The appalling culture of sexual harassment and abuse on Egyptian streets is no secret. Most often, the women being victimized are blamed; as we found out from Arab News readers last fall in a story on this topic, silly kuffar, self control is for girls.
But here is the problem: wherever there is a segment or multiple segments of society who are second-class citizens (women, dhimmis), those classes bear an unfair burden to mollify their overlords by showing that they know their place.
Liberal democracies are not made from this social order. Where the responsibility of self-restraint is borne unequally or abdicated, a society is more likely to submit to tyranny to protect it from itself, or at least lend some air of predictability to anticipated abuse, as well as justification for dishing it out. Hence the "modesty police."
"Muslim Brotherhood advocates Egyptian modesty police," by David E. Miller for The Media Line, April 4 (thanks to Jonathan):
Officials of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's leading Islamic group, have called for the establishment of a Saudi-style modesty police to combat "immoral" behavior in public areas in what observers say in another sign of a growing Islamic self-confidence in the post-Mubarak era.
In the political sphere, the Brotherhood led a successful drive to get voters to approve a package of constitutional amendments. On the street level, at least 20 attacks were perpetrated against the tombs of Muslim mystics (suffis), who are the subject of popular veneration but disparaged by Islamic fundamentalists, or salafis. After some initial hesitation, Islamic leaders have publicly praised the revolution.
"This is incredibly worrying to many Egyptians," Maye Kassem, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo (AUC), told The Media Line. "The salafis were always undercover in Egypt and now they are emerging as a political force. They are getting too vocal."
Newly freed from the political strictures of the Mubarak era, Egypt has turned into a battleground between those who envision a liberal, secular state and those who advocate various shades if Islam. The conflict mirrors those taking place elsewhere in the region. In Bahrain, unrest has evolved into a conflict between Sunni- and Shiite Muslims and the US has pulled back from supporting Libyan rebels over concerns they are dominated by Islamists.
Issam Durbala, a member of the Brotherhood's Shura council, told the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Youm on Sunday, that he supported the establishment of a virtue police, or Hisbah, which had existed in medieval Islamic societies to oversee public virtue and modesty, mostly in the marketplace and other public gathering spaces.
But he seemed to stop short of advocating a force along then lines of that which operates in Saudi Arabia today under the auspices of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. It enforces a dress code, separation of sexes and the observances of prayer times.
"The new police must have a department with limited authorities to arrest those who commit immoral acts,” Durbala told the newspaper.
Nevertheless, liberal, secular Egyptians, who led the protests that brought down President Hosni Mubarak and ushered in a new but as yet undefined era in Egypt, regard the proposal as the latest sign that Islamists are emerging as the dominant force in the country.
Sa'id Abd Al-Azim, a leader of the salafi movement in Alexandria, attacked Egyptian "liberals" for waging a media campaign against his movement.
"Despite the attacks against the salafi movement, it is constantly advancing – untouched by the attack," Abd Al-Azim told Al-Masry Al-Youm. "If the Christians want safety they should submit to the rule of God and be confident that the Islamic sharia [law] will protect them." [...]
Keep your Sharia. Keep your "protection" racket.
Nagib Gibrail, a Coptic attorney and head of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights, said the Egyptian revolution had been kidnapped by Islamist radicals.
"There are areas in Egypt where Christian girls can't walk outside after eight o'clock in the evening for fear of being kidnapped," Gibrail told The Media Line. "Moderate Muslims should be more scared than Christians. It is very worrying that the military regime hasn't issued a statement declaring Egypt a secular state." ....
HO! HO! HO! If god is pissed off at you he will give you what you ask for.
Democracy on the march: Muslim Brotherhood calls for Egyptian modesty police
...............................
Oh, goody! Just like they have in Saudi Arabia and Iran!
More:
On the street level, at least 20 attacks were perpetrated against the tombs of Muslim mystics (suffis), who are the subject of popular veneration but disparaged by Islamic fundamentalists, or salafis...
...............................
We may not be particular fans of Islamic mysticism—I know I'm not—but this marks a clear and very disturbing trend.
In places like Pakistan, pilgrims to such tombs and shrines are regularly targets of suicide bombings and other attacks. In Saudi Arabia, such shrines are razed by the Saudi authorities, no matter the historical importance of such sites.
Neither the threat of violence nor the threats to historical sites bodes well for Egypt. An Islamic society that targets "heretical" Muslim sites will not hesitate to target "Jahiliyya" (signs of "pre-Islamic ignorance").
Egypt, with its rich ancient artifacts—including the pyramids and the sphinx—is perhaps more rife with "Jahiliyya" than any other place in Dar-al-Islam.
