West Asia News and Discussions

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

brihaspati wrote: I said that Muslims have always fought against each other about their internal power equations. But it does not change one single bit their attitude towards the non-Muslim.

Yes Muslims have always used non-Muslims for their internal power struggles, but such use does not change their attitude - their ultimate target for the non-muslim, that is to enslave and convert, pillage, rape and loot. You seem not to take into account the complete consistency throughout the historical period - between actual manifestation of this strategy and long term thinking on the ground - and their theological textual precedence logic. Its there in the ahadith - and this long term strategy of using the kaffir to gain power, but in the long term always have the secret plan and goal to crush that same kaffir, preferably in gender selective way, and destroy every other traces of every other culture - as much as feasible.
Islam only had an upper hand as long as cavalry was king, and Islam was attractive to nomadic warrior societies.

In a world where that's no longer trumps the fact that Muslims are generally busy fighting other Muslims means that its very hard for the few to conquer the many, especially when the few are busy bickering with one another at every level.
I am not sure that this is the fact on the ground. You recognize the transition from Nasser to Sadat, as more Left to less-left and more of Saudi-ism, and the patronage or virtual tolerance of the growth of the islamists more and more as Egypt progresses from Nasser-to Sadat-to Mubarak. But you are not seeing the placement of Nasser as a so-called "pseudo-left-progressive nationalist face", that was used throughout the colonies managed by the Brits in the 40's and 50's.
B,

Our difference of opinion is based on the fact that you see things as directed. The fact is that people in the Middle East and the Muslim world will turn to whatever force opposes the current status quo if it fails to deliver. Secular tyrants in particular weaken the influences of liberals because they have no tolerance for free political speech - and if anything secular liberals are a more dangerous source of opposition for secular dictators since they threaten them on home ground. Its much harder to ban religion, which few societies -even the Soviets or Chinese- have ever done for very long.

Nasser's nationalism was attractive to the Egyptian masses because it seemed to offer the promise of both real independence, development and social justice. In particular it appealed to the growing urban middle class that was marginalised by the large land owning figures. It lost its lustre because Nasser's militaristic state could not deliver either. Nasserism as a dynamic political force was more or less killed by the defeat of 1967 war and the state's growing corruption. Sadat and Mubarak without strong ideological beliefs simply juggled and split the existing forces to survive in power.
The Iraqi king was replaced by a professed "Marxist" officer who had led the coup. It was his aide who turned [or had been working all along] for the "uncle" of Saddam, and replaced the "Marxist" in an equally bloody coup - and was known as an Islamist/conservative.
Please read further. Qasim was one with the Marxist leanings, and he was succeeded by Aref, a Nasserist who was the compromise candidate in the power struggle between Marxists, Baathists and Nasserists. Aref was overthrown a few years later by Bakr, a Baathist who promoted his Tikriti clan relatives including Saddam. The Baathists were secular until Saddam's catastrophic blunder in invading Kuwait, which again happened against the backdrop of mounting economic crisis.
Khomeini's movement was not the first one to challenge the neo-monarchy. There was a long history of leftist "urbanite" uprising against the ruling regime, and in fact the mullahcracy had always played a more collaborative role with colonial influences, and did not resist the shah when he anointed himself [or as per the Brit blueprint]. The resistance that was at all religiously touched, were by small fringe groups of "sufi" dissenters, and not the grand ayatollate in general - except the eleder family members of Khomeini. But again note that Khomeini must have had "guardian angels" - a typical feature of colonial politics, by which certain families are chosen to lead charmed lives - or individuals. The greater resistance, organized at that - was by the urban leftist and liberals or seculars. This aspect is usually suppressed nowa days, to push up Khomeini's role - a la JLN - as the sole "liberator". Khomeini's charmed life of escape to France and shipping at western initiative at the right moment should have made the facts clear on ground for you. Moreover, it was the leftist/liberal upsurge against the shah - that was the backdrop used to raise both the Soviet bogey as well as replace the shah who had outlived his use.
Ah yes, the hidden hand again - except there's no mystery here. The leftist urban guerrilla movement against the Shah did not begin until the late 1960s. Khomeini came out and personally condemned the Shah in public in 1963- this was unprecedented, especially since SAVAK had begun to construct a police state from 1958 onwards. The attempt to arrest him kicked off a massive wave of unrest across the cities of Iran that was only supressed by military force.

The Iranian throne and the Shiite clergy had a special relationship that stretched back to Shah Abbas. No Shah had a free hand in dealing with them, not even Reza Shah. Once the clergy united to protect Khomeini, he couldnt be touched. He was exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1964 until 1978, where the Shah counted on the Iraqis to keep him in check. It was the Shah's decision to ask Saddam to expel the Shah in 1978 as unrest in Iran deepened, based on the theory that the further away he was from Iran, the less damage he could do. Khomeini spent exactly 4 months in France, as a favour of the French President d'Estaing to the Shah. The strategic relationship between the Shah and the French was so deep that he relied on the French to make sure he was never surprised by the Americans.

Sure, and that is why Morsi has introduced a more Sharia-aligned constitution after sidelining the clerics! Please compare the statements of the AA Islamic uni's most "respected" and prolific clerics - and with that of the MB, or unspoken but implementations of MB. There is no sidelining where it really matters.
Under Nasser Al-Azhar was nationalized to bring it under greater control of the state. I don't see the MB reversing this trend. So we have men with technical degrees based on non-Islamic education with the upper hand in setting the party line over professionally trained clerics. Yes, they're both committed to Islam, but it is not a restoration of the superiority of Islamic learning which the Taliban and Khomeini represented.

Cyrillic script cannot be compared to imposition of Arabic on Egypt. Cyrillic was used because there was no script for the Kievan Rus at the time - but they had a language that was very much within the so-called IE group. The language did not change significantly apart from loanwords. However, when Arabic was imposed, it replaced the Coptic/hieratic entirely - and there are traces of how it was done, destruction of libraries - [whatever was left after the Christian loving], manuscripts, and the priesthood, and other standard measures of the Islamic.
If nationalistic Indonesians and Malays are content with the use of Latin script introduced so recently, why do you expect Egyptians to get upset about things that were over and done with a thousand years ago? Once again, this just isn't the way that nationalism works in the real world.
Once again, despite initial rhetorical Islamist denunciation of nationalism, they've had to give way because they can't fight the insidious nature of modernity on Muslims, especially once they're literate.

The vast majority of religiously observant Muslim Egyptians I've met are incredibly nationalistic - they are hugely proud of Egypt's role as the intellectual centre of the Arab world, and think they're its natural leaders. While its only good and right that the paganism of the Pharaohs gave way to Islam the Pyramids are great because they're a proof that the Egyptians are in fact especially bright. Egyptian Arabic is distinctive, and anyone speaking a foreign dialect of Arabic - say a Muslim Libyan (whom all Egyptians wrongly assume are loaded with cash) - will be screwed with much higher prices when trying to negotiate in the Souq, no differently from a non-Muslim Westerner who can speak only Modern Standard Arabic. If I speak in local dialect on the other hand, everything changes.
I stumble upon the bolded part. I did not expect this from you, but perhaps I should not have expected. That line gives an entirely different perspective on what you have written, but that is not for this thread. I am not sure archeologists like Hawas would agree with your sentiment, but I realize where you are coming from. :)
Err B, this is not *my* opinion - its the kind of opinion I often encounter among practicing Egyptian Muslims. As a non-religious person I personally do not find paganism inferior - or superior- in any way to monotheism. I have no preference for either, no dog in the race so to speak.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Jihad makdissi the spokesman for Asad has defected. Currently in the UK. Asad has sent his boys in London to strike a deal with him. Offering some lucrative offer to get him back.
-------
@billneelyitv: Washington politicians & officials listening with interest 2 sound of Russian U turn on Syria. Moscow may let go of Assad as noose tightens.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

Carl wrote: Johann,

Absolutely, there's no disagreement here either - except in the exact scope and depth of this prognosis and its effect.

Education and change of environment certainly 'alleviates' the hold of totalitarian Islamist memes on the minds of individuals and society. But it does not fundamentally dissolve the Islamist association, merely shifting it into the background. It does not fundamentally focus on and resolve the problems of Islamofascism, derive new conclusions, and pose new problems relevant to the future evolution of society. Rather, it is merely an alleviation from Islamist obsession, caused by the natural enjoyment provided by becoming consumers of new education and change of environment.

The fundamental indicator is the psychological relationship and attitude w.r.t. the 'other'. The limiting conditions can be tested. Will these newly modernizing Moslem societies allow freedom of conscience and the right of their fellow citizens to, say, criticize Islam or convert to a different religion? Or is death for blasphemy and apostasy being implemented with greater force and consistency in these modernizing societies? Even in Turkey, there have been regular cases of stabbings of Western missionaries there in the past few years.

The thing to note is that its not just the enjoyment from consuming new products or education that will relieve Islamofascism. Rather, it is one's perceived relationship of dominance-or-humiliation w.r.t. the defined 'other' that causes the shame and rage that sucks one right back into more obvious Islamist memes. They will see a modernized shariah as a consolidating and expansionary infrastructure, one that is rooted in faith and therefore one that will outlast the mere intellectual rationalist ideas of the West or other nations.

Said Nursi, the ideological grandfather of the Gulen-lead Islamism in Turkey today, has written a lot about this - about Turkey's need to modernize and gain all that the West has, merely in order to update itself and then reconquer. He quoted ahadiths and compared this to "riding an animal". The kaafir West is a powerful beast, the Dajjal, and their technological prowess must be gained and harnessed, but one must never be fooled by the miraculous "solutions" the beast proposes, never let the miraculous solutions of this impostor take one away from one's Iman (ideological affiliation) which is the only thing that will take one across at the time of death. So the change-reaction-change cycle in those societies can be seen in this perspective also, with the Islamist keeping close behind and staying relevant in the technologically evolving society, reminding them and the world that he is not gone.

Therefore, the real solution is to replace the mental-ideological infrastructure of Islamofascism with something else. It may require a temporary mediating solution, in the sense of using an alkaline solution to neutralize and fundamentally transform an acid reality. Modern education and exposure to free societies is only the first step in this process, but something more faith-based is needed as the next systematic step, and this point seems to be distasteful to the liberal thinkers of the West and other countries like India.
Hi Carl,

Here's the thing - every society in the Muslim world faces a simple choice - change (even if at a slower pace) in order to fall further behind the non-Muslim world, or give up and take the route of the failed state. The majority chose change, however incrementally.

The most important thing that modernity does is shift power ever more gradually to the individual and the corporate away from the social and the state. The result is that more than ever people are * choosing* what parts of Islam they want to hold onto and what Islam means for their lives.

Muslims are going to want to remain Muslim for a long time, but in order for Islam to remain attractive its going to have to increasingly market itself to Muslims as a religion of choices rather than just a religion of obligations. This is the kind of pop Islam that's selling and making money, especially in more educated Muslim societies.

