s sacred scripture, Arabs — given their blood-soaked history of suppressing dissent and despite their close proximity to the evolution of liberal movements in Europe — have been engaged in suppressing or eradicating any form of individual liberty while making no allowance for their opponents. Arabs have shown by their conduct that tyranny is their preferred response to modernity.

Liberalism in the Arab-Muslim world is peripheral. Muslim liberals are scorned, or treated worse. They look for support in the West or flee to the West. Those who have fled are viewed as stooges of the West in their native countries. Then many among them torn by remorse and guilt turn against their Western hosts and become caricatures of their past lives, railing against the West even as they prosper personally and professionally in the freedom West provides.

America’s response to 9/11 under President George W. Bush has been hugely consequential for the advance of freedom over tyranny in the Arab-Muslim world. Two of the three tyrannies (Iraq under the Ba’ath and Afghanistan under the Taliban) have been destroyed.

The remaining tyranny (Iran under Khomeinism) is in a unique situation. It is trapped between emerging democracies, even as it is seen as a bastion of reactionary hope among besieged tyrannies and their defenders. This circumstance has opened a second front in the war against Islamist terrorism, and one may observe the rise of proxy armies far and wide as a result.

Among supporters of the defeated tyrannies are the urban elite. Members of the urban elite, particularly among non-Arab Muslims, are Westernized, share little in common with the populace, live in privileged enclaves, and send their offspring to schools in the West. Their rule has brought much ruin to their people, as in Egypt and Pakistan. But they have avoided taking any responsibility by railing against the West and blaming it for their failure. This blame game will not end soon, especially as the West continues to contort itself in making apologies for the colonialism that ended some time ago.

Muslims need to ask themselves what they have against modernity. Does it go against their scripture? Does it undermine their political interests? Does it impede their progress from poverty to a life of dignity and improved well-being? Except for the obstacle posed by the urban elite and the influence of Arab culture, Muslims in general have no reason not to embrace modernity.

Freedom and democracy have been planted by American arms in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Violent reactions were predictable given the history of the people and the region. But the defeat of two tyrannies and their accompanying ideologies is a beginning. It opens a new chapter for Muslims to prove to themselves they can be free people respecting of individual liberty and making progress with a better and reformed understanding of Islam. Conversely, if the malady of Islam is not cured it will increasingly infect the West; hence, apart from any other reason, prudence itself demands the West steadfastly remain committed to the curing of Islam’s malady.

----------------------------------------------

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-malady-of-islam/

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:41 am

There are some arabs who are trying to drag their religious leadership into the light of the double digit century.
Remember the evil Saudi's who, because many of the 911 terrorists were born there, people said we should have attacked Saudi Arabia? Well fortunately we didn't because the Bushies knew the Royals in Saudi Arabia were the best hope for modernization of an Islamic world (second perhaps to Sadam's Iraq but that irony is fuel for another flame fest).

Here's a little something from this mornings headlines:

CAIRO (AP) - A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom's ultraconservative religious police and judiciary.

The woman's lawyer told The Associated Press on Monday that he would appeal the verdict against Khamisa Sawadi, who is Syrian but was married to a Saudi. The attorney, Abdel Rahman al-Lahem, said the verdict issued March 3 also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence.

He said his client, who is not serving her sentence yet, was not speaking with the media, and he declined to provide more details about the case.

The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.

Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.

The court said it based its ruling on \"citizen information\" and testimony from al-Anzi's father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.

\"Because she said she doesn't have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed,\" the court verdict read.

Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam prohibits men and women who are not immediate relatives from mingling. It also bars women from driving, and the playing of music, dancing and many movies also are a concern for hard-liners who believe they violate religious and moral values.

Complaints from Saudis have been growing that the religious police and courts are overstepping their broad mandate and interfering in people's lives, and critics lambasted the handling of Sawadi's case.

\"How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion?\" Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a physician who also is a columnist for Al-Watan, wrote Monday. \"A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests.\"

Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

Sawadi commonly asked her neighbors for help after her husband died, said journalist Bandar al-Ammar, who reported the story for Al-Watan. In a recent article, he wrote that he felt the need to report the case \"so everybody knows to what degree we have reached.\"

The woman's conviction came a few weeks after King Abdullah fired the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing owners of TV networks that broadcast \"immoral content.\" The move was seen as part of an effort to weaken the hard-line Sunni Muslim establishment.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:00 pm

that's messed up.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:22 pm

There are already sharia courts in Britain. What makes us think they're not already in the process of being established here?

Muslims are not citizens of a country- they are citizens of allah under islamic law. This \"law\" overrides any national laws in the adopted country.

The kind of nonsense you see in Will's quoted article is only a few steps away from being in your front yard- if not already there...AND you will be subject to the laws of allah whether or not you are a muslim yourself- if there are muslims involved, you will submit or face their wrath.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:15 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:.... if there are muslims involved, you will submit or face their wrath.