More:
Issam Durbala, a member of the Brotherhood's Shura council, told the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Youm on Sunday, that he supported the establishment of a virtue police, or Hisbah, which had existed in medieval Islamic societies to oversee public virtue and modesty, mostly in the marketplace and other public gathering spaces.
...............................
Will this be accompanied by canings and worse for scofflaws, as it is in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Aceh in Indonesia? One can only hope. sarc/off
More:
Nevertheless, liberal, secular Egyptians, who led the protests that brought down President Hosni Mubarak and ushered in a new but as yet undefined era in Egypt, regard the proposal as the latest sign that Islamists are emerging as the dominant force in the country.
...............................
Ya think?
Sa'id Abd Al-Azim, a leader of the salafi movement in Alexandria, attacked Egyptian "liberals" for waging a media campaign against his movement.
"Despite the attacks against the salafi movement, it is constantly advancing – untouched by the attack," Abd Al-Azim told Al-Masry Al-Youm. "If the Christians want safety they should submit to the rule of God and be confident that the Islamic sharia [law] will protect them."
...............................
Note—Al-Azim considers some civilized political criticism to constitute "attacks". Awfully "sensitive" for someone advocating the flogging of women in the streets.
And it is clear that he is advocating, as well, for a forced return to full dhimmitude for Egypt's Christians. As if they hadn't suffered enough under the "soft Shari'ah" of Mubarak, now they will likely get to experience the full horror of dhimmi status.
More:
"There are areas in Egypt where Christian girls can't walk outside after eight o'clock in the evening for fear of being kidnapped," Gibrail told The Media Line. "Moderate Muslims should be more scared than Christians...
...............................
Very true.
c'mon...we knew it was coming.
"another sign of a growing Islamic self-confidence"
Germany in the 30's saw signs of growing Germanic Self Confidence.
Just my two pfennigs.
"c'mon...we knew it was coming."
Indeed. But apparently this has yet to penetrate the din of the internal narrative inside the heads of the Leftist PCMC elite. It'll take quite a few tourists being kidnapped/raped/murdered before they take notice. And even then the response will be to minimize the problem, or to blame it on something, anything, other than Islam. By then it will be too late, especially for the Egyptians.
"It is very worrying that the military regime hasn't issued a statement declaring Egypt a secular state."
The ugly truth is that if they do there will be widespread violence from the radicals.
The sad truth is that if they do not accept that there very well could be violence, face it head on and commit Egypt to being a secular state anyway, the radicals will use that fear to turn the country into a radical dominated tyrany as fast as they can.
I hope the Egyptian army has noticed what's happening to the army in Turkey and do something before they become co-opted or defanged by the very people they are supposed to protect the country against.
"The appalling culture of sexual harassment and abuse on Egyptian streets is no secret. Most often, the women being victimized are blamed; as we found out from Arab News readers last fall in a story on this topic, silly kuffar, self control is for girls."
BTW - any word on Lara Logan??
I am guessing that she was so mentally (to say nothing of physically) traumatized that she may never be the same again...
Really glad Islam is on the way out in Iran. I hope you're right that it's on its last legs there. Iran has such an incredible, rich history and I tend to think of Iranians as the intellectuals and rebels of the Islamic world.
Perhaps this is what it takes for a Muslim country to see the ugliness of pure Islam and turn away from it. I've read comments written online by Egyptian people who believe that Egypt was so repressive towards minorities because wasn't Islamic enough! Hopefully things like the 'modesty police' will change their minds sooner rather than later, and they'll see that Islam is the problem, not the cure.
I've been watching Al Jazeera a lot in the last few months for work, and I have not seen one anchor, one reporter, or a vox pop say "we want democracy". Now, I may have missed them, of course, but I rather think not. I've seen plenty of it in the western MSM, however. On Al Jazeera, I've seen people say they don't want want they currently have, that they want elections, and that they want "freedom", "peace" and "justice" - those three words feature an awful lot with punters on the street.
We know there's a lot more to democracy than elections. But I'm still puzzled as to why muslims would want democracy in those countries. It makes zero sense. Democracy as we have it now is the result, more or less, of 350 years of post Enlightenment western development of institutions, political parties, ideas, viewpoints, a worldview - all seen through the prism of Christianity. I'm not saying that as a christian, but purely in the academic sense of 'this is how I see it'. Democracy is an outcrop of christianity - it shares the same tenets and principles. The central plank of christianity is the primacy of the sovereign individual conscience - that each individual is responsible for their actions as a human being before god - just as in democracy we find the same, but before the law. Also, the notion of free will to choose, given by god to man - to choose whether or not to worship him, and be judged later, emerges in democracy in the same way with the ability to choose whether or not to follow the law - and be judged if you don't.