By privileging the individual's interests (and this includes the ever rising numbers of literate Muslim women with their own incomes) it is the imperatives of human beings rather than abstract ideas like Islam that is empowered.

There are huge numbers of Muslims whose personal welfare depends on their ability to get along with non-Muslims, and their ability to master non-Islamically focussed knowledge and skills. In an increasingly globalised world that reliance is only going to mount.

Traditional institutional Islam and modern Islamism doesn't want to be 'market-oriented', but that is the larger structural compulsion it finds itself in, and things show no sign of changing. Islamism has tried mightily to reverse this trend and failed, and in the few places where its succeeded its produced the kind of failure (Af-Pak) that terrifies Muslims elsewhere. Taliban is not a term of praise in the Muslim world. Nor is Al Qaeda.

This is a fundamental reorientation, one that has diluted Christianity and Judaism before it. Islam is a tougher nut to crack of course, but it wasn't designed for these conditions. Nothing can be hermetic enough for a globalised world where technical skills, people skills and cultural skills are essential to real success. However much they value being Muslims, Muslims aren't content to be left behind en masse. They will re-engineer their religion to turn into an asset rather than a liability, and modernity is the only way can do it.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by brihaspati »

Johann,
as you say - our differences lie more in looking at the same events and see spontaneity or management. However, its not as much "management" that I am citing, as it is a dual or mutually convenient helping out. Islamism and structural islamism predetermines, helps, predisposes islamic societies to be "managed" by suitable external imperialist forces. The very prejudices, hunger for power in the dormant or overt mulaahcracy - make Islamic societies perfect for such external manipulations. Both sides pretend, or delude themselves that they are using the other and not being used themselves.

My error in assuming that sentence reflected your sentiments. Regards.

However, the Al Azhars's most virulent clerics are/were actually the shapers of MB's ideology and tactics. That continuity has not been broken as far as I am aware of. That is perhaps not topical for this thread.

I think you are assuming that the mullahcracy has not been adaptive either, or that AA's core theological leadership have not been flexible in their tactical approach towards spread of islamism. MB's technocratic front is not at all inconsistent with the AA core. They may seem to present radicaly different approaches - but in reality they are not.

As I also suggested - you will see the balance of forces reflected in the referendum, which is almost surely going to go for the more-Sharia Morsi constitution.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Agnimitra »

Johann wrote:They will re-engineer their religion to turn into an asset rather than a liability, and modernity is the only way can do it.
Re-engineering is what is required - but it must become a welcome asset not just for Moslems who want to materially catch-up, but for non-Moslems as well. Otherwise, studies show that modernity causes a more fundamentalist form of religion to take hold. This doesn't just mean "Taliban", but also the Deobandi-Naqshbandi city-dweller "modern & moderate" type. The only "re-engineering" that has happened so far is to create a customizable Islamism with selective trojan interfaces into the non-Moslem world, without losing its own internal dynamics.

Every radical fundamentalist Islamic group actively that works for an agenda (that I have ever mingled with) consisted in the main of middle-aged and young professionals and businessmen who had a graduate education, often in the West. Their networks then had numerous less fortunate minions doing a lot of the donkey work. In close social circles I find Naqshbandi and other Sufis mingling with them and praising their work even while they prefer to remain aloof. This educated and successful hardcore mainly concentrate on building bridges with modernity and in the West even conduct interfaith dialog dinners that are graced and praised by local politicians. However, they form the core of exactly the opposite of what you're hoping to see.

In its fundamentals, Islamism has a binary logic -- one that has different standards for the Moslem and the non-Moslem, etc. That needs to be changed to a unitary logic -- one which considers a person entitled to human rights by virtue of birthright, and where the secured-believer and the ignorant-infidel are philosophically understood as being an evolution within the same individual. With its focus on the individual contributor and corporate networking, modernity can help Moslems make this transition -- but something else is also needed to help this happen.

Modernity will thus first expose the problematic fundamentals of the theology. Then modernity along with intentional interaction and engagement by non-Moslems must begin a healthy debate about those fundamentals, even if there is some initial friction over it. Only then can those fundamentals be re-engineered and a new philosophy of interpretation take its place.

So it is essential that non-Moslems bring about such an engagement. Political correctness to muzzle critique, or using cliched over-simplifications to optimistically ignore the real problems could prevent a truly meaningful re-engineering that would be beneficial to all. E.g. in this post on the TIRP thread you said:
Johann wrote:At the end of the day militant Sunnism inside Pakistan is a class war.
Unbelievably naive. You could just as well have put it down to a mass Oedipal repression or some such theory. As in any human social endeavor there will be threads of social justice, material ambitions, and pleasure. That doesn't mean that the other threads like idealism and romanticism colored by underlying ideology are any less potent or influential in shaping trends. It is precisely through those human faculties that Islamism or any ideology works, and that is why certain trends are predictable to a tee. It is not necessarily being managed by a central command, but rather like an ideological program farmed out to a distributed network that works remarkably well in this technological age. Please note that Islamism has certain memes that are more perfectly suited to this age than other religious traditions - particularly the decentralized theological authority (except Shi'ism), and the corporate network system along tribal lines. In a sense modernity facilitates the re-tribalization of society, and therefore ideologies with certain kinds of memes can work faster and more efficiently in this new technological landscape. Therefore, what ideology those memes carry must be examined closely by anyone who wishes the best for humanity

Islamic empires did create a sort of trans-national multiracial globalized system way before the modern era, and one that thrived to a great extent on mercantile networks. None of these memes are new to "traditional" Islam. Therefore, one can't deny that these memes alone will not change some of the problematic fundamentals without active engagement from non-Moslems -- unless one is neutral in considering the fundamentals a problem in the first place.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 05 Dec 2012 10:51, edited 1 time in total.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by disha »

shyamd wrote:Jihad makdissi the spokesman for Asad has defected. Currently in the UK. Asad has sent his boys in London to strike a deal with him. Offering some lucrative offer to get him back.
-------
@billneelyitv: Washington politicians & officials listening with interest 2 sound of Russian U turn on Syria. Moscow may let go of Assad as noose tightens.
Really? Will it not be easy for the west to counter-counter offer Asad to keep the jihadi makdissy? What about Asad's boys themselves? Will they not defect too? How come Asad is confident about his boys but could not hold his own spokesman?

As usual this is humbug from west.

Regarding the "listening with interest 2 sound of rusky u turn"., of course Russians will sell their asads for a lucrative deal - what is in for Russia? The west is shooting itself in the foot anyway. FSA has become a joke with a bunch of jokers, albeit radicalized, brutal and bloody. They are carrying out a brutal campaign against Assad. It is a game of bunch of goondas trying to dislodge another one.

I am rooting for Assad to hold out as much longer as possible. The FSA should be shown as a bunch of goons, which they are. The west backing the FSA should be shown that there is a limit to "collateral damage". All this hoo-hahs about human rights from west should stop. And all the desis should stop drinking this human rights coolaid from west.

West has lost its moral compass, it is going after Iran so that the petro-dollar equation will still rule the roost. One good thing about all this, the islamists are fighting against each other - maybe that is what the west wants.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

"Syria's Dep. Foreign Minister held meetings in Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador over the past week" exploring Assad asylum http://t.co/9RIpMKJS

Syrian rebels learnt from their mistakes in occupying civilian neighbourhoods in Aleppo, and switched to infrastructure http://t.co/WzpwdiFs
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14798
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

disha wrote:
shyamd wrote:Jihad makdissi the spokesman for Asad has defected. Currently in the UK. Asad has sent his boys in London to strike a deal with him. Offering some lucrative offer to get him back.
-------

West has lost its moral compass, it is going after Iran so that the petro-dollar equation will still rule the roost. One good thing about all this, the islamists are fighting against each other - maybe that is what the west wants.

Care to let me when was it there

1) was it there when North America, South America and Australia where being taken over and Native population made extinct in large parts through genocide

2) Was it there when in Colonisation of Africa and Asia, where brutal starvation campaigns were preceided over

3) Hitler and Stalin were European Westerners weren't they

4) Was it there when running wars in the Middle east, Africa, take over by the Shah in Iran etc.

5) Was it there when they supported Pakistan in 1948 inspite of the Genocide of 10 millions Hindus and Sikhs

6) was it there when supporting Pakistan genocide of 3 million BD's in 1971.

7) was it there in supporting Communist China as ally in 70's , 80's when Chinese were allies of Kumer Rouge

8) while it is good a dictator like Saddam rule was ended but could that not have been avoided by giving him a safe haven and avoiding the subsequent war afterwards

9) Was it there when hosting Pakistani Generals and Saudi, Kuwati rulers who have made the worst possible Human rights abuses been hosted, wined and dined including generals who ordered eye gouging like Musharaf.

I really want to know what was this Moral compass you are talikng about?
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Re- Chem weapons and the West warnings to Asad - was told that they are not at panic stations.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by disha »

Aditya_V wrote:I really want to know what was this Moral compass you are talikng about?
Agreed. It should read as "West does not even have a pretence of a moral compass now"., in the name of realpolitik they are worse than the goondas they are trying to replace.

The major point is, I am having "fun" watching assad twisting west's "chaddies" (assuming it is there). Let us call it the game of twisting non-existent chaddies - except real people are dying in that game.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

Carl wrote:Re-engineering is what is required - but it must become a welcome asset not just for Moslems who want to materially catch-up, but for non-Moslems as well. Otherwise, studies show that modernity causes a more fundamentalist form of religion to take hold. This doesn't just mean "Taliban", but also the Deobandi-Naqshbandi city-dweller "modern & moderate" type. The only "re-engineering" that has happened so far is to create a customizable Islamism with selective trojan interfaces into the non-Moslem world, without losing its own internal dynamics.

Every radical fundamentalist Islamic group actively that works for an agenda (that I have ever mingled with) consisted in the main of middle-aged and young professionals and businessmen who had a graduate education, often in the West. Their networks then had numerous less fortunate minions doing a lot of the donkey work. In close social circles I find Naqshbandi and other Sufis mingling with them and praising their work even while they prefer to remain aloof. This educated and successful hardcore mainly concentrate on building bridges with modernity and in the West even conduct interfaith dialog dinners that are graced and praised by local politicians. However, they form the core of exactly the opposite of what you're hoping to see.

In its fundamentals, Islamism has a binary logic -- one that has different standards for the Moslem and the non-Moslem, etc. That needs to be changed to a unitary logic -- one which considers a person entitled to human rights by virtue of birthright, and where the secured-believer and the ignorant-infidel are philosophically understood as being an evolution within the same individual. With its focus on the individual contributor and corporate networking, modernity can help Moslems make this transition -- but something else is also needed to help this happen.
Carl,

When I said Muslims would have to re-engineer their faith to not fall further behind, that re-engineering inevitably means really getting along with non-Muslims in a sustainable way.

