Raid Khoury – Iran, Palestine and the Arab Nationalists: a response to Rime Allaf
By Guest Post • Jul 3rd, 2009 at 15:54 • Category: Analysis, Culture and Heritage, Features, Israel, Newswire, Palestine, Religion, Resistance, Somoud: Arab Voices of Resistance, War, Zionism
In the June 25 edition of "Bitterlemons.org", Rime Allaf lashes out at Arab nationalists for what she perceives is their support of Ahmadinajad and the repressive Iranian regime. Allaf is simply wrong. The one group of Arabs which has not supported Ahmadinajad or the ruling theocracy in Tehran is the Arab nationalists, a position dating back to the rise of Khomeini and the establishment of the "Islamic" republic. This position has placed the Arab nationalists at odds with members of virtually every other ideological camp in the Arab world from the far left to the Islamic right whose rise to dominance, after decades in which secular Arab nationalism and the Left dominated Arab public discourse, lead opposition movements, and carried the banner of Palestinian liberation, is traced back to the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Allaf begins by repeating the politically convenient, revisionist version of history whereby the Iran-Iraq war is narrated as a proxy war waged by Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Western powers against a revolutionary Iran, and supported by the predominantly hostile Arab regimes. Pointing out that apart from Syria (ironically the only Arab nationalist regime at the official and rhetorical level although the Syrian regime's espousal of Arab nationalism is similar to modern China's relationship with Karl Marx) which welcomed the fall of the Shah, Allaf expressed her understanding, due to the official Arab response to the establishment of the "Islamic" republic, that it's "No wonder the Iranians didn't warm to their neighborhood." So the writer begins by criticizing Arab regimes for not initially striking a friendlier posture towards the new Iran, but by the end of her piece she is found criticizing the enduring "popular Arab support for Ahmadinajad" which for many Iranians remains "unpalatable and unforgiveable." So which is it? Was the official Arab response which, given the disparity between official regime policies and Arab public opinion must always be distinguished, at fault for not welcoming the Khomeini revolution or is the continuing Arab popular support for Ahmadinajad, the embodiment of that revolution's ideology and tactics, at fault today?
The model of religion and politics Khomeini established, and which the regime's thugs are now maintaining through brutally coercive measures, has captured the imagination of many in the Arab world, but none of them can be labeled Arab nationalists. In addition to the basic ideological incompatibility between a religious fanaticism and a secular Arab nationalism which rejects the role of the clerical establishment in the promulgation of laws and the administration of the state, Arab nationalists were the first to recognize the threat of the expansionist Khomeini regime to the Arab world, Iraq in particular. This threat was not merely ideological as Allaf suggests when she writes "Arab wariness stemmed less from the fact of the Iranian revolution than the banner under which it was fought" nor was it a hypothetical threat born out of the imagination of anti-Persian, "Arab chauvinists", an accusation often hurled by those Arabs who actually supported the Iranian theocracy, and remain enthralled by its Islamic rhetoric today. This threat which Arab supporters of Iran refused to acknowledge at the time was very real, and imminently dangerous to Iraq, and one which subsequent events, especially since 2003, have tragically demonstrated. Eight years of bloody war and decades of meddling failed to achieve for Iran its declared objectives which included extending its dominion into Iraq in the name of an Islamic revolution and ideology that recognized no international borders. It was only under the cover of a US military invasion that Iran secured for itself a dominant role in Iraq. Who can forget the sight of Ahmadinajad in Baghdad visiting Iran's proxies and representatives in the Green Zone Administration under a blanket of security and hospitality provided by the "Great Satan's" military occupation?