Democracy is the Christian form of political governance. That may not sit well with secularists or atheists, but again, I'm not saying it as a christian - i'm simply acknowledging the roots of it.
So why the hell do muslims in the MENA countries think they want the christian form of political governance, when they already have, ready and waiting, the muslim form of political governance in the sharia, a system seen through the prism of 1400 years of Islam, its traditions and culture?
In Islam, there is no individual. Each being is a physical vessel for the expression of god's will. As such, they are absolved completely of any and all responsibility for their actions as human beings. Everything is god's will. we've seen the latest evidence of this in the appalling events in afghanistan.
I saw that the international arm of YouGov did a poll in Egypt a couple of weeks after Mubaraks ouster. Over 80% polled said they wanted "freedom", but less than 20% of same said they wanted freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of association. this AIN'T democracy.
The calls for "freedom", "peace" and "justice" are calls for the "freedom", "peace" and "justice" they are afforded under Islam, which is palpably different from how we would describe those things.
"Freedom", "peace" and "justice" to them means, no israel, no jews, other non-muslims subjugated, and Islam the one true religion, shored up by the sharia law...the global caliphate. It was Sayed Qutb who said Islam is a religion of peace - meaning there would be peace in the world once Islam dominates it...
OBAMA LAUNCHES REELECTION CAMPAIGN ON INAUSPICIOUS DAY
On this 4th day of the 4th month of April, being the 44th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, Barack Obama, the 44th president of the US (born on the 4th day of August and elected president on November 4th) has launched his campaign for reelection. He couldn't have picked a more inauspicious day.
To read more click my name then my blogsite.
that is the nature of Islam. intolorance. it is its way or highway. I remmeber when I was in eight's grade my aunt Linda(she is from kentuck and married my uncle in detroit in the 60's) came to visit Iran and meet the family. there were members of my family that would not shake her hand and siad she is "Najes" meaning unclean. I think a lot of this has changed in Iran but I am not sure what the dicotomy is in Egypt. however I can tell you this, that Egypt is one the most pathetic muslim countries out there. 75% of cairo does not have Zip Code and 80% do not have trash pick up.
EGYPT - Salafi group in Alexandria pledges to implement Islamic Sharia
The Salafi group in Alexandria said it is seeking to implement Islamic Sharia law no matter how difficult the task.
During a conference held at Amr Ibn al-Aas mosque in Giza on Friday, several of the group's leaders called on non-Muslims to accept the rule of Islam which it argues provides sufficient protection for them.
"We want Islamic law to be implemented, and will not accept anything short of that, so as to avoid a reversion to the pre-Islamic age," he concluded.
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/384505
What a nightmare, Islam turns normal life into a hell on earth for women and girls. It's just hard to believe such things happen that one's religion and gender can basically put your life in constant extreme danger.
This is what happens when Islam takes over your country. What an untenable situation and the West is just too cowardly to say, this is wrong and must stop.
We'd need to eliminate Islam from their nations and have a massive re-education campaign-which at this point is next to impossible. Dropping nukes on them could almost seem like an act of mercy and end their misery.
Islamists in Egypt seek change through politics
It may have been a secular revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, but religious groups — some with violent pasts — have been building grass-roots networks for years. Now ultraconservative and moderate groups feel their time has arrived.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-islamists-ambitions-20110403,0,1369436.story
"perhaps the egyptian people have to learn this lesson the hard way" - no, they won't learn. They will make their contribution to human tsunami of North-African immigrants to Europe instead:
"Since the beginning of this year some 18,000 refugees have arrived on Lampedusa. Over the same period last year the number was 27"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373002/Gaddafis-diaspora-Libyans-overwhelming-Lampedusa.html#ixzz1IaCd2d9l
And that will be the end of Europe as we knew it.
Salafi preacher apologizes to ElBaradei for calling him an infidel
In related news, a number of Islamists from different groups have announced the formation of a new Islamic coalition. The coalition will include clerics from the Ministry of Endowments, members of both the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Ansar al-Sunnah Society, as well as Salafi Muslims and Tabligh and Daawa members in Aswan. The coalition will be headed by Islamic studies professor Khamis Sayed, with Moussa Ali Ahmed as vice president, Magdi Abul Ainain as secretary general and MB representative, and Ali Hussein as media spokesman.
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/385061
From the start, did anyone here actually envision or entertain an outcome other than Egypt becoming yet another islamist state? When you think of the inroads the islamists are making in Europe (Britain, France, Denmark), where they are still a small minority of the population or the inroads they are making in the US, where they are at best 1% of the population, how could it be otherwise in a country like Egypt where, oh, I don't know, 80% plus are muslim to start?????