That's a long slow process of experimentation in which half-measures and hedging will inevitably be tried. But they will offer only partial results to Muslims.

At the end of the day the relationship of Muslims in a given Muslim society to non-Muslims depends very much on the relationship between Islam as an abstract and Muslims as human beings. How far Muslims in general will go further out to meet non-Muslims half way will depend on just where a given society is in the process of turning Islam from a religion of mutually enforced obligations to a religion of personal choices. Modernity's success in empowering the individual is the fundamental source of human rights as a dominant theme.

Just as an illustration, there isnt a single successor country (Arab, Jewish, Turkish) of the Ottoman Empire that has reversed the legal rights of the 1840 Tanzimat which introduced broad legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. This has endured despite the fact that classical fiqh has no conception of legal equality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims or slaves and freemen. Yet the reintroduction of actual classical fiqh (as opposed to hudood and the modern sharia lite) is about as likely as the reimposition of slavery.
So it is essential that non-Moslems bring about such an engagement. Political correctness to muzzle critique, or using cliched over-simplifications to optimistically ignore the real problems could prevent a truly meaningful re-engineering that would be beneficial to all. E.g. in this post on the TIRP thread you said:
Johann wrote:At the end of the day militant Sunnism inside Pakistan is a class war.
Unbelievably naive. You could just as well have put it down to a mass Oedipal repression or some such theory. As in any human social endeavor there will be threads of social justice, material ambitions, and pleasure. That doesn't mean that the other threads like idealism and romanticism colored by underlying ideology are any less potent or influential in shaping trends. It is precisely through those human faculties that Islamism or any ideology works, and that is why certain trends are predictable to a tee. It is not necessarily being managed by a central command, but rather like an ideological program farmed out to a distributed network that works remarkably well in this technological age. Please note that Islamism has certain memes that are more perfectly suited to this age than other religious traditions - particularly the decentralized theological authority (except Shi'ism), and the corporate network system along tribal lines. In a sense modernity facilitates the re-tribalization of society, and therefore ideologies with certain kinds of memes can work faster and more efficiently in this new technological landscape. Therefore, what ideology those memes carry must be examined closely by anyone who wishes the best for humanity
Carl, you're free to scoff. But religious ideas for all their logic aren't enough to draw and mobilise people on their own. There's a reason that the SSP emerged in Jhang in the mid 1980s. There is a reason why the Punjabi Taliban is quite happy executing Pakistani army officers in ways that horrify the equally pious comfortably bourgeois Pakistanis.

Islam is a framework that all kinds of social forces use because its the one most accessible to the largest number of Muslims, and even more conveniently, one of the hardest to question. In my experience, Muslims know this subconsciously, but those apart from the very rich, the very ambitious, and the very abused are reluctant to admit it. But the process of admission is powerful - it tends to make them far more skeptical of the use of religion, and much more likely to de-sacralise everything that had been put off limit from questioning. That's been my experience in the kind of engagement you speak of.
Islamic empires did create a sort of trans-national multiracial globalized system way before the modern era, and one that thrived to a great extent on mercantile networks. None of these memes are new to "traditional" Islam. Therefore, one can't deny that these memes alone will not change some of the problematic fundamentals without active engagement from non-Moslems -- unless one is neutral in considering the fundamentals a problem in the first place.
Yes, sure. But the world was a very different place. The Islamic world on the whole had the military edge. Knowledge production from inside the Muslim world was as great in the Abbasid era, and sometimes greater than much of the rest of the world. The modern world's conditions are completely different.
Last edited by Johann on 05 Dec 2012 22:06, edited 1 time in total.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

brihaspati wrote:Johann,
as you say - our differences lie more in looking at the same events and see spontaneity or management. However, its not as much "management" that I am citing, as it is a dual or mutually convenient helping out. Islamism and structural islamism predetermines, helps, predisposes islamic societies to be "managed" by suitable external imperialist forces. The very prejudices, hunger for power in the dormant or overt mulaahcracy - make Islamic societies perfect for such external manipulations. Both sides pretend, or delude themselves that they are using the other and not being used themselves.

My error in assuming that sentence reflected your sentiments. Regards.

However, the Al Azhars's most virulent clerics are/were actually the shapers of MB's ideology and tactics. That continuity has not been broken as far as I am aware of. That is perhaps not topical for this thread.

I think you are assuming that the mullahcracy has not been adaptive either, or that AA's core theological leadership have not been flexible in their tactical approach towards spread of islamism. MB's technocratic front is not at all inconsistent with the AA core. They may seem to present radicaly different approaches - but in reality they are not.

As I also suggested - you will see the balance of forces reflected in the referendum, which is almost surely going to go for the more-Sharia Morsi constitution.
Thanks B, glad we could clear that up. The world will turn and the conversation will continue. Looking forward to it.

The MB and al-Azhar have had a collaborative relationship for some time, especially when facing common adversaries like the military state, the Salafis and Western influence in general. But the MB has the real power because it has the money and the organisation to shape what Sunni consensus among the pious laity. In the Palestine for example, Hamas (i.e. the MB in Palestine) copied Hezbollah's suicide bombing tactics in the 1990s because they were the most effective weapon they could muster, despite the fact that suicide was completely haraam. They had to dig around to find a low level cleric who could issue a half-arsed fatwa endorsing it a couple of years later. Other Sunni Muslim clerics from Al-Azhar for example didn't want to look bad undermining Hamas's ability to fight the Israelis. So they held their tongues. They only rediscovered their tongues when Salafis suicide bombers began to target Sunni Muslims and caused a backlash in Sunni opinion.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Agnimitra »

Johann,

Again I agree with your thoughts, and this time I think we've been coming to the same point from different directions.
Johann wrote:Just as an illustration, there isnt a single successor country (Arab, Jewish, Turkish) of the Ottoman Empire that has reversed the legal rights of the 1840 Tanzimat which introduced broad legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.
What about the right of non-Moslems to preach their religion in a Moslem society? In Turkey itself I had specifically mentioned an upward trend of attacks, murders and bombings of Christian missionaries and Jewish synagogues. Even if this sentiment hasn't been enshrined in the law of the land there, it certainly has in other modern Islamist nations. So these are issues that must be taken up in our engagement with Moslems everywhere.
Johann wrote:Carl, you're free to scoff. But religious ideas for all their logic aren't enough to draw and mobilise people on their own. There's a reason that the SSP emerged in Jhang in the mid 1980s. There is a reason why the Punjabi Taliban is quite happy executing Pakistani army officers in ways that horrify the equally pious comfortably bourgeois Pakistanis.
I was poking fun at your earlier statement, but didn't mean to sound disrespectful. Sorry if I came across that way. Yes, I agree that in those areas and even with the temporary Taliban takeover of Swat, there was a clearly noticeable anti-feudal sentiment. I have suggested previously on BRF that India should be able to complete internal reform, co-opt and export Naxalism to Pakistan. That way the popular focus there is brought to the material problem, rather than allowing Islamism to ride that wave and steal the glory.
Johann wrote:Islam is a framework that all kinds of social forces use because its the one most accessible to the largest number of Muslims, and even more conveniently, one of the hardest to question.
But note that the reverse is also true - that Islamism also uses all kinds of social forces to perpetuate and propagate itself, and infiltrate and destroy the 'other'. There is a symbiotic angle to the relationship, but the equation in the ultimate analysis can be inferred by considering what the end or limiting condition of that game would be.
Johann wrote:Yes, sure. But the world was a very different place. The Islamic world on the whole had the military edge. Knowledge production from inside the Muslim world was as great in the Abbasid era, and sometimes greater than much of the rest of the world. The modern world's conditions are completely different.
That is true - the only difference today is NOT that Islamism lacks the required memes to increase its infiltration or footprint, but rather that they are technologically and politically the weaker. You have zoomed in on the crux, which is a comparison. Comparison with whom? - the non-Moslem. So the existence of this condition itself is obviously not enough for the re-engineering. Rather, this comparative difference indicates an opportunity -- which needs to be effectively used in all possible ways to draw out the dissent from within the human conscience of Moslems of all strata, and then consciously engineer a reformation of its fundamentals. Once that is done, the existing wealth of Islamic culture becomes a heritage to all of humanity.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4849
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by KLNMurthy »

I have been following the thought-provoking discussion between Carl, brihaspati and Johann from the sidelines. I have some broad comments.

1. I think it is a fairly common error to confuse the technological sterility of the muslim world with a lack of intellectual sophistication or incapacity to cope with modernity and post-industriality. (IIRC, AFAIK Bernard Lewis and to some extent Naipaul are guilty of this sort of error) IMO an incapacity to create knowledge doesn't preclude the possibility of some sort of Islamist reconquista of the world; Islamism has the intellectual tools to make it happen. That this is an outcome that would be to the detriment of all mankind--because those tools are inherently limited and limiting--is a different matter.

For example, if you take democracy as a tool of modernity, Iran and now Egypt have shown that its adoption to leads to a greater, not lesser, level of domination of non-Muslims by Muslims. Arguably, other modern tools like the internet can, and will be, used to enforce deference to Islam in the formof improved targeting of blasphemy, apostasy etc.

2. Framing various struggles for supremacy by Islamists as being organized by something other than an Islamist cohering principle (such as class struggle) smacks of (begging Johann's pardon) Romilla Thaparesque Indo-Marxist sophistry. It is a false abstraction of the struggle, for all that it is common among intellectuals. The dynamics of the struggles simply lose their coherence without Islam; both the participants in the struggle as well as their ultimate targets recognize and explain the struggle as an Islamic one. There is only dominance and conquest of the kafir (however convoluted and fraught with seeming contradictions the path may be, or indeed, however problematic the post-conquest sectarian scenario might be); no room here for Frantz Fannon-like reflection on the universality and indivisibility of oppression as well as liberation.

At a meta-level, the course of this debate can help understand why knowledgeable and intelligent Westerners as well as Indians can make such profound errors in conceptualizing the dynamics of the Muslim world.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60301
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

KLNM, Modernity kills the right brain and prevents recognizing the problem when it shows up. It leads to sophistry
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4849
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by KLNMurthy »

ramana wrote:KLNM, Modernity kills the right brain and prevents recognizing the problem when it shows up. It leads to sophistry
I would say that a better-trained left brain will be able to recognize and reject sophistry when seen. As it is, Thaparesque sophistry succeeds because it provides an emotional calming and reassurance which I guess happens in the rightbrain.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by brihaspati »

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6656.htm
In an article published on the occasion of Ramadan on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) website, MB member Hussein Shehata, a lecturer at Al-Azhar University, praises the jihad war against the Jews – "the descendants of apes and pigs" – in Palestine; against the Americans in Iraq; against the Russians in Chechnya; and against the Muslims' enemies in Kashmir, Bosnia, Eritrea, and Somalia. He adds that the Day of Judgment will arrive when the Muslims defeat the Jews and liberate Jerusalem.
Johann, and Carl,

note the presentation of the argument :
"Fasting [during Ramadan] is one of the most powerful means to educate the human spirit for jihad. Fasting involves a spiritual effort to act in a way contrary to what is accepted, and to completely abandon desires... It also schools the Muslim in patience, resilience, endurance, and sacrifice, which are all traits of the jihad fighter...

"There are similarities between one who fasts to please Allah and one who wages jihad for Allah, and we will mention several of them:....
[....]
"Ramadan is the month of victory for those who wage jihad for Allah. Ramadan has seen the following battles, conquests, and victories: the great Battle of Badr [624 CE],... the conquest of Mecca [630 CE],... the Battle of Hattin [1187], the Muslims' entrance into Al-Andalus [Andalusia, 710 CE], the conquest of Constantinople by Muhammad the Conqueror[2] [1453 CE], and the battle of 'Ein Jalut [1260 CE], in which the Muslims defeated the Mongols..."
[....]
Know, oh fasting brother, that jihad continues until the Day of Judgment, and that the Day of Judgment will not arrive until the Muslims fight the Jews, defeat them, and liberate Jerusalem. Transform the month of fasting into a training camp that will aid you in jihad when the time comes. Be prepared, since the Muslims' victories over their enemies occurred during the month of Ramadan, when the jihad fighters were fasting..."
[....]
We call upon those who fast... to remember their brothers, those who wage jihad for the sake of Allah: in Palestine, against the Jews, the descendants of apes and pigs; in Iraq, against the Americans; in Bosnia-Herzegovina, against the crusader Serbians; in Chechnya, against the Russians; in Kashmir, against the idolatrous Indians; in Eritrea, against the Zoroastrian Habeshas; in Somalia, against the arrogant Americans; and everywhere in [the lands of] the Islamic ummah, against those who fight the Muslims.
You can see that the longer term core goals of the religion - are not given up. Also, that religious rituals are seamlessly integrated into "jihad". That every religious act, symbolic or otherwise - is connected to expansion, imperialism and genocide - and there is a clear recognition of this in the MB. Also that AA hosts such MB lined creical thought.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Prem »

ramana wrote:KLNM, Modernity kills the right brain and prevents recognizing the problem when it shows up. It leads to sophistry
Why the right side of your brain doesn't like Arabic
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-06/livi ... =PM:LIVING
If you've ever struggled to learn Arabic or felt overwhelmed just looking its symbols, now you can blame science.Researchers from the University of Haifa in Israel say intricacies in Arabic script are so complex that the right hemispheres of learners' brains don't even bother getting involved.The university's department of psychology and the Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities conducted a series of studies on why Arabic might be more difficult to learn than other languages.Researchers tested the reading speed and accuracy of Arabic, Hebrew and English in adults and children. They also tested the reading speed and accuracy in the three languages with those whose native language is Arabic.
"The results have revealed that the right brain is involved in the reading process for English and Hebrew, but not for Arabic," the university said.According to the researchers, identifying details such as the location and number of dots that is critical in differentiating letters in Arabic. But that's a hard task for the right half of the brain because that hemisphere primarily uses broader information to identify letters."This means that children acquiring languages other than Arabic draw on the use of both hemispheres in the first stages of learning to read, while children learning to read Arabic do not have the participation of the right brain," the researchers said. "Hence, it may be the case that reading processes take longer to be automatized in Arabic."
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by RamaY »

^ Are you guys saying Islam is nothing but witchcraft that dominates left brain and kills right brain which is responsible for reasoning and modernity? And Arapic is some kind of man-yan-tan:tra?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by brihaspati »

The study of Morsi Constitution at MEMRI site by Lavi, is also interesting :
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6846.htm
The articles pertaining to religion in the new Egyptian draft constitution reflect an effort to find common ground upon which both liberal and Islamic camps could agree, one that would be acceptable both to the moderate and the more extremist circles within the Islamic camp. In the course of the formulation process, the MB managed to impose its will with regard to most articles of the constitution, while still giving an impression of moderation compared to the more extremist proposals raised by the Salafis, and while appearing to be taking the desires of the liberal streams into consideration. This impression was achieved by leaving some of the articles pertaining to religion vague and ambiguous, and leaving it to Al-Azhar, which enjoys wide support, to wage the battle with the Salafis and the liberals in the Constituent Assembly – thus making it appear as if it was Al-Azhar, rather the MB itself, that was waging this battle. This is suggestive of an alliance between the MB and Al-Azhar, in which the latter would continue to back the regime in exchange for the safeguarding of its role as Egypt's supreme religious authority.
Article 219, added to the constitution to clarify Article 2, states: "[The expression] 'principles of Islamic shari'a' refers to the general methods of juridical argumentation, to fundamental juridical rules and principles, and to the [written] sources recognized by the Sunni juridical schools." Its role is to prevent a narrow reading of Article 2, like the liberals want or like the interpretation given by the Supreme Constitutional Court in 1996, according to which legislation from then on would be in keeping only with limited parts of the shari'a about which the various jurisprudential schools within Islam are in agreement. Article 219, in contrast, gives Article 2 a broader reading, which would enable the implementation of a larger part of the shari'a and require legislation to conform to the principles of Sunni law. The article was intended to appease the Salafis and to dispel the charges leveled against the MB that it had given up on implementing the shari'a by its opposition to the amendment of Article 2. Out of consideration for liberal circles, this article was placed toward the end of the constitution, and not immediately following Article 2, in order to indicate that it was of lesser importance. Article 219 allows the codification of the shari'a and enables discrimination against all who are not Sunni Muslims, including Shi'ites. It is not clear at this point how it will affect legislation in practice.
Interestingly - this would be consistent with deliberate ambiguity and not-spelling-out parts that require hiding, while being very specific where it matters - in the theology from its foundation. A culture so fanatical in its claims of exactitude and precision on the written/expressed word, suddenly behaves coyly on certain portions. These are the portions where, the intended deception is likely to be exposed as a method - not just as an example. Note that nowehere is the Constitution saying that there is primacy or hierarchy of relative importance between the articles. The interpretation by the author is therefore based on similar interretations of more "western" Constitutions - but as long as it is not supported by precedence in the ahadith, or the Quran, this "relative ordering" is a mirage, and just as similar vagueness is used time and again by Muslims opportunistically to ambush/or deceptively mount attacks/lie to non-Muslims/pretend peaceful intentions - will be used opportunistically to deny that it was intended by the framers as "less important".
Article 4 was added to the draft constitution in order to consolidate the status of Al-Azhar as the state's religious authority. It defines Al-Azhar as "an encompassing independent Islamic institution, with exclusive autonomy over its own affairs" and the Al-Azhar Sheikh as an "independent" position-holder who "cannot be dismissed." In other words, this article recognizes Al-Azhar as the supreme religious body of Egypt and presents it as an apolitical body independent of the regime. Nevertheless, Article 4 states that Al-Azhar's Supreme Council of Clerics is to be consulted in matters pertaining to Islamic law – a notion that appeared in the platform of the MB's Freedom and Justice Party.[18] The inclusion of this clause in Article 4 reflects the great influence of the MB on the draft constitution. Its inclusion is also aimed at requiring the Supreme Constitutional Court – the sole body with the authority to interpret the laws and determine whether they are in keeping with the constitution, including with the principles of the shari'a mentioned therein (Article 175) – to consult with Al-Azhar on matters pertaining to the shari'a.
Article 43 states that "freedom of belief is an inviolable right" and that "the state shall guarantee the freedom to practice religious rites and to establish places of worship for the divine religions [our emphasis]." Human rights organizations wanted the article to include the words "absolute freedom of belief," claiming that the weaker phrase "freedom of belief" prevented one from converting to another religion. Moreover, this article provides for the worship of monotheistic religions only, in contrast to the previous constitution, which did not restrict freedom of worship to specific religions of any kind.
Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Klaus »

Jhujar wrote: Why the right side of your brain doesn't like Arabic
There was a thread in the gdf where there was a brief discussion on this topic. The "Historicity of Politico-Islamic Thought" if I'm not mistaken. Arabic was known as debilitating the right hemisphere, whereas Hebrew and Syrian/Aramaic were "enhancing". There were a couple of near-extinct sub-continental languages too in the group.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

Carl wrote:Johann,

Again I agree with your thoughts, and this time I think we've been coming to the same point from different directions.
I would agree as well
Johann wrote:Just as an illustration, there isnt a single successor country (Arab, Jewish, Turkish) of the Ottoman Empire that has reversed the legal rights of the 1840 Tanzimat which introduced broad legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.
What about the right of non-Moslems to preach their religion in a Moslem society? In Turkey itself I had specifically mentioned an upward trend of attacks, murders and bombings of Christian missionaries and Jewish synagogues. Even if this sentiment hasn't been enshrined in the law of the land there, it certainly has in other modern Islamist nations. So these are issues that must be taken up in our engagement with Moslems everywhere.
Hi Carl,

Of course things cant stand where they are, there must be more change.

But the Tanzimat was unprecedented in what was then 1200 years of Islamic history, and it seems to be holding on in a Muslim majority state ruled by an Islamist party.

There's a section of the population that has never really accepted those changes because they were never consulted in the first place. Some of them are feeling empowered right now (by the same modernity which they have such ambivalent feelings) and acting out against minorities.

But is the fundamental state framework going to change? I don't think so.

The secular Turkish republic led by the Army tended to be incredibly authoritarian and brutal in exercising power against those who disagreed with it. The AKP thinks that is what power is all about and would like to do the same thing to its opponents.

If anything Turkey will have to liberalise further to thrive and end the draining conflict between the new wave of Islamist Turkish nationalism and Kurds and the Alevis. Broadening and deepening the right to be different in any way is fundamental to broadening religious freedom.

Its also going to have to deal with religious and ethnic intolerance if it doesn't want to alienate its economic partners in the non-Muslim world, whether in the EU, Russia, North America, or for that matter India and political alliances like NATO that Turkey still depends on.

Turkey is an ambitious country filled with capable people. At the end of the day the country as a whole will not chose to be left behind.

But Progress is never a straight line - there's always peaks and valleys, and the valleys are terribly ugly places.

Johann wrote:Yes, sure. But the world was a very different place. The Islamic world on the whole had the military edge. Knowledge production from inside the Muslim world was as great in the Abbasid era, and sometimes greater than much of the rest of the world. The modern world's conditions are completely different.
That is true - the only difference today is NOT that Islamism lacks the required memes to increase its infiltration or footprint, but rather that they are technologically and politically the weaker. You have zoomed in on the crux, which is a comparison. Comparison with whom? - the non-Moslem. So the existence of this condition itself is obviously not enough for the re-engineering. Rather, this comparative difference indicates an opportunity
Carl,

One of the things I find reassuring is that Muslims keep asking themselves '*why* are we technologically behind?' Non-Muslims have offered the answer many, many times - sometimes kindly and sensitively, other times with bluntness or even spite. Muslims take in some of it, but aren't going to really listen to what non-Muslims have to say about how to practice or approach Islam.

Muslims keep tinkering with different parts of the problem to avoid all of the most sensitive parts that deal with orthoxies and orthopraxies at the same time. The result has been the growth of countries like Iran, Turkey, and Malaysia and Indonesia which are essentially middle income countries with greater (but still low by global standards) levels of technology innovation as well as basic science. Even the Saudis in the decade have finally started investing heavily in science education.

All over the world Muslim majority countries are going to keep experimenting to break out of the middle income, middle technology cul de sac. When the low hanging fruit are gone, ambition is going to force some of them to reach up and stretch through the really difficult stuff of real intellectual freedom. When they succeed it is going to be a powerful and attractive example for huge numbers of Muslims elsewhere. Because those changes came from within, driven my the pride and ambition on the party of Muslim majority societies rather than externally dictated.

Its the same thing on the political side - Muslims in most Muslim countries are not satisfied with the quality of their governance, and instinctively know that it holds them back. So in punctuated equilibrium they strive for change - building nation states where feudal elites were stripped of power (still hasn't happened in Pakistan of course, which is why its so far behind), and now trying to build governments that are more directly answerable to the people rather than the army.

The Islamists always shout 'Islam is the solution' to all of these questions of technological, political and economic progress and that is attractive to a lot of Muslims who would like to believe thats true. But if they come to power and fail to deliver, they will eventually swept away. In the end pride and ambition will force change.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

KLNMurthy wrote:I have been following the thought-provoking discussion between Carl, brihaspati and Johann from the sidelines. I have some broad comments.

1. I think it is a fairly common error to confuse the technological sterility of the muslim world with a lack of intellectual sophistication or incapacity to cope with modernity and post-industriality. (IIRC, AFAIK Bernard Lewis and to some extent Naipaul are guilty of this sort of error) IMO an incapacity to create knowledge doesn't preclude the possibility of some sort of Islamist reconquista of the world; Islamism has the intellectual tools to make it happen. That this is an outcome that would be to the detriment of all mankind--because those tools are inherently limited and limiting--is a different matter.
In a world where knowledge is power and where good governance is the key to mobilising social energy towards collective goals, *how* is this reconquista supposed to happen?
For example, if you take democracy as a tool of modernity, Iran and now Egypt have shown that its adoption to leads to a greater, not lesser, level of domination of non-Muslims by Muslims. Arguably, other modern tools like the internet can, and will be, used to enforce deference to Islam in the formof improved targeting of blasphemy, apostasy etc.
KLNM,

Modernity is not a static thing, but sometimes individuals and groups get stuck on a particular moment.

As I said earlier modernity in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century meant strengthening the individual, while simultaneously subordinating him (and her even more so!) to the nation, the state and the movement.

The 'modern' Islamists of the Khomeini and MB variety which emerged in that period (the 20s to the 40s) internalised and embraced it just like their secular and secularish nationalist rivals.

This is the model that much of the Middle East was stuck in and is struggling to emerge from.

And as I also said the post WWII trend to elevate the rights of the individual above the interests of the state and the identity group which *really* distresses old school nationalists and statists everywhere and of every religious, ethnic and ideological stripe.

Change can be fought, but its expensive, exhausting and ultimately only holds one back. Whether or not Middle East is once again late to the party, it will arrive. Its just the nature of globalisation.
2. Framing various struggles for supremacy by Islamists as being organized by something other than an Islamist cohering principle (such as class struggle) smacks of (begging Johann's pardon) Romilla Thaparesque Indo-Marxist sophistry. It is a false abstraction of the struggle, for all that it is common among intellectuals. The dynamics of the struggles simply lose their coherence without Islam; both the participants in the struggle as well as their ultimate targets recognize and explain the struggle as an Islamic one. There is only dominance and conquest of the kafir (however convoluted and fraught with seeming contradictions the path may be, or indeed, however problematic the post-conquest sectarian scenario might be); no room here for Frantz Fannon-like reflection on the universality and indivisibility of oppression as well as liberation.

At a meta-level, the course of this debate can help understand why knowledgeable and intelligent Westerners as well as Indians can make such profound errors in conceptualizing the dynamics of the Muslim world.
Sorry, Carl got what I was saying, but I'm not sure if you have read me correctly.

I don't know what Romila Thapar has to say on the subject, but I'd be the first to say that there is a jihadi agenda entirely independent of class struggle.

However, the militant Deobandi success to this point has come from their ability to co-opt the anger over marginalisation - both regional and class based.

To make an analogy, the Maoists in tribal areas in the Subcontinent don't *really* care about tribals problems with unaccountable state authority over traditional lands, surrounding communities land grabbing and commercial resource extraction. But tapping into that marginalisation is essential to their success in mobilisation.

Pointing out that its the underlying problems that empower these movements doesn't whitewash their intolerance, but rather pinpoints the source and nature of their relative success and its limits. It also points the way to undercutting their mobilisation potential.

Without tapping into broader problems the Maoists and Jihadists remain little factional parties, unable to win elections, and unable to build their dream state and dream society.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14798
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

Past Constitutions – From A European To An Islamic Orientation
Article 43 states that "freedom of belief is an inviolable right" and that "the state shall guarantee the freedom to practice religious rites and to establish places of worship for the divine religions [our emphasis]." Human rights organizations wanted the article to include the words "absolute freedom of belief," claiming that the weaker phrase "freedom of belief" prevented one from converting to another religion. Moreover, this article provides for the worship of monotheistic religions only, in contrast to the previous constitution, which did not restrict freedom of worship to specific religions of any kind.
So basically Hinduism is banned like many Islamic countries, why don't bleedign heart liberals take this up?
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13984
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Vayutuvan »

shyamd wrote:Re- Chem weapons and the West warnings to Asad - was told that they are not at panic stations.
This is in today's Nightwatch FWIW
NightWatch For the night of 5 December 2012 wrote:
Syria: A senior U.S. official told Fox News that the Syrians loaded bombs with components of sarin gas. They have 60 days to use these bombs until the chemical mixture expires and has to be destroyed, according to the report.

According to NBC News, bombs filled with a sarin components have not yet been loaded onto planes, but that the Syrian military is prepared to use these chemical weapons against civilians pending orders from President Bashar Assad.

Comment: Yesterday, 4 December, a senior US Defense official stated there was no evidence that the chemicals used to create sarin gas had been mixed. A day later, the chemicals are reportedly mixed.

No intelligence service has the ability to make such a determination except from testimony from human sources -- from direct observation by the source or detected from radio intercepts. Both collection systems are highly vulnerable to deception and manipulation. In other words, the message from Syria could be intended to persuade the West and others to reduce their support to the opposition.

NightWatch reported on Monday that the Asad regime reportedly had reached the point where it wanted the option to use chemical weapons. Those news sources appear to have been accurate. Nevertheless, the regime has not yet decided to employ these weapons, as of this Watch.

Saddam Hussein showed that chemical weapons can be used with some degree of precision, depending on lots of factors which include prevailing winds. His chemical warriors proved that non-persistent agents can kill a limited number of people in a relatively small space in a half hour and determine the outcome of a war. Moreover, these agents are difficult to detect after the fact.

The prospect of death from chemical aerosols or clouds, which have no sensory indicators, must be a game changer for poorly equipped opposition fighters. Western countries cannot react fast enough to keep the fighters from dying.

The world knows that chemical weapons can be decisive. They ended Iraq's eight year war against Iran. Iranian soldiers died by the thousands in multiple battles, wearing American chemical protection gear. The Syrian opposition fighting groups have no protection.

The Syrian government can ride out the international outrage, assuming it survives. If it does not, the outrage is trivial, sound and fury signifying nothing. If the Asad government survives, it will have handled the best the US, the French, the Turks, NATO and the Saudis have. Iran will win.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 07 Dec 2012 06:36, edited 2 times in total.
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by pentaiah »

If KSA takes Syria (proxy) then Iran takes Iraq (proxy)
If KSA takes Syria, Israel Takes Hebollah
If Hebollah is taken Hamus is Humus
This is the Bobby Fisher vs Spasky game

or this is called babganoush Mush
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by devesh »

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... ashes?lite

Egypt's Morsi calls for national dialogue after deadly clashes

Updated at 4:20 p.m. ET: CAIRO — President Mohamed Morsi on Thursday invited political groups and legal figures to meet for a national dialogue on solutions to Egypt's political crisis after clashes between his supporters and his foes left seven dead and hundreds wounded. Morsi did not, however, rescind decrees granting him wide powers that his opponents had demanded.

In a nationally televised address to the nation, Morsi said he would bring together a number of groups at a Saturday meeting at the presidential palace.

"Such painful events happened because of political differences that should be resolved through dialogue," the Islamist president said after two days of violence during protests.

The discussions would center on a political road map after a referendum on a new constitution, Reuters reported. Morsi said they would discuss the fate of the upper house of parliament after the lower house was dissolved in June, the election law and other issues. He said plans for the referendum on December 15 were on track.

"I call for a full, productive dialogue with all figures and heads of parties, revolutionary youth and senior legal figures to meet this Saturday," Morsi said. He said he would harshly apply homeland security laws.

The speech seemed to do little to ease the crisis. The opposition has already said that it would not enter a dialogue with Morsi unless he first rescinds the decrees and shelves the constitution draft hurriedly adopted by his Islamist allies.

Some members of the umbrella National Salvation Front coalition of major opposition parties have already rejected the dialogue as did April 6, a group instrumental in starting Jan 25 revolution.

Ayman Nour of al Ghad Party, who was formerly jailed under Mubarak regime, said the referendum must be postponed and demands Morsi provide evidence that acts of thuggery against protesters were planned.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Prem »

Palestine and Israel: A Bloody Saga
http://www.fairobserver.com/article/pal ... loody-saga
The Triumph of Lunacy over Sanity

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are acting with wisdom or pursuing their long term interests. Hamas rockets are pinpricks that do not harm Israel, which is a world leader in military technology and has the support of the US. They only feed its insecurity and provoke brutal retaliation that leads to massive casualties in Gaza. Yet, Hamas and other extreme groups persist in responding violently. Fatah has abjured violence but is now entrenched in corruption. It is now seen as a collaborator with its 50,000 security personnel on a payroll funded by the Israelis. It has neither the imagination nor the stomach to lead a new kind of movement. This means that even though Fatah is deemed to represent Palestinians, it is Hamas that Palestinians are increasingly rallying behind. People want justice and Hamas' violence against Israel seems justifiable to many in Gaza and even the West Bank because the other side is being far more violent. It is an Old Testament eye for an eye approach that only strengthens the likes of Lieberman and has clearly failed. Palestinians would be better off marching en masse to Israeli fences and inviting mass arrest or even slaughter. Gandhi’s methods involving non-violent civil disobedience are not only morally preferable but also more practical. Palestinians are simply too weak to fight but they keep throwing punches instead of turning the other cheek and shaming their oppressors.If Israel continues to act the way it does, even US support will wane. Oil production in the US is booming and it could well emerge as the world’s largest producer and even net exporter in the years to come. Israel’s strategic relevance as a loyal Middle East ally will diminish. Furthermore, many Americans do not take kindly to Israel’s attempts to influence their electoral politics. Netanyahu’s insouciance towards the US infuriates many and a former senior CIA official went so far as to say that the tail ought not to wag the dog. With greater assimilation of the Jewish population and the rise of a new JStreet generation, it is not hard to see that Israel is overplaying its hand. States based around ethnicity are passé and an increasingly multicultural US is bound to become morally uncomfortable with its unqualified support for Israel.

There are two important developments that Israel is not being able to understand. First, gone are the days when Israel could do a backroom deal with authoritarian leaders such as Egypt’s Anwar El-Sadat or Jordan’s King Hussein. Arab leaders have to heed their electorates. Egypt’s new president belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood of which Hamas is an offshoot. Palestinians form a majority of the population in Jordan. Other Arab populations have long standing sympathy for Palestinians and Israel’s actions only increase the already simmering resentment towards the country. Second, approximately 20% of Israel’s population is now Palestinian and will only grow further in the coming years. In a Jewish state, Palestinians are clearly second class citizens even if they have more rights in Israel than in Lebanon, Jordan or Syria. They are bound to rebel one day.

Just as it is in Palestinian interests to abjure violence and adopt Gandhian methods, it is in Israeli interests to abandon what the rest of the world increasingly sees as a form of apartheid and make peace before it is too late.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Agnimitra »

matrimc wrote:
shyamd wrote:Re- Chem weapons and the West warnings to Asad - was told that they are not at panic stations.
This is in today's Nightwatch FWIW

NightWatch For the night of 5 December 2012

Syria: A senior U.S. official told Fox News that the Syrians loaded bombs with components of sarin gas. They have 60 days to use these bombs until the chemical mixture expires and has to be destroyed, according to the report.
[/quote]
Maybe it was a signal to NATO not to try to invade, rather than against the FSA?

مقام دولتی سوریه: هرگز علیه مردم خود اسلحه شیمیایی به کار نمی‌بریم
"Syrian government sources: 'We will never use chemical weapons against our own people'"
Reacting to Western apprehensions that Syria would use chemical weapons, the deputy/secretary to the foreign minister dismissed such statements and said Syria would never do so against its own people. Meanwhile, NATO members have begun to ready the anti-rocket network defenses deployed on the Turkey-Syria border.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60301
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Anderson Cooper on CNN is in paroxysms of Chem Weapons in Syria. Thank god, Sanjay Gupta didnt take the offer to become Surgeon General of US. What a fear monger!!!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60301
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

If Syria remains in power its a defeat to Sunni Arabism as big as the one Muwaiyaa delivered.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5619
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by RoyG »

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60301
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Ayman Zawahiri and Egypt: A Trip Through Time

by Raymond Ibrahim
Investigative Project on Terrorism
November 30, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3393/ayman-zawahiri-egypt
Print Send RSS Share: Facebook Twitter Google +1
Be the first of your friends to like this.

Around 1985, current al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri fled his homeland of Egypt, presumably never to return. From his early beginnings as a teenage leader of a small jihadi cell devoted to overthrowing Egyptian regimes (first Nasser's then Sadat's) until he merged forces with Osama bin Laden, expanding his objectives to include targeting the United States of America, Zawahiri never forgot his original objective: transforming Egypt into an Islamist state that upholds and enforces the totality of Sharia law, and that works towards the resurrection of a global caliphate.

This vision is on its way to being fulfilled. With Islamist political victories, culminating with a Muslim Brotherhood president, Muhammad Morsi, Egypt is taking the first major steps to becoming the sort of state Zawahiri wished to see. He regularly congratulates Egypt's Islamists—most recently the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo—urging them to continue Islamizing the Middle East's most strategic nation.

He sent a lengthy communiqué during the Egyptian revolution in February 2011, for example, titled "Messages of Hope and Glad Tidings to our People in Egypt." In it, he reiterated themes widely popularized by al-Qaeda, including: secular regimes are the enemies of Islam; democracy is a sham; Sharia must be instituted; the U.S. and the "Zionist enemy" are the true source behind all of the Islamic world's ills.

Zawahiri continues to push these themes. Last September he sent messages criticizing Morsi, especially for not helping "the jihad to liberate Palestine;" called for the kidnapping of Westerners, especially Americans—which the U.S. embassy in Cairo took seriously enough to issue a warning to Americans; and further incited Egypt's Muslims to wage jihad against America because of the YouTube Muhammad movie.

In short, a symbiotic relationship exists between the country of Egypt and the Egyptian Zawahiri: the country helped shape the man, and the man is fixated on influencing the country, his homeland. Accordingly, an examination of Zawahiri's early years and experiences in Egypt—a case study of sorts—provides context for understanding not only Zawahiri, the undisputed leader of the world's most notorious Islamic terrorist organization, but also explain how Egypt got where it is today. The two phenomena go hand-in-hand.

In this report, we will explore several questions, including: What happened in Egypt to turn this once "shy" and "studious" schoolboy who abhorred physical sports as "inhumane" towards jihad? What happened to turn many Egyptians to jihad, or at least radical Islam? What is Zawahiri's relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis—Egypt's two dominant Islamist political players? Did the 9/11 strikes on America, orchestrated by Zawahiri and al-Qaeda, help or hinder the Islamists of Egypt?

Background

Little about Zawahiri's upbringing suggests that he would become the world's most notorious jihadi, partially responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents in the September 11 attacks and elsewhere. People who knew him stress that Zawahiri came from a "prestigious" and "aristocratic" background (in Egypt, "aristocrats" have traditionally been among the most liberal and secular). His father Muhammad was a professor of pharmacology; his mother, Umayma, came from a politically active family. Ayman had four siblings; he (and his twin sister) were the eldest. Born in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, on June 19, 1951, Zawahiri, as a BBC report puts it, "came from a respectable middle-class family of doctors and scholars. His grandfather, Rabia al-Zawahiri, was the grand imam of al-Azhar, the centre of Sunni Islamic learning in the Middle East, while one of his uncles was the first secretary-general of the Arab League."

According to the Islamist Montasser al-Zayyat, author of the Arabic book, Al Zawahiri: As I Knew Him (translated in English as The Road to Al Qaeda: the Story of Bin Laden's Right-Hand Man), Zawahiri was "an avid reader" who "loved literature and poetry." He "believed that sports, especially boxing and wrestling, were inhumane…. people thought he was very tender and softhearted…. nothing in his youthful good nature suggested that he was to become the second most wanted man in the world…. He has always been humble, never interested in seizing the limelight of the leadership."

Even so, he exhibited signs of a strong and determined character, as "there was nothing weak about the personality of the child Zawahiri. On the contrary, he did not like any opinion to be imposed on him. He was happy to discuss any issue that was difficult for him to understand until it was made clear, but he did not argue for the sake of argument. He always listened politely, without giving anyone the chance to control him."

For all his love of literature and poetry, which Islamists often portray as running counter to Muslim faith, Zawahiri exhibited a notable form of piety from youth. "Ayman al-Zawahiri was born into a religious Muslim family," al-Zayyat wrote. "Following the example of his family, he not only performed the prayers at the correct times, but he did so in the mosque…. He always made sure that he performed the morning prayers [at sunrise] with a group in the mosque, even during the coldest winters. He attended several classes of Koran interpretation, fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] and Koran recitation at the mosque."

Otherwise, he appeared to lead a normal, privileged lifestyle. Like his family, he followed a prestigious career path. Zawahiri joined the Faculty of Medicine at Cairo University, graduating in 1974 with the highest possible marks. He then earned a Master's degree in surgery from the same university in 1978. He went on to receive a PhD in surgery from a Pakistani university, during his stay in Peshawar, when he was aiding the mujahidin against the Soviets. People who know Zawahiri say that the only relationship he had with a woman was with his wife, Azza, whom he married in 1979, and who held a degree in philosophy. She and three of Zawahiri's six children were killed in an air strike on Afghanistan by U.S. forces in late 2001.

Death of a Martyr

The initial influence on Zawahiri's radicalization appears to have come from his uncle Mahfouz, an opponent to the secular regime and Islamist in his own right, who was arrested in a militant round up in 1945, following the assassination of Prime Minister Ahmed Mahfouz. In reference to this event, Zawahiri's uncle even boasted: "I myself was going to do what Ayman has done," according to Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.

Though Mahfouz was likely the first to introduce young Ayman to the political scene of radical Islam, no one appears to have had an impact on Zawahiri's development as much as Uncle Mahfouz's mentor and Arabic teacher, Sayyid Qutb—often referred to as the "godfather" of modern jihad. Qutb, then the Muslim Brotherhood's premiere theoretician of jihad, has arguably played the greatest role in articulating the Islamist/jihadi worldview in the modern era, so much so that Zawahiri and others regularly quote his voluminous writings in their own work.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "Three basic themes emerge from Qutb's writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims—as he defined them—therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction."

Qutb's primary target—and subsequently Zawahiri's—was the Egyptian regime, which he accused of being enforcers of jahiliyya, obstructing the totality of Sharia. Because Qutb was so effective at fomenting Islamist animosity for the regime, President Gamal Abdel Nasser had him imprisoned and eventually executed in 1966. That act only succeeded in helping propagate Qutb's importance to the jihadi movement, which came to see him as a "martyr" (a shahid, the highest honor for a Muslim), turning his already popular writings into "eternal classics" for Islamists everywhere.

As Zayyat observes, "In Zawahiri's eyes, Sayyid Qutb's words struck young Muslims more deeply than those of his contemporaries because his words eventually led to his execution. Thus, those words provided the blueprint for his long and glorious lifetime, and eventually led to its end…. His teaching gave rise to the formation of the nucleus of the contemporary jihadi movements in Egypt."

It is no coincidence, then, that Zawahiri founded his first jihadi cell in 1966—the year of Qutb's execution—when he was only 15-years-old. Embracing Qutb's teachings—that jihad is the only answer, that talk, diplomacy, and negotiations only serve the infidel enemy's purposes—his cell originally had a handful of members. Zawahiri eventually merged it with other small cells to form Egyptian Islamic Jihad, becoming one of its leaders. Zawahiri sought to recruit military officers and accumulate weapons, waiting for the right moment to launch a coup against the regime; or, in Zawahiri's own words as later recorded by an interrogator, "to establish an Islamic government …. a government that rules according to the Sharia of Allah Almighty."