When Khomeini instigated the Iraq-Iran war back in the 1980's, it was only the Arab Nationalists that sided with Iraq correctly viewing the war as a defense of a strategic Arab state bordering a now provocative, aggressive, and self-proclaimed expansionist Eastern neighbor that openly made claims on Iraqi territory, repeatedly expressed its intentions of "liberating" Iraq by toppling the "infidel" regime, and engaged in a series of hostile acts including violations of Iraqi territory and airspace, bombings of border villages, kidnappings, sabotage, attacks on Iraqi police patrols, radio broadcasts beamed into Iraq inciting rebellion, and a terrorist campaign deep into Iraq which lead to the deaths of dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians. It was the Arab nationalists that recognized the emerging threat the new Iranian regime posed to Iraq and the Arab world, a position which Islamists, leftists, liberals, and the PLO leadership (HAMAS leaders are today pursuing a similarly short-sighted and flawed policy towards Iran) condemned as support for Western proxy wars against a revolutionary Iran that shut down the Israeli embassy in Tehran, adopted the cause of Palestinian liberation, and was the Arabs' natural Islamic ally in the face of Zionism and US Imperialism. The financial support of the Iraqi war effort by oil-rich, US-client states in the Gulf was offered as "proof" that Arabs who opposed the new Iranian regime were indeed collaborating, or at least tacitly allied, with the Western imperialist powers. Yet these political simpletons (or worse) deliberately fail to mention the Arab oil Sheikhs that have been conspiring with the West against Arab nationalists, and all progressive movements in the Arab world since the days of Gamal Abdul-Nasser, are mere conduits for Western powers, pliant tools with no independent foreign policy of their own. These US clients enjoyed excellent relations with the Pro-West Shah, and turned on Iran only after his overthrow, forcing them to adjust their behavior to the new reality according US instructions. The policy of these US clients was disingenuously juxtaposed with the support, motivated by an entirely unrelated set of factors and considerations, first, and foremost the very real danger of an Iranian advance into Iraq, Arab nationalists gave to Iraq irrespective of any other world powers' cynical manipulation of the conflict.
In criticizing Arab support for the Iranian regime Allaf writes that "Arab nationalists, and Arab liberals to a certain extent, have a serious problem. With the noble causes they espouse, they should technically be equally critical of such regimes. And yet, because of the Iranian regimes staunch support for Palestinian groups and for the Palestinian cause in general, many Arabs have spared Ahmadinezhad and his regime from the stinging reproaches they extend to other rulers." Here Allaf raises a critical issue that Arabs of all political persuasions need to address. However, in raising this important dilemma Allaf makes two fundamental errors.
First, the continuing, 60-year, Palestinian Nakba is qualitatively different than the plight of any other people in the region both in its magnitude and duration, and not, as she described, merely a matter of "worst conditions." A more reasonable contrast to be drawn would have been between the Iranian regime and the Arab tyrannies found in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and by this comparison the Iranian people are living under a relatively more democratic, less repressive system of government. The perceived support for the Palestinian cause and the modicum of democracy (relative to the Arab regimes) the Iranians exercise does explain, although does not justify, many Arabs' willingness to overlook what is happening in Iran today. I won't spend much time on the thoroughly discredited Arab liberals. This particular group amounts to a handful of pseudo-intellectuals and journalists on the Saudi payroll dividing their time between defending Pro-US dictatorships (including their main sponsor, the fanatical Saudi/Wahabi regime) and attacking any form of Arab resistance to American-Israeli wars in the region. I would point out this is one faction which has not ignored the Iranian regime's oppressive policies and has predictably adopted the hypocritical American position on democracy and Human Rights in dealing with events in Iran.
Nevertheless, Allaf has raised a very important issue when she criticizes those who turn a blind eye to unsavory regimes as long as they express support for the Palestinian cause and presents a very important question: "Is the enemy of our enemy necessarily our friend, regardless of other factors?" "Have we become so desperate for support for the Palestinian cause that we would become bedfellows with the least savory of characters" In the case of Iran that question should be presented as follows: is the apparent enemy of our enemy necessarily a friend, regardless of other factors? The answer should be "no" in both cases, of course, but the writer fails to recognize the Arab nationalists are the one group who consistently rejected such a political formulation and have been frustrated by the support the Iranian regime enjoys among a politically diverse and significant segment of Arab public opinion willing to also turn a blind eye to Iranian behavior in Iraq.
Second, Allaf asserts an equally flawed political formulation herself when she writes "There must come a point when supporters of freedom for Palestinians, under a brutal military occupation and living in much worse conditions than most people, must take the same stand for others, even if the latter live in relatively milder conditions. Until then, we must not be surprised when Iranians, like Iraqis before them, stop caring about fundamental causes, no matter how righteous." The Palestinian cause was never very popular among the Iranian people and has historically enjoyed more support in Berlin, London, Paris, and Rome than it has in Tehran, but who said the Iraqis have stopped caring about the Palestinian cause? And what evidence does Allaf offer for this assertion? More importantly must be the recognition that the Palestinian cause of Arab liberation is first, and foremost, a universal, morally compelling cause the support of which is not contingent upon the behavior of any political group including the Palestinian leadership itself.