Dreams of iranian revolt are just that: dreams!The goal is to advance the ummah and reinstate the caliphate. These two things don't mesh well with western-style democracy True democracy such as freedom and liberty versus democratic process where all that gets you is popular vote in support of the bad guys.
"Barry Rubin: Who Really Made Egypt's Revolution?:
The Story The Media Missed"
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/03/barry-rubin-who-really-made-egypts.html
""There are areas in Egypt where Christian girls can't walk outside after eight o'clock in the evening for fear of being kidnapped," "
and apparently no one cares in west...
Democracy is the Christian form of political governance. That may not sit well with secularists or atheists, but again, I'm not saying it as a christian - i'm simply acknowledging the roots of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is the Ancient Greek form of political governace.
In Saudi, best not show your hair
Lest the cops give you more than a glare
With their Islamic switches
They whack cheeky bitches
Who to violate Sharia do dare
Now this system’s about to be spread
Into Egypt, which prompts female dread
From hottie to hag
They will wear the black bag
And rights they now enjoy will be dead
The Muslim Brotherhood presents itself like a bowl of Jelly Belly's full of delight. Dig a little deeper into the bowl and all you get are vomit and booger flavors.
"I don't think a woman should be president. The Middle East is too complicated."
Nageh Ibrahim, of Gamaa al Islamiya, Egypt, reported in the LA Times.
It's the tiny female brain, you see - it can't handle too many things at once, apart from the washing up, cooking and cleaning...
Maggie Thatcher would eat this douche bag for breakfast.
i'm talking about democracy as we have it now, in The West
it was very different in ancient greece.
would someone in the media please stick a microphone in the face of one of these leftist talking heads that ASSURED us that this was revolution to install democracy and ask what they have to say about this? Chris Mattews? What have you got to say? Those empty headed dolts on "the View"? Someone wanna ask what their take on this is? Lets see how HuffPo and Media Matters spin their way out of this one. I'm all ears. How about CNN's personal taquiya merchant Fareed Zakaria? I'm interested to hear how this is just a big misunderstanding that us poor racist bumkins are just too stupid to comprehend. Please oh intellectual giants of the left..enlighten us as to how this isn't EXACTELY WHAT WE SAID WOULD HAPPEN!
OT, but not very.
This is what Modesty Police do.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/04/04/Gay_Man_Comes_Home_After_6_Months_in_Saudi_Jail/
"The new police must have a department with limited authorities to arrest those who commit immoral acts,” Durbala told the newspaper.
Limited. Let's not use big words you don;t understand.
This is such a joke. All the clamping down and enforcing morality laws is designed to do is make it easier for Muslim males to have sex with women and then get rid of those women if they complain about it. Establishing and enforcing morality laws is the realm of the men. Submitting to them and being punished under them is the obligation of the women. This has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with lust and control.
And please, let's not act like Egypt was such a liberating place sexually for women before the fall of Mubarak. All those stories about Coptic girls rejecting the advances of randy Muslim dogs and then being kidnapped, drugged, raped and told that their they are ruined and their families and fiances won't want them anymore to induce them to marry their rapists, all sanctioned by the Muslim authorities, has been reported on this site for years now, along with stories of those same randy Muslim dogs coming out of Friday prayers and going after women in hijabs and burqas for a little nookie. (I thought those offered some level of protection from prying eyes.)
Muslims lie. And that's the truth.
The Shah was the right person to handle things in Iran. You're living in denial - forgetting that your people are Muslims, even if you're not, and only force like the one unleased by the Pahlevis worked. Your prediction of the end of Islam in Iran is just wishful thinking - the Persians didn't convert to, say, Zoroastrianism even during the Mongol Ilkhanate, which was non-Muslim for its earlier part and where full freedom of religion was there, so what makes you think people are going to switch to Zoroastrianism/Christianity/Judaism/Buddhism in droves? Not gonna happen. The Iranians are as Muslims as are the people of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, et al. Or else, why should they bother about what goes on in Bahrein, where the only similarity the people there have w/ Iran is Shia Islam?
One thing's for sure, this "NEW" Egypt that's all the rage for Obamabots has just got to be a bigger tourist mecca than ever before!
I am not in denial. Please have a little more respect. I lived under the Shah for twenty yeras. did you? did you expieirence hid dreaded secret police the SAVAK? no you did not. you know the Evin prison the the ayotollahs are noew jailing everyone? guess what the Shah built it and tourtured and killed hundreds, so please let's get real.
and I did not say that Iranians are going to convert to any other religion. when was the last time you went to Iran? iranians are not the same as Saudi arabian and that only shows your knowledge of Iran and any where else in the middle east. and this is not the Monolian time. this is 21 st century. Ipads/Idopd/tweeter/internet etc.... as I have mentioned before the problem is not with muslims it is with Islam. I think you have some racism in you. please check it out before you enter this blog.
M
Since women are not as intelligent as men (Allah says) they should not be judged too harshly for causing their rape by leaving home unchaperoned and/or without full body covering.
you don't know anything about the shah, or islam apparently, because the Shah's first named was Mohammed, and he was a muslim.
The Shah donated $150,000 to the Republic of China for the construction of the Taipei Grand Mosque on Taiwan.
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197004/islam.in.taiwan.htm
The Shah also went on Hajj to Mecca- this is a photo of him in prayer-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fa/5/5f/Mohammad_rezashah.jpg
Don't spout out BS if you don't know about the subject.
I said from the start it was between the army and the MoHoods, though there are also the Arab ultra-nationalists (such as the likely next president, Amr Mussa), and they're highly likely to share the power rather than fight each other, at least as long as Egypt retains its status as a sovereign state and doesn't become part of a caliphate (which if at all, is likely to take a while, much like the EU is a gradual stealth process of intended integration into a superstate). True liberals are, I believe, a small minority. That is the army won't fight the MoHoods because it would lose them the popular support (even if "only" 30% of the Egyptians support the MoHood itself, the overwhelming majority of Egyptian Muslims support the MoHood's values and goals or very approximate values and goals, and that is the determining factor). This way the army and much of the old elites can still retain much of their power, money and privileges in spite of the revolution.
Another question is how many in the army are Islamists or at least very devout Muslims. Even in Turkey the army was infiltrated by Islamists, but there's a great difference between the function of the army in Turkey and in Egypt. In Turkey there was the Kemalist secular revolution and it was the army's job to keep the state secular. In Egypt there was no secular revolution. The revolutionaries of 1952 might have been secular, but the focus of their ideology was nationalism and Arab type socialism and not secularism. The Egyptian army doesn't function as the "revolutionary gurads" of a secular revolution. Part of them may actually want a more Islamic state. We don't know how many because we don't have real reporters that will do real investigative journalism.
How can democracy be a Christian invention if the concept was first introduced in ancient Pagan Greece? Of course, democracy as we know it has evolved a lot, but it evolved from that ancient Greek concept.
"Horse" wrote:
you don't know anything about the shah, or islam apparently, because the Shah's first named was Mohammed, and he was a muslim.
The Shah donated $150,000 to the Republic of China for the construction of the Taipei Grand Mosque on Taiwan...
The Shah also went on Hajj to Mecca- this is a photo of him in prayer...
Don't spout out BS if you don't know about the subject.
.....................................
*Of course* Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was Muslim. But like so many Muslims, he just wasn't "Muslim enough".
It's not that the Christian West invented the notion. It's been advanced throughout history. I'll bet our cave-dwelling ancestors dabbled with the idea of voting.
Ancient Greece was certainly not the type of democracy we have today. The Spartan and Athenians who developed it did maintain one vote for one person, but not everyone could vote (slaves, indentured servants) and these votes were not always final. They had monarchs and over-ruling religious councils, much like Iran today.
ALL persons having exactly equal rights and opportunities and freedoms, and all getting just one vote to use however they want, THAT is pretty much a Christianity-based invention.
I'm not trying to Christian proselytize here, and not claiming that "true" democracy HAD to be birthed by Christianity, just saying that our current form of government was the natural result of Christ's philosophy, and thinking that anything similar could develop from Mohammed's teachings is ridiculous.
Counter-Jihadist hero. Anti-Dhimmi of the millenia!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPWSzZL19lM&feature=related
Prudery and control-freak behavior of the most intrusive and obnoxioius kind is just one more reason why Islam is doomed long term. Give Islam a chance to show its true colors and it will offend in so many ways, such as here. Just this week Muslims demonstrated yet another disgusting characteristic about themselves---killing people for burning a book.
In any case, and as Isabellathecrusader already mentioned, this isn't about true and sapient morality but rather about hypocritical lust and control by arguably the most immature and repulsive group of adults who walk the earth---devout Muslim males. Year by year the world en masse is learning more and more of what Islam really entails and means. No way the world en masse is going to put up with this shit dished out by Muslims much longer. It will take a few more decades perhaps for mankind to get entirely sick of Islam, but it's gonna' happen. And boy will the Western elites who have defended Islam to date look like total idiots come future history. A double delicious prospect---the demise of Islam and the ridicule of overeducated fools. Gonna' happen.
Seriously everyone, you need to get a load of this guy's videos ASAP. Don't make me ask DDA to give everyone a direct order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPWSzZL19lM&feature=related
I agree with you that democracy as we know it developed in a Christian environment, though greatly revitalized by the classical ideas of ancient Greek (including rationality), the re-introduction to which had started the Renaissance which led to the Enlightenment which led to the modern world. I took issue only with your statement that its roots are in Christianity. BTW, there used to be slavery in Christian democracies as well.
Anyway, Islam lacks also the depth of influence of the Greek classics even though it was influenced by them to a degree, as well as the religious concepts conductive to democracy, both of which are the foundations of Western culture, but not of Islamic culture, so democracy really is a foreign import to them. Just being a foreign idea doesn't necessarily mean it can't take root - all cultures incorporated foreign ideas, sometimes fundamentally (for instance, Christianity wasn't founded in Europe, yet Europe became a Christian continent, some Asian cultures did adopt democracy, and the Arabs did adopt nationalism, quite radically), but there should be ideological and cultural conditions that are conductive to it in some way or another.
Better yet, watch it from PART 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ_9CYVK_TU
OT
The 'dirty secret' of British arms sales to Libya just months before Gaddafi slaughtered pro-democracy protesters
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373444/Libya-The-dirty-secret-UK-arms-sales-Gaddafi.html#ixzz1IbWm2H7z
Wellington,
Islam may be doomed long term but everything is doomed in the long run. In the long run, we'll all be dead.
I fear the long term for Islam may be VERY long term for one reason: tyranny is usually better organized than freedom.
We are going broke fighting Islam. Look at the hoops we jump through to travel on a plane. The terrorists can strike at a time and place of their choosing. They watch us set up our defenses and plan the best way to get around them. We won't go on the offensive. Too many people have decided that life is dear enough and peace is sweet enough to have at the price of chains and slavery. We're not ruthless enough to fight Islam the way it needs to be fought. Islam may go down in the long term but it will cause a lot of pain and suffering before its end. The dustbin of history will be packed.
The Shah supported Pakistan during the 1965 war against India, and threatened the Soviet Union and India that if they tried to conquer Pakistan, he warned them that he would seek an alliance with China and Pakistan, to oppose both the Soviet-India alliance and the Arab bloc. (arab states were mostly pro soviet and allied to India, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are practically Indian client states.)
And China was an ally to Pakistan as well as an enemy of India, as well as possesing nuclear weapons, so the Shah believed that such an axis between China, Pakistan, and Iran would stop the India/Russian/Arab hegemony over Asia.
the United Arab Emirates AKA Untied A****** Emirates backed up India in all its wars including 1962 against China, but India got owned big time. The Indian rupee was used as currency in Kuwait and other Gulf arab states due to their close links with India. Bahrain was formerly part of the British Raj in India and even had Indian Hindu prime ministers.
India has a lot closer ties to Arab states than Pakistan does, it has defence and military treaties with Qatar and Oman, trade deals with UAE Kuwait Saudi and almost all of them. Pakistan has no such treaties or ties to Arab states like India does.
The Shah even spread rumors that Khomeini was an Indian, to discredit him in Iran.
A good article. So he says it's mostly a convergence of radical leftists and nationalists and, of course, Islamists, a bit short on the true liberal reformers. He also says Arabs politics are strange that way:
"Egyptian politics and Arab politics in general are often based on linkages that make strange bedfellows in Western terms. The neo-Marxist left contains strong Islamist and nationalist elements, as well as powerful anti-Western and anti-Israel sentiments. Islamists, precisely because they want to centralize power in the state, have socialist overtones. And people who seem liberal reformers often hold views quite distant from those of Western counterparts."
Well, the association between Islamism and neo-Marxism can't be regarded as strange to the West anymore, but that's a matter for other articles.
"Knowing that any direct association with the Brotherhood would discredit it in the eyes of many, the April 6 Youth Movement had an understanding with the Brotherhood. The two would cooperate and exchange information but the Brotherhood would not become too directly involved in the movement. Contrary to many reports, the Brotherhood was fully informed of the April 6 Youth Movement’s plan to start an anti-government uprising last January but held back so as not to taint the campaign and to avoid repression if the struggle fizzled or failed. Once it saw that the movement was succeeding, the Brotherhood joined in fully."
They sure succeeded in fooling the Western media. Interesting though if the Obamadmin was also fooled, or did they know exactly who and what they were supporting.
"It's the tiny female brain, you see - it can't handle too many things at once, apart from the washing up, cooking and cleaning..."
And lets not forget disciplining children.
OT
Bangladeshi Islamists strike over equality law
DHAKA, Bangladesh - Riot police patrolled the streets of the Bangladeshi capital on Monday as a strike called by Islamic parties to protest a proposed law favouring female equality brought much of the country to a halt.
The parties, known as the Islamic Law Implementation Committee, called the strike to protest against the government's move to pass laws ensuring equal property and inheritance rights for women in the Muslim-majority country.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/World/Story/A1Story20110404-271697.html
Bangladesh protest against women's rights left one dead
A student at an Islamic school in Bangladesh has been shot dead and at least 30 others injured during a demonstration against women's rights.
The protesters were marching through the south-western town of Jessore against moves by the government to ensure equal property rights for women.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12950866
"..to arrest those who commit immoral acts.."
Such as... Incest???
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/02/muhammad-and-incest-video.html
“Show me just what Prophet Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find ONLY IMMORAL ACTS.”
I admire his chutzpah.
Koran toilet paper is the kind of childish gesture that I'd expect from the kuranimals.
He's like many Americans whose instincts are telling them something is not on the up and up about islam/mohamamdans but they haven't taken the time to read islam's texts or study the history of islam so they lash out blindly and give the mohammadans and their liberal whores more "bigot! racist!" fodder. In their case when they scream "You hate because you're ignorant!" is partly true.
He has big cajones and I doubt I would have the intestinal fortitude to do what he's doing, but it's painful to watch especially when he tells the girl "3000 Americans killed and I'm tired of them threatening to kill us." I had to stop watching at that point.
The 9/11 mass murder is just too easily refuted by the apologists with the obligatory taqiyaa of "they (the terrorists)weren't real muslims!" What he needs to do is quote actual "crap" from the crap remover. And be clever about it like "It's soft, sometimes, but later it's a bit harsh (abrogation/point out Meccan surahs vs Medinan surahs)" or "It's completely absorbant but sometimes falls apart (and point out a few of it's many inconsistencies).
Sorry, but I just cringe at those who hate but don't know what and why they hate. Hate is not always born out of ignorance but hating and not being able to articulate beyond a sophmoric level makes one sound ignorant.
I don't hate they guy, I understand he's upset and he has many reasons to. I hope he does actually start to read his toilet paper and learns what all those reasons are.
I can't disagree with what you've said. His heart is in the right place, he just needs some fine tuning to better get the message across.
Actually in Part 3 he hit a few points talking with folks who chose to stroll with him a bit. He spoke about the mosques in New York as opposed to the number of churches in synagogues in Saudi. Granted he's not out there sounding like a scholar, but he expresses a few good and easily digestible points as part of his demonstration.
But I'm generally a fan of potty humor and things that shock the sheeple. And that he did. I also like to see some good exercising of the 1st Amendment.
I thought Saleem Smith would have appreciated it.
Miriam
No, I'm not Iranian, but racism? I'm the same race as Pakis & Bangladeshis, who I loathe even more than Iranians, so let's not bring race into this. I'm sorry that you had to live under the Savak, but it was the right treatment for the Muslims of Iran, who were definitely more Islamic than the Shah.
Also, when you said above that 'the death of Islam is very near in Iran', (click on your name above this post to see where) what else does that mean? It's only true if, @ the first possible opportunity, an overwhelming majority of Muslims in Iran - > 90% - switch from Islam to something else. You actually think that just if this regime goes, Islam is dead? Nothing even close, if the people of your country remain Muslims.
As for your other comment 'I have mentioned before the problem is not with muslims it is with Islam', that's one of the most ridiculous concepts out there, and yet, it's shared by too many people in the anti-Islamic movement, including this site. W/o Muslims, Islam would be nothing but a collection of absurd books in Arabic. If Muslims worldwide numbered just in the hundreds, Islam would be no more dangerous than the Moonies, or the Aum Shinku, or any of the hundreds of cults out there. It's Muslims who make it the threat it is, and it's the fact that there are 1.3 billion of them that makes the magnitude of that threat what it is. As long as you have Muslims in those numbers, they will remain a threat to the world. The day the number of Muslims worldwide can be counted not in the billions but in the thousands, then Islam will be only as much a threat as Communism today is. Trying to be anti-Islamic w/o being anti-Muslim, or being anti-Muslim w/o being anti-Islamic is an exercise in sophistry.
Horse
All the activities of the Shah that you describe, while unforgivable in today's world, were a part of his being in the CENTO, and a steadfast ally of the US. His support for Pakistan against India was more a reflection of his pro-US policy, rather than any Islamic streaks about him. If anything, he cracked down hard on Islamic forces in Iran, and it was only after Jimmy Carter leaned on him that things grew out of hand. And I never denied that he himself was Muslim, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he cracked down on Islam, like Ben Ali in Tunisia
Also, everything you wrote about India and its support to the Arabs is a thing of the past - under the very pro-Islamic Nehru, Indira Gandhi & Rajiv Gandhi. After their deaths, in 1991, after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, India saw how appreciative Arabs were for all those years of support, and that's when relations w/ Israel started warming up, and building. Yeah, India - b'cos of a misplaced concern about oil - still diplomatically votes w/ them in the UN, but there are differences - like in Durban in 2001, India refuses to vote for the conference resolution condemning Israel. There are no defense deals w/ Arab countries, even if there was in the past - the closest defense deals India has these days is w/ Israel, which has replaced even Russia as India's biggest defense partner.