/me dips bullets in bacon fat before loading them in the magazine

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:11 pm

Lol, in my opinion the reason we didn’t smack down the Saudi’s was because of something with a little 3 letter name…and other business deals. And calling the Saudi Royals “modern” is like calling Zuruck or Ferno “intellectuals”. Those people smile in your face, all the while twisting the knife in your back, in case its been forgotten, they are providing the funding for the madrasas (also known as terrorist training schools, in this case) in Afghanistan.

The only thing “Modern” about that country…is its technology.

I did get a chuckle tho, after referring to the Saudis as “Modern” you post a story about the “religious police”.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:20 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:There are already sharia courts in Britain. What makes us think they're not already in the process of being established here?

Muslims are not citizens of a country- they are citizens of allah under islamic law. This "law" overrides any national laws in the adopted country.

The kind of nonsense you see in Will's quoted article is only a few steps away from being in your front yard- if not already there...AND you will be subject to the laws of allah whether or not you are a muslim yourself- if there are muslims involved, you will submit or face their wrath.

They're already trying here. Several times this past year in Texas. They start with small laws and things that begin a preference. THIS isn't a laughing matter.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:53 am

Spidey wrote:....The only thing “Modern” about that country…is its technology.

I did get a chuckle tho, after referring to the Saudis as “Modern” you post a story about the “religious police”.

Maybe you missed the last two sentences of the piece:

"The woman's conviction came a few weeks after King Abdullah fired the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing owners of TV networks that broadcast "immoral content." The move was seen as part of an effort to weaken the hard-line Sunni Muslim establishment. "

Obviously the King is trying to force his religious leadership to evolve a little bit. You may laugh at where they are in context of what is modern but the Royals are a modernizing influence on their country. The wheels of progress move especially slow in a culture where religious wackos are capable of forcing millions to engage in a bloody overthrow of the few thousand or so people who are so tenuously in control.

Just look at who a young bin Ladden wanted to go fight when he and his newly formed al Queda were leaving Afghanistan in the wake of Soviet and American departure...he wanted them to return to their home and throw out the Royals in Saudi Arabia because they were unfaithful to the true Islam. That is why his father had to disown him and why he is not allowed back into Saudi Arabia.

If he were to return and get support from the radical clerics they could enable him to overthrow the royals who dare to do things like firing the religious police for condoning the murder of non radicals.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:07 pm

Spidey wrote:And calling the Saudi Royals “modern” is like calling Zuruck or Ferno “intellectuals”.

I haven't laughed like that for a long time.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:37 pm

Spidey wrote:And calling the Saudi Royals “modern” is like calling Zuruck or Ferno “intellectuals”.

LOL I missed this

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:25 pm

SilverFJ wrote:
Spidey wrote:And calling the Saudi Royals “modern” is like calling Zuruck or Ferno “intellectuals”.
I haven't laughed like that for a long time.

2x
rofl

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:01 pm

I hear what you are saying Will, But I hope you don’t mind if I don’t hold my breath waiting for the Saudi’s to “modernize” the region.

It’s sad, even the “shining star” of the region (Turkey) seems to be regressing these days.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:54 pm

Spidey wrote:Lol, in my opinion the reason we didn’t smack down the Saudis was because of something with a little 3 letter name…and other business deals. And calling the Saudi Royals “modern” is like calling Zuruck or Ferno “intellectuals”. Those people smile in your face, all the while twisting the knife in your back, in case it's been forgotten, they are providing the funding for the madrasas (also known as terrorist training schools, in this case) in Afghanistan

Looks like i've had quite the effect on you.

all the more reason to bust you on your stupidity.

oh... and I corrected your grammar for you.

It's rather hard to assign you any credibility when you can't compose a simple paragraph correctly.

Cuda: owned? hardly. it's jut another, sad try at an insult from our old crotchety, backward-thinking redneck. hardly worth a mention.

what disturbs me about that article is this commentator is telling us we should go in and kill as many muslims as possible to stop what he believes is an 'invasion' of islam. that and the comparison between islam and nazi fascism strikes me as nothing more than fear mongering.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:11 pm

He corrected my grammar, give the guy a medal.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:59 pm

the Grammar Nazi still got OWNED. Intellectual that he is and all

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:29 pm

Ferno wrote: what disturbs me about that article is this commentator is telling us we should go in and kill as many muslims as possible to stop what he believes is an 'invasion' of islam.

I must be stupid, I bow to the superior intellect, but where da hell does it say that?!

.................

And to the second half of your brilliant statement…It’s obvious history is not one of your strong points.

Just Google Hitler and Islam or Al Husseini and Hitler.

Or you can just start here… http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:22 pm

The part of this that really bothers me, is that they're punishing two guys for bringing an old lady bread. AND they're punishing the old lady. FOR BREAD. There is a word for this: Tyranny. They're worse than Hitler in my book.