Secular Arab nationalists rejected the inherently undemocratic Iranian model of religion and politics in the organization of a modern state, and were never swept away with the simplistic Islamic sloganeering emanating out of Khomeini's Iran, and whose echoes are heard today in the public announcements of Ahmadinajad. They also rejected the empty and counterproductive rhetoric that cast the Palestinian cause in a medieval, religious framework (long before Samuel Huntington's famous essay was published) advocating a worldview that has much in common with the Zionist perspective and has contributed far more to Israel's cause and propaganda efforts than it has to Palestinian liberation. Arab Nationalists were also never impressed with the anti-Zionist credentials of the Mullahs and often wondered why Israel's support of Iran in the 1980s war is so often overlooked by the typically hypocritical Islamists, and an Arab left whose hatred of the secular, nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein (ostensibly on democratic and Human Rights grounds) and admiration for a repressive theocracy in Iran remains a mystifying contradiction. It is within these two camps, polar opposites on the political spectrum, yet both with an ideological axe to grind with Arab Nationalism, that the greatest support among Arabs for Ahmadinajad and the Iranian regime has been found, not among the Arab nationalists.
Allaf raises legitimate concerns and criticism that deserve the attention of all those committed to the defeat of the Zionist project, the liberation of Palestine, and a single, non-politicized, International standard of democracy and Human Rights, but much of her disapproval regarding Arab support for the Iranian regime was pointed in the wrong direction.
Raid Khoury can be reached at raidkhoury@yahoo.com
Guest Post is the author as indicated in the tagline. He/she (or the source that is indicated within the post) reserves the rights to the material published.
Email this author | All posts by Guest Post
[...] more from the original source: Raid Khoury – Iran, Palestine and the Arab Nationalists: a … Tags: although-does, modicum, overlook-what, support-for [...]
[...] The rest is here: Raid Khoury – Iran, Palestine and the Arab Nationalists: a … [...]
First of all – there is more theoratic Arab regime in Saudi Arabia than in Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the Saudi regime is as much hypocrite as the rest of the Arab nationalist regimes. These corrupt and liars while voice their support for Arab Palestinians – always prefer to sleep with USrael.
Now as far as who are the real human rights abusers – I would like the reader to be the judge of that….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/the-human-rights-abusers/
After reading this article, I feel I know LESS about the subject of Arab nationalism and its relation to Islamist regimes — Arab or non-Arab — than I knew before I read it!
One thing I did learn is that the author is an Arab nationalist, but not an anti-imperialist. Concretely, his advocacy of "a single, non-politicized, International standard of democracy and Human Rights" is empty rhetoric that serves imperialism.
Great article. I understood it fine so I cant understand why it confused you. The writer came across as dedicated to Arab freedom and democracy. Iran is looking out for Iran and now the Arab should look at for the Arabs.
The real Arab Nationalists are in a fight for their lives. They have better things to do than waste an ounce of energy on their (most likely) would-be assasins.
When the overwhelming population in Iran branded the late Ayatollah as their savior the Shah threw him out of the country. Where did he go and who paid the bill? How many years did he spend there? What did he do after the revolution? Iraq, 14 years, tried to add Iraq to the Islamic Republic.
The Farsi masses are once again branding another savior. Now, who can assure us that a potential change- of -the -guards in Iran (whatever form it may take) will deliver a less hostile stand against anything Arabic?
Iranians will do what is good for Iran, and everything else you think you see is just a smoke screen.
If playing the Palestinian card and using the support of resistance as a smoke screen is such a beneficial strategy for Iran, then I'm confused why no other government (including the most opportunist ones) gives it a try?
What befalls on us (the Muslim nations) is due to divisions among us and pursuing secular nationalist stances surely gives rise to these divisions.
extremely poisonous writings of Layla Anwar, for example, illustrates how destructive this kind of discource can become. Just take a look at this and judge for yourself:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m55622
@Ali –
Ali, therer is no such thing as a "muslim nations" Islam is a religion and does not form one single group or nation of people. This is the thinking of backward people and this is why the Arab world will remain under occupation in Palestine and Iraq. Secular thinking is not "western" or "eastern", It is simply democracy where people vote and pick their leaders and are not ruled by religious figures. thats all. you can still be a Muslim if you want in a secular system, but if its not secular what do you want? You want an Islamic system? What's that? Like Iran? The Taliban? The brotherhood in egypt? Or the Saudi regime? Also remember the Arab nation has many different people other than Muslims. What about the Christians in the Arabworld? They are also arabs. Iran is a Muslim country but not Arab and they are using religion to expans their influence. They are as much an enemy of Arabs as the Israelis. Keep your religion to yourself and do not bring it into politics. That is the only way to move forward.