Humiliation of Defeat

A year following the establishment of Zawahiri's cell, another event took place that further paved the way to jihad: the ignominious defeat of Egypt by Israel in the 1967 war. Until then, Arab nationalism, spearheaded by Nasser, was the dominant ideology, not just in Egypt, but the entire Arab world. What began with much euphoria and conviction—that the Arab world, unified under Arab nationalism and headed by Nasser would crush Israel, only to lose disastrously in a week—morphed into disillusionment and disaffection, especially among Egyptians. It was then that the slogan "Islam is the solution" spread like wildfire, winning over many to the cause.

At the time of the 1967 war, the future al-Qaeda leader was 16 years old. Like many young people at the time, he was somewhat traumatized by Egypt's defeat—a defeat which, 34 years later, he would gloat upon in his 2001 book Fursan Taht Rayat al-Nabbi, ("Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet"), writing:

"The unfolding events impacted the course of the jihadi movements in Egypt, namely, the 1967 defeat and the ensuing symbolic collapse of Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was portrayed to the public by his followers as the everlasting invincible symbol. The jihadi movements realized that wormwoods had eaten at this icon, and that it had become fragile. The 1967 defeat shook the earth under this idol until it fell on its face, causing a severe shock to its disciples, and frightening its subjects. The jihadi movements grew stronger and stronger as they realized that their avowed enemy was little more than a statue to be worshipped, constructed through propaganda, and through the oppression of unarmed innocents. The direct influence of the 1967 defeat was that a large number of people, especially youths, returned to their original identity: that of members of an Islamic civilization."

This theme—that the "enemies of Islam," first the secular dictators, followed by the USSR and then the U.S., were "paper tigers" whose bark was worse than their bite—would come to permeate the writings of al-Qaeda and other jihadis. For instance, in March 2012, in response to President Obama's plans to cut Pentagon spending, Zawahiri said, "The biggest factor that forced America to reduce its defence budget is Allah's help to the mujahideen [or jihadis] to harm the evil empire of our time [the U.S.]," adding that American overtures to the Afghan Taliban for possible reconciliation was further evidence of U.S. defeat.

The 1973 war between Egypt and Israel appears to have had a lesser impact on Zawahiri, who by then had already confirmed his worldview. Moreover, it was during the 1970s that he was especially busy with "normal" life—earning two advanced university degrees (one in 1974, another in 1978), getting married, and starting a family. Even so, the subsequent peace treaty that the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed with Israel incensed many Islamists in Egypt, including Zawahiri, who saw it as a great betrayal to the Islamic Nation, or Umma, prompting jihadis to act now instead of later.

Accordingly, Sadat was targeted for assassination; the time had come for a military coup, which was Islamic Jihad's ultimate goal. But the plan was derailed when authorities learned of it in February, 1981. Sadat ordered the roundup of more than 1,500 Islamists, including many Islamic Jihad members (though he missed a cell in the military led by Lieutenant Khalid Islambouli, who succeeded in assassinating Sadat during a military parade later that same year).

Prison Torture

Zawahiri was among the thousands of Islamists rounded up after Sadat's assassination, leading to one of the most talked-of episodes of Zawahiri's life: his prison experience. He was interrogated and found guilty of possessing firearms, serving three years in prison. During that time, he was among many who were tortured in Egyptian prisons.

Much has been made of Zawahiri's prison-time torture. (It is curious to note that when Egyptian officials called to investigate the officers accused of torturing the Islamist inmates, Zawahiri did not file a case against the authorities, though many others did, and though he bothered to witness to the torture of other members.) Several writers, beginning with al-Zayyat, suggest that along with the dual-impact of the martyrdom of Qutb and the 1967 defeat, this event had an especially traumatic effect on Zawahiri's subsequent development and radicalization.

Still, one should not give this experience more due than it deserves. Zawahiri was an ardent jihadi well over a decade before he was imprisoned and tortured; the overly paradigmatic explanation of humiliation-as-precursor-to-violence so popular in Western thinking is unnecessary here.

On the other hand, in the vein of "that which does not kill you makes you stronger," it seems that Zawahiri's prison experience hardened him and made his already notorious stubbornness and determination that much more unshakeable. In short, if his prison experience did not initiate his jihadi inclinations, it likely exacerbated it.

Moreover, being "found out" had an indirect impact on his radicalization. After he was released, and knowing that he was being watched by the authorities, he was compelled to quit his native Egypt, meeting other Arabic-speaking Islamists abroad. He met Osama bin Laden as early as 1986 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. That led him to relocate to the Afghan theater of jihad, where the final coalescing of his global jihad worldview culminated.

Shifting Strategy

During his time in Egypt, Zawahiri was a staunch proponent of jihad—believing that no real change or progress can be achieved without armed struggle. This never changed. However, his strategic goal of toppling the Egyptian regime grew more ambitious over time, especially after the Afghan war experience and partnership with bin Laden.

In Egypt, Zawahiri's goal was clear: overthrowing the regime and implementing an Islamic government. The enemy was internal, the secular Hosni Mubarak regime, that took over after Sadat's death. In Zawahiri's thinking, one could not consider fighting the far or external enemy until he had beaten the near one. (This is the famous "near/far enemy" dichotomy Islamists have written much on.)

Accordingly, until the late 1990s Zawahiri rarely mentioned what are today the mainstays of Islamist discontent, such as the Arab/Israel conflict, or other matters outside Egypt's borders. In fact, in a 1995 article titled "The Way to Jerusalem Passes Through Cairo" published in Al-Mujahidin, Zawahiri even wrote that "Jerusalem will not be opened [conquered] until the battles in Egypt and Algeria have been won and until Cairo has been opened." This is not to say that Zawahiri did not always see Israel as the enemy. Rather, he deemed it pointless to fight it directly when one could have the entire might of Egypt's military by simply overthrowing the regime—precisely the situation today.

Then, in 1998, Zawahiri surprised many of Egypt's Islamists by forming the International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders, under bin Laden's leadership. It issued a fatwa calling on Muslims "to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military, an individual obligation incumbent upon every Muslim who can do it and in any country—this until the Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the Holy Mosque [Mecca] are liberated from their grip." Until then all of Zawahiri's associates believed that his primary focus was Egypt, overthrowing the regime—not the Arab-Israeli conflict and the United States.

Zawahiri's "Mistake"?

It is for all these reasons that many of Egypt's Islamists, beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood, saw al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, partially masterminded by Zawahiri, as a severe setback to their movement. The attacks awoke the U.S. and the West, setting off the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and also giving many Arab regimes—including Mubarak's—free reign to suppress all Islamists. Those regimes happily took advantage. As al-Zayyat, Zawahiri's biographer, wrote:

"The poorly conceived decision to launch the attacks of September 11created many victims of a war of which they did not choose to be a part…. Bin Laden and Zawahiri's behavior [9/11] was met with a lot of criticism from many Islamists in Egypt and abroad…. In the post-September 11 world, no countries can afford to be accused of harboring the enemies of the United States. No one ever imagined that a Western European country would extradite Islamists who live on its lands. Before that, Islamists had always thought that arriving in a European city and applying for political asylum was enough to acquire permanent resident status. After September 11, 2001, everything changed…. Even the Muslim Brotherhood was affected by the American campaign, which targeted everything Islamic."

In retrospect, the "mistake of 9/11″ may have indirectly helped empower Islamists: by bringing unwanted Western attention to the Middle East, it also made popular the argument that democracy would solve all the ills of the Middle East. Many Western observers who previously had little knowledge of the Islamic world, were surprised to discover post 9/11 that dictatorial regimes ran the Muslim world. This led to the simplistic argument that Islamists were simply lashing out because they were suppressed. Failing to understand that these dictatorships were the only thing between full-blown Islamist regimes like Iran, many deemed democracy a panacea, beginning with U.S. President George W. Bush, who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, partially to "spread" and in the name of democracy.

With the so-called "Arab spring" that began in 2011, the Obama administration has followed this logic more aggressively by throwing the U.S.'s longtime allies like Egypt's Mubarak, under the bus in the name of democracy—a democracy that has been dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, which, as has been mentioned, shares the same ultimate goals of Zawahiri and other jihadis. Recent events—including unprecedented attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya, ironically, the two nations the U.S. especially intervened in to pave the way for Islamist domination—only confirm this.

Zawahiri and the Muslim Brotherhood

While Zawahiri's early decades in Egypt are mostly remembered in the context of the above—prestigious and academic background, clandestine radicalization, jihad, prison, followed by fleeing the country—the al-Qaeda leader has a long history with other Islamist groups in Egypt, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Since the "Arab Spring" and ousting of longtime President Hosni Mubarak, it has been the Brotherhood who have, not only dominated Egyptian politics, but have a member, Muhammad Morsi, as Egypt's first elected president.

Zawahiri joined the Brotherhood when he was only 14, then abandoned it to form his own cell less than two years later after Qutb's execution. A proponent of the slogan "jihad alone," Zawahiri soon became critical of the Brotherhood's pragmatic strategies, and wrote an entire book in 1991 arguing against their nonviolent approach.

Titled Al Hissad Al Murr, or "The Bitter Harvest," Zawahiri argued that the Brotherhood "takes advantage of the Muslim youths' fervor by bringing them into the fold only to store them in a refrigerator. Then, they steer their onetime passionate, Islamic zeal for jihad to conferences and elections…. And not only have the Brothers been idle from fulfilling their duty of fighting to the death, but they have gone as far as to describe the infidel governments as legitimate, and have joined ranks with them in the ignorant style of governing, that is, democracies, elections, and parliaments."

It is perhaps ironic that, for all his scathing remarks against them, time has revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy of slowly infiltrating society from a grassroots approach has been more effective than Zawahiri's and al-Qaeda's jihadi terror. The Brotherhood's patience and perseverance, by playing the political game, formally disavowing violence and jihad—all of which earned the ire of Zawahiri and others—have turned it into a legitimate player. Yet this does not make the Brotherhood's goals any less troubling. For instance, according to a January 2012 Al Masry Al Youm report, Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badie stated that the group's grand goal is the return of a "rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world"—precisely what Zawahiri and al-Qaeda seek to achieve. Half a year later, in July 2012, Safwat Hegazy, a popular preacher and Brotherhood member, boasted that the Brotherhood will be "masters of the world, one of these days." Most recently, President Morsi gave himself unprecedented powers in order to empower Sharia law in Egypt.

Zawahiri and Egypt Today

In light of the Egyptian revolution that accomplished what Zawahiri had tried to accomplish for decades—overthrow the regime—what relevance does the al-Qaeda leader have for the Egyptian populace today? The best way to answer this question is in the context of Salafism—the popular Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere that is grounded in the teachings and patterns of early Islam, beginning with the days of Islam's Prophet Muhammad and under the first four "righteously guided" caliphs.

As a Salafist organization, al-Qaeda is very popular with Salafis. Its current leader, the Egyptian Zawahiri, is especially popular—a "hero" in every sense of the word—with Egyptian Salafis. Considering that the Salafis won some 25 percent of votes in recent elections, one may infer that at least a quarter or of Egypt's population looks favorably on Zawahiri. In fact, some important Salafis are on record saying they would like to see Zawahiri return to his native Egypt. Aboud al-Zomor, for instance, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader who was implicated for the assassination of Sadat, but who has now been released and is even a leading member of the new Egyptian parliament, has called for the return of Zawahiri to Egypt, "with his head held high and in safety."

Zawahiri's brother, Muhammad, is also an influential Islamist in Egypt, affiliated with the Salafis and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya. He led a mass Islamist demonstration last spring with typical jihadi slogans. He also was among those threatening the U.S. embassy in Cairo to release the Blind Sheikh—the true reason behind the September attack, not a movie—or else be "burned down to the ground." When asked in a recent interview with CNN if he is in touch with his al-Qaeda leader brother, Muhammad only smiled and said "of course not."

Under Zawahiri's leadership, al-Qaeda has made inroads on Egyptian territory. For example, several recent attacks in Sinai—such as the attacks on the Egypt-Israel natural-gas pipeline—were in fact conducted by a new group pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda. Zawahiri publicly congratulated them for destroying the pipelines, and the organization itself has pledged its loyalty to Zawahiri. More recently, al-Qaeda in the Sinai has been blamed for attacking and evicting Christian minorities living there.

This highlights the fact that groups like the Brotherhood and the Salafis have the same goals—establishment of a government that upholds Sharia law—though they differ as to how to achieve this. Salafis like al-Qaeda tend to agree that jihad is the solution. Yet, given the Brotherhood's success using peaceful means—co-opting the language of democracy and running in elections—many Salafis are now "playing politics" even though many of them are also on record saying that, once in power, they will enforce Islamic law and abolish democracy, which is precisely what President Morsi and his cohorts have begun to do, in the face of widespread condemnation and protests in the Egyptian street.

It is not clear where Zawahiri stands regarding Egypt. Because of his deep roots there, Egypt undoubtedly holds a special place for him. But as the leader of a global jihadi network, he cannot afford to appear biased to Egypt—hence why he addresses the politics of other nations, Pakistan for example, and themes like the Arab-Israeli conflict, with equal or more attention.

Likewise, there are different accounts regarding his personality traits and how they would comport with Egypt's current state. For example, whereas his biographer described young Zawahiri as averse to the limelight and open to others' opinions, most contemporary characterizations of Zawahiri suggest he is intractable and domineering—a product, perhaps, of some four decades of jihadi activities, as well as the aforementioned experiences. While the personality traits attributed to him in youth would certainly aid him in influencing Egyptian Islamist politics, those attributed to him now would not.

He has been away too long, and others have stepped in. Either way, to many Islamists around the world, Egypt in particular, Zawahiri is a hero—one of the few men to successfully strike the "great enemy," America. Such near legendary status will always see to it that Ayman Zawahiri—and the Salafi ideology al-Qaeda helped popularize—remain popular among Egypt's Islamists.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60301
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

AlQ #2 time is up for stability in WANA.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Agnimitra »

ramana ji,

I sense that across WANA a horde is being mobilized, via a turmoil that will be allowed to find its resolution in a war with Iran. In Tunis today you find mobs attacking bookstores selling any shi'a or Iran-related literature, and the cries of the vandals are against the "Majoos" (Zoroastrian priest). In Egypt and even Somalia, I come across Arabic literature referring to the Ethiopians as "Majoos", and the Copts are not too distantly related to the Ethipian Orthodox church. In Pakistan there is an ongoing genocide of Shi'a (and one non-Iranian side effect of that could be inviting international UN intervention in J&K via Gilgit-Baltistan, where the Shi'a genocide is somehow being allowed to receive FAR more attention than in other parts). In the end, the upshot of Arab Spring may involve a mobilization against Iran, another Qadisiyyah dream-come-true.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60301
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Mobilization against Iran is both sectarian(Shia vs Sunni) and ethnic(Persian vs Arab). And then you have Wastern puppeters pulling chains.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

matrimc wrote:
shyamd wrote:Re- Chem weapons and the West warnings to Asad - was told that they are not at panic stations.
This is in today's Nightwatch FWIW
NightWatch For the night of 5 December 2012 wrote:
Syria: A senior U.S. official told Fox News that the Syrians loaded bombs with components of sarin gas. They have 60 days to use these bombs until the chemical mixture expires and has to be destroyed, according to the report.

According to NBC News, bombs filled with a sarin components have not yet been loaded onto planes, but that the Syrian military is prepared to use these chemical weapons against civilians pending orders from President Bashar Assad.

Comment: Yesterday, 4 December, a senior US Defense official stated there was no evidence that the chemicals used to create sarin gas had been mixed. A day later, the chemicals are reportedly mixed.

No intelligence service has the ability to make such a determination except from testimony from human sources -- from direct observation by the source or detected from radio intercepts. Both collection systems are highly vulnerable to deception and manipulation. In other words, the message from Syria could be intended to persuade the West and others to reduce their support to the opposition.

NightWatch reported on Monday that the Asad regime reportedly had reached the point where it wanted the option to use chemical weapons. Those news sources appear to have been accurate. Nevertheless, the regime has not yet decided to employ these weapons, as of this Watch.
The CW intel came through Jihad Makdissi apparently. Looks like he was in touch with US intel operatives for a few weeks before heading to london.

----------------
17 US Warships now off Syria
Monday, 10 December 2012

The U.S. aircraft carrier "Dwight D Eisenhower" has arrived off the shores of Syria.

The multipurpose nuclear attack carrier the U.S.S. Dwight D Eisenhower is leading the naval assault group which has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean.

It is in close proximity to the coast of Syria. On board the ship are 70 fighter-bombers and a total 8,000 US servicemen.

The Dwight D Eisenhower joined the amphibious assault helicopter carrier Iwo Jima, which has been in the area for almost two weeks.

In all there are now 17 American warships off the Syrian coast.

Thousands of American troops near Syrian shore on USS Eisenhower

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, a large US Navy aircraft carrier that holds fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men on board, has appeared off Syrian coast yesterday amid arising speculations that the US is ready to attack Syria though there was no official announcement so far.

Media have already put forward suggestions that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the US will intervene the country militarily “within days”.

According to Jerusalem-based website DEBKAfile, the US has already near Syria at its disposal 10,000 fighting men, 17 warships, 70 fighter-bombers, 10 destroyers and frigates.

“The muscle is already there to be flexed,” a US official told the London Times about the US military’s presence outside of Syria.

“It’s premature to say what could happen if a decision is made to intervene. That hasn’t taken shape, we’ve not reached that kind of decision. There are a lot of options, but it [military action] could be launched rapidly, within days.”
Voice of Russia, TASS, RT
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by RamaY »

ramana wrote:Mobilization against Iran is both sectarian(Shia vs Sunni) and ethnic(Persian vs Arab). And then you have Wastern puppeters pulling chains.
And the funny Aryanians think they are Persian and Muslim and hope to become leaders of Ummah :lol:

If they don't realize their pathetic state of national identity and make corrective measures in next decade or so, they deserve to be decimated.

It is interesting that more the genocide against them more their allegence to Islam. Interesting mindset Islam develops.
anmol
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 05 May 2009 17:39

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by anmol »

I am really shocked...................................:

Benghazi: Libyan Terrorists Got Arms From Obama Administration‏ – OpEd

By: Jim Kouri
December 9, 2012

In spite of the threat of American weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups, President Barack Obama secretly approved an arms transfer to Libyan rebels through Qatar at the height of the rebellion against Moamar Khadhafi, a knowledgeable source noted on Friday.

However, American counterterrorists are discovering that some of those U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of radical Islamists including associates of al-Qaeda, according to a law enforcement source who trained police in the Middle East.

Some Americans who are retired from the military, as well as intelligence and law enforcement agencies, believe there should be an investigation into possible connections between the weapons provided by the Qataris back then and the attack that killed an American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

During the months leading up to the terrorist attacks, the Obama administration worried about its part in helping to arm the Libyan rebels who were members of terrorist organizations especially so close to Election Day.

Experts believe that Obama’s experience with arming Libyan rebels is why his administration is nervous about arming the rebels in Syria, where money and weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries. It’s widely believed that al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups are active in the Syrian rebellion.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are reportedly supplying weapons and equipment to the Syrian rebels. But the Obama administration continues its refusal to directly arm the Syrian opposition, for fear that the weapons may end up in the hands of the more hard-line Islamist groups in the Arab country, said a source within federal law enforcement.

The aftermath of the rebellions in Egypt and Libya have been disappointing to the Obama administration and the Democrats, with the Egyptian government run by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Libyan government’s difficulty dealing with terrorists, militias and warlords, said an Israeli security expert.
...not.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60301
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

On rise of Qatar

Nightwatch

Nightwatch 10 Dec 2012
Palestine State: Hamas' political leader, Khaled Meshaal arrived today in the Gaza Strip, his first visit. He kissed the ground on landing from Qatar. "There is a new mood that allows us to achieve reconciliation," Meshaal told the press in an interview last Friday from Qatar, where he has set up home since leaving Syria earlier this year. He will stay for a little more than 48 hours.

Hamas plans an open-air rally on Saturday to promote what it says was last month's victory against Israel and, at the same time, to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the group's founding.

Comment: Hamas has emerged emboldened from the eight day conflict which ended in a truce that Meshaal negotiated under Egypt's auspices. The US Secretary of State was essentially an observer. Meshaal has since spoken of reaching out to other Palestinian factions.

Simply because Palestinians survived the devastating air assault by the modern Israeli air force, the Hamas leaders have become heroes and Arab leaders.


Qatar's role is worth watching. It is asserting an Arab leadership role that slights Saud Arabia. It also is challenging Iran's pretense to be a leader of the Islamic states. Qatar is a big winner from the eight-day war with Israel, along with Hamas.


Western powers maneuvered to deliver an international political victory to President Abbas and Fatah, in the UN vote to elevate the status of the Palestinian Authority at the UN. The Western aim was to counter the wartime success of Hamas, even while the US voted publicly against the change in UN status. The too-clever-by-half US strategy is a pathetic failure.

Hamas is the beneficiary of the UN vote, not Fatah. Palestinians are interpreting their acceptance as an UN observer state to be the result of Hamas leadership actions in Gaza's survival of the Israeli air attacks and the continuous rocket counter-fire into Israel.


Abbas has not gotten the credit that he and his Western backers expected. Now the situation is more intractable than ever. Hamas leaders, with their anti-Israel policy, judge they have an international mandate to lead all Palestinians and to destroy Israel. The Israelis and the US delivered Meshaal a leadership political windfall that he could never have engineered on his own. He did well to kiss the ground of Gaza.
Post Reply