Pakistan may not have defense agreements w/ Arab countries, and right now, reason for that is that they have their hands full, w/ troops mobilized against India, while pretending to fight a war against the Taliban.
"W/o Muslims, Islam would be nothing but a collection of absurd books in Arabic. If Muslims worldwide numbered just in the hundreds, Islam would be no more dangerous than the Moonies, or the Aum Shinku, or any of the hundreds of cults out there. It's Muslims who make it the threat it is, and it's the fact that there are 1.3 billion of them that makes the magnitude of that threat what it is."
You think just like I do.
johnmatt,
" On Al Jazeera, I've seen people say they don't want want they currently have, that they want elections, and that they want "freedom", "peace" and "justice" - those three words feature an awful lot with punters on the street."
I'm not completely sure what you mean in the first paragraph.
In the rest of your post, I think you are describing a constitutional republic based on elections, rather than a democracy. A democracy is based on a majority vote at any point in time. Our founding fathers were dead set against a democracy, because it provided no stability or structure for a government.
Instead, they created a republic with a constitution. The hallmark of a republic is that the majority will is not the highest authority: all laws and actions have got to be within the framework of the constitution. It is only within the framework of a republic that the right of the individual conscience is recognized. Jehovah's Witnesses are given the right to not pledge allegiance, and conscientious objectors for religious reasons are excused from the draft.
Sorry, since you are Iranian can I ask you a question?
How did the people of Iran swallow the fact that an Arab army brought Islam to them by Invasion?
That the Islamisation of Persia came togather with:
1.Destruction of a great Persian Empire, 2.Replacement of Persia being ruled by Persians by the rule of much more primitive Arab foreigners?
How did the Iranians deal with this historical facts?
That Islam, PMK, before its demise will cause a lot of pain and suffering is a guarantee. I think freedom will ultimately prevail but the cost for this will be enormous. The corner will truly have been turned when the vast majority in the West realize that Islam and freedom are absolutely incompatible. Not there yet. And let's hope you're wrong that there will be nothing left when it's all over.
Islam democracy..or democrazy..my arase..
I mean its just interesting, do they see it as a liberation from their own "jahilia" forfathers and are greatfull to the Arabs for conquering their country or do they use Shiism and its hatered for Omar, Khalid and co. to still somhow identifiing with the zoroastrian Persians?
I hered that Alexander the great is prytty much hated in Iran today (despite being called a prophet in the Koran), but how do Iranians see the first Muslims, who brutaly conquered their country?
your questions are excellent! first of all the reason the Arabs took us over was the last Persian king and his state were in dire shape. as for waht the Iranians feel. it is all over the place one might say. I think we were raped by the arabs and should send Islam back to Saudi Araibia!!
Thank you very much for the answer.
Sadly you must have misunderstood me because of my bad English.
I know of the 700 year long conflict between the Roman empire and the new Zoroastrian state that (despite first being ruled by a nomad Parthian elite) allways identified itself with old Persia and in a way with the old Babylonian high culture. It is one of the greatest struggles of anticuecy and is sadly strongly neglected by historians.
As an orthodox Christian I of course look at the whole thing more from a roman point of view, but in the end the conflict had no true victor and bouth eternal enemys had to face a new threat of a charakter unknown in the ancient world (with the exeption of the Jews, such a total theocratic system that knew no compromise, controlled all the human and was so clearly political and focused on conquest didnt exist in antiqecy and the Jews were isolationists, while the Muslims were imperialists). In the end bouth empires allied understanding the danger this new enemy posed, but it was sadly to late.......
My question is more how (not you personaly) but the people in Iran (were after all many people are devout muslims) come clear with the fact that Islam came to them with an foreign army, an army that forever obliterated a great Persian empire and subjugated Persia to the rule of a barbaric horde. Is it seen as liberation (as Khomeni wrote (despite him being a shiite who is not obliged to like Omar))? Or is it just not talked about and pretended that the Persians somhow themselvs accsepted Islam?
"Horse" wrote:
The Shah supported Pakistan during the 1965 war against India...
..............................
Nothing you wrote has any particular significance. As I said, the Shah was Muslim, but he wasn't "Islamic enough" in the eyes of so many of his rabid coreligionists.
So I understood you found my questions exellent, so can you please answer them?