Even for hard liners, it was her nephew and his friend. Thats not exactly a far reach for someone an old lady would call upon to bring her bread.

Makes me want to nuke that half of the planet. Kill them all and let God sort them out.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:51 am

To further clarify what Capm points out:

\"Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.\"

So the court denies her claim because...she didn't have pictures with the kid suckling on her boob? Those people are nuts over there and having Islamic law even minutely introduced to our countries is obscene.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:40 am

woodchip wrote:....
So the court denies her claim because...she didn't have pictures with the kid suckling on her boob?...

On the other hand she's lucky she doesn't have those pictures because they would probably cut off her head and outlaw photography if she did...

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:48 pm

I don't think this board would be half as interesting without Ferno.

Redneck?
Thanks.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:25 pm

SilverFJ wrote:I don't think this board would be half as interesting without Ferno.

Redneck?
Thanks.

your name is spidey?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:36 pm

I think that there are plenty of good Muslims. But the system of Sharia law is evil. And we spent American Blood to set it up in Afghanistan. <sigh>

Student facing 20 years in hell
Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, is a student journalist who was arrested for allegedly circulating an article about women's rights. He was convicted in secret and sentenced to death without Mr Kambaksh's getting to offer a single word in his own defense. Public outrage (in the US, not Afghanistan) got the court to commute the sentence to 20 years in prison.

20 years in jail. No trial, no defense, the fundamentalist are threatening to kill him as soon as they can get their hands on him, so he's not likely to make the full 20 years.

US tax dollars are funding it. US lives were lost to establish it.

Makes me sick.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:21 am

Kilarin wrote:I think that there are plenty of good Muslims. But the system of Sharia law is evil. And we spent American Blood to set it up in Afghanistan. <sigh>...

I'm pretty sure that wasn't our goal.

It may be that we didn't prop up our own dictator so the locals set up shop doing what locals do over there.... but you make it sound like we brought that kind of screwed up fundamentalism to the area. So, yea, we failed to erase 1000's of years of screwed up fundamentalism because we only went in there to kill a bunch of them while we searched for one in particular.

Would you be in favor of the kind of blood payment required to rid that culture of it's fundamentalism?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:20 am

Will Robinson wrote:Would you be in favor of the kind of blood payment required to rid that culture of it's fundamentalism?

You have a valid point. BUT, it seems to me that we should have either: Smashed the Taliban, said good luck to the locals, and ducked out. OR, if we were going to help the Afghans establish a new government after we spent blood freeing them, then I think we would have every right to dictate that the new government NOT be based upon sharia law.

Either they build a government without our help, or, if we are going to play at nation-building, at least insist on building a minimally civilized nation. Do NOT take responsibility for building another Sharia nightmare. Religious Liberty is NOT to much of a price to ask for the blood of our soldiers.

You are probably right, the price in blood might have been very high. But I would have rather seen us just walk out than to build this.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:58 am

Ahh, my bad, I am a pretty big redneck though.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:21 am

SilverFJ wrote:Ahh, my bad, I am a pretty big redneck though.

RedNeck Liberal killer

RedNeck Limo

RedNeck gentlemen's room

RedNeck Daily driver and girl friend

Its Good to be a Redneck

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:57 pm

Red Neck Wife

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:15 pm

Nice.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:52 pm

I think in the interests of full disclosure, you will have to add me to the redneck list.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:34 pm

so you guys want to be like redbone? okay!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:41 pm

even Redneck's have their Redbone's, Just like the Liberals have their Ferno's

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:40 pm

'Redbone,' boy did that name trigger some flashbacks, does he still play?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:07 pm

CUDA wrote:even Redneck's have their Redbone's, Just like the Liberals have their Ferno's

Twice in one thread. Ouch!

It's ok, Ferno, I still l... .........don't absolutely hate you.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:27 pm

VonVulcan drinks Rainier and I know it.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:45 am

SilverFJ wrote:VonVulcan drinks Rainier and I know it.

Well he SHOULD. They use rabbits in their brewing process... for superior hopps!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:36 am

Liberals scare me.

CUDA wrote:even Redneck's have their Redbone's, Just like the Liberals have their Rican's

fixed it for you.

thorne: really? damn. looks like i gotta try harder.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:58 am

You sure do enough democrat sympathizing to look like a liberal on here.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:43 pm

SilverFJ wrote:You sure do enough democrat sympathizing to look like a liberal on here.

are you high?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:42 pm

Ferno wrote:
SilverFJ wrote:You sure do enough democrat sympathizing to look like a liberal on here.
are you high?

Well if you aren't on their side, you must be far far farrrrrr on the other side. Since nobody is near the middle. Right?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:10 pm

no of course not. it's all left and right, black and white, good and evil, with us or against us.

just like a hollywood movie!

Islam: the disease

Islam: the disease

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: