SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46443)6/10/2004 6:03:08 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF  Respond to of 50167
 
Fatwas.com —Mai Yamani

No matter how much their countries’ rulers try to disown them, they cannot escape their creation. Globalisation and technology have given the disaffected a new homeland to profess Islam as they see it. In that Internet world, no authority has the ability to silence or satisfy them

Beheadings online, fatwas online: the subterranean world of Islam’s radical fringe can be found on countless Internet sites. These technologically sophisticated fanatics are able to reach a wide audience. But that audience exists because of the deep dissatisfaction and anger of so many young Muslims everywhere. The Internet has brought together a worldwide community of the alienated and the embittered.

The West thinks that this anger is a sign of some clash of civilisations: “us” against “them,” which implies that only one side can win. But the anger of young Muslims results primarily from revulsion at their corrupt leaders, and the subservience of these rulers to the United States. It is a bitterness rooted, in other words, in material causes, not in some fanatical, irrational, and anti-democratic sentiment whose adherents must either be re-educated or crushed.

The problem starts at the top of Muslim societies, not with the disaffected at the bottom. Muslim rulers have mostly failed to satisfy the needs of their populations. At the same time, in much of the Muslim world, authoritarian regimes typically attempt to control and propagate exclusionary forms of Islamic dogma.

For many years, these regimes — whether the Shia of Iran or the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia — succeeded in suppressing pluralism and individuality. But, as their regimes increasingly came to be seen as politically illegitimate, their model of Islam was also discredited. So the disappointed and disaffected search for an Islam that meets their expectations.

For the many Web sites that attract these disaffected people, it helps that no central authority exists today for the Muslim umma (the world community of Islam). By humiliating, degrading and outlawing any Islamic tendency that disagreed with the prevailing dogma, authoritarian regimes did not eliminate pluralism, but merely sent it underground. Today’s technology allows that underground to speak and meet.

In the face of repression, Internet Islam appears to speak with authentic authority. But Islam has traditionally always been pluralistic and tolerant of differences. The Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib said, “Our strength lies in our differences.” For over a thousand years, under Mecca’s traditional rulers, the Hashemite descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, all sects debated and exchanged knowledge in the Great Mosque.

Indeed, prior to Saudi/Wahhabi rule in 1932, Mecca was cosmopolitan and open. Adherents of the four Sunni schools of thought, as well as the Shia, the Zaydis, the Ismaelis, etc., and those of different origins and races — Indians, Central Asians, Persians, Moroccans, Africans, and Turks — all recognised their differences but could identify with the one source, the Koran.

But the Wahhabis tried to appropriate Mecca for their own version of Islam, and to export their exclusionary doctrine. For a while they succeeded. Today, however, we are witnessing the failure of the Wahhabi project to monopolise Islam. Fatwas of the type issued by the highest Wahhabi cleric, Bin Baz, such as the notorious one before the first Gulf War declaring the Earth to be flat, have, unsurprisingly, lost their authority and credibility. Ignorance, combined with the wider corruption and hypocrisy of the regime, emptied these religious rulings of meaning.

What has followed is the hijacking of Islam by radical angry men raised on Wahhabi dogma but disillusioned with the world they inherited. Fatwas promulgated after Bin Baz are almost always horrendous in their intolerance and virulence, and certainly appear backward and anti-modernist. They clash not only with the West, but with the golden age of Islam, when Muslim astronomers, mathematicians, physicians, philosophers and poets flourished. Although the Internet appears to be renewing Islamic pluralism, today’s online fatwas are non-negotiable orders, not a call for fresh creativity.

Hundreds of websites now compete to be the new Mecca, the place where all devout Muslims turn for guidance. The most extreme preach the ideas of Al Qaeda and their ideological brethren. These include the haunting celebration of a young man’s imminent martyrdom by suicide bombing, while other websites, although less violent, have widened the scope of sin to include learning English, studying science, and giving women access to the Internet without a male guardian present.

Fatwas online harbour animosity not only towards the West, but also toward other Muslims. Wahhabi clerics, for example, call for jihad against the Shia “heretics” promising the rewards of heaven. Most of these fatwas have a violent streak that the Saudi establishment is quick to dismiss as belonging to the Middle Ages. The fact is, however, that these fanatics are a modern phenomenon, a creation of the Muslim world’s failed political systems, and a stark reminder of the price of long years of repression.

Far from disappearing, the repressed are returning from underground in grotesque forms to haunt the world they grew up in. No matter how much their countries’ rulers try to disown them, they cannot escape their creation. Globalisation and technology have given the disaffected a new homeland to profess Islam as they see it. In that Internet world, no authority has the ability to silence or satisfy them. —DT-PS

Mai Yamani is an author and Research Fellow at the Royal Institute for International Affairs



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46443)6/10/2004 6:59:59 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 50167
 
President Bush on CNN said something very close to <The establishment of a pluralist society in Iraq which respects the rights of minorities will compel other states in the region to follow suit

Political freedom in Iraq will shake the foundations of the political systems in the entire Middle East. Once the idols fall

Iqbal Latif
22/4/2003> That was the reason of war!!



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46443)6/11/2004 9:36:48 AM
From: malibuca  Respond to of 50167
 
Iraq is the centre of the Muslim and Arab world. The establishment of a pluralist society in Iraq which respects the rights of minorities will compel other states in the region to follow suit

Hogwash!

This the type of unadulterated garbage that got us into this war.

The belief that IF Iraq were democratized – and that is a very big if – somehow all the other Muslim nations in the Middle East and the world would follow suit.

Never mind, that the Bush administration has now accepted that the Iraq may end up being a theocracy – a far cry from the pluralist society that you saw as being inevitable.



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46443)6/11/2004 9:49:05 AM
From: malibuca  Respond to of 50167
 
Talk about chutzpah!

Iraq is the centre of the Muslim and Arab world. The establishment of a pluralist society in Iraq which respects the rights of minorities will compel other states in the region to follow suit

Given, your country's record when it comes to the appalling treatment of religious minorities, womens' rights and other structural problems, I would think that you would want to focus on accomplishing changes in your country.



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46443)6/11/2004 10:01:45 AM
From: malibuca  Respond to of 50167
 
WMD for me was never an issue in Iraq...

WMD and the imminent threat that Iraq posed were the primary grounds that Bush presented as being the reasons why we needed to go to war – and for which over 800 of our young men and women have given up their lives.

In a dictatorship such as exists in your country, the leaders can lie with impunity and get away with it since the people have no say in the final outcome.

In a democracy such as we have, there is accountability and the people have the right to hold its elected leaders responsible, if they so choose.

Comprende?