@Mazen
Dear Mazen,
By "Muslim nations" I mean different nations with a Muslim majority. We should work on our common interests that unites us. One of these common interests is the pursuit of Islamic values, which has enriched our societies throughout centuries.
People become Iraqis, Iranians or Egyptians by being born in Iraq, Iran or Egypt respectively. You cannot decide your nationality. So, there is no honour (absolutely no honour) in being an Iraqi, Iranian or Egyptian (though it may have implications).
Although many people's religion is determined by the family in which they are born, religion is decidable. Religion is both a system of values and a way of life. You can choose your religion based on your preferred system of values and lifestyle. You can change your religion, but you cannot change your birthplace and your nationality.
What formed the Europian Union, was Europian countries common regional interests, common values and common lifestyle.
We can have United Muslim Nations, or Muslim Nations Union, based on our common interests in which, religion plays a pivotal role.
But secular nationalism comes as a barrier to our unity and gives rise to the divisions among us. Prophet Mohammed and the "kholafa" after him where leaders of Muslim people and their leadership and the rules upon which they acted were based on Islam. If the prophets had acted upon your advice we would have no religion to be followed by people in a secular society as you suggested.
You wrote: Iranians "are as much an enemy of Arabs as the Israelis". This is a very good example of poisonous ideas promoted and encouraged by those who are afraid of Muslims' unity.
And what do you mean by being an "Arab". Being born and raised in an Arabic speaking society perhaps? Centuries ago Iranians wrote and to some extent spoke Arabic. Did it make them Arabs? By your own standards we do not have such thing as "Arab Nations". In Iran, we have Persian speaking, Kurdish speaking, Turkish speaking and also Arabic speaking people. You may call them Persians, Kurds, Turks and Arabs, but they are all Iranians.
Take Care,
Your muslim brother,
Ali
I know of a Raid Khoury from a Jordanian father and a Palestinian mother who was born and raised in California. I am not sure if he is article’s writer.
This man, Mr. Ali, will call you his brother (even if you were not Arabic) and will be happy to fight your Islamic fight if your freedom to worship and believe was ever threatened. Furthermore, the core issue in the struggle to deliver the Palestinians from the wrath of occupation is Zionism. When I read your comments I quickly equated it with Zionist ideas where “I am a Jew. I am better than you. Therefore I should control you” is the applied principle.
Being an Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Egyptian and so on is secular nationalism. I agree with your point of “(absolutely no honour)” in being as such. But there is an honor in being an Arab because, as you said of the European Union, there is “common regional interests, common values and common lifestyle.”, and let me sum it as a common “Arabic” culture that existed far before the seventh century.
But you neglected to mention that religion does not play a role, let alone pivotal, in the European Union’s decision making ( although it might on the ballots of individual voters)for there are various faiths within it where Islam is one of the major others. The underlying rule in Democracy is the protection of minority rights from majority infringements, therefore, to deny a minority religious group it’s full and unconditional rights is undemocratic, and goes against the Union’s core values.
Once again, I reiterate that Arab nationalists’ doctrine is compatible with democratic values more so than any political elements of any religions. It unifies more aspects of societal functions for better coexistence with other peoples (American, European, Persian, Turkish,…).
In conclusion, put back you sword in its chamber Mr. Ali and afford all people the mutual and leveled respect based on peaceful interactions rather than which faith they belong to.
@Abu Rami
You introduced words like "Islamic fight" and "sword" to this conversation. Did any of points I tried to make, imply violence?
There is "absolutely no honour" in being a Turk, Kurd, Arab or Persian, because that's decided for you by chance and long before your consciousness is formed. Being as such has implications. But surely there is honour in behaving upon a morally justified system of values (think of an atheist choosing his/her way of life and preferences for moral reasons not coming from any form of religious belief).
I didn't prescribe behaving in accordance to a specific religion for the world population. But Muslim nations can (should) take advantage of their common religion to form the unity they lack. You cannot deny or underestimate Islam's potential in resolving divisions among us created by nationalist attitudes of some of our leaders.
Liberal democracy is not an official religion, but it has its own believers and followers, some of whom are dogmatically trying to export it to other nations, even through wars. So secular societies' freedom from dogma is not a reality.
@Ali –
Ali,
You really sound like you are living in the 7th century. You need to move forward. Religion is not a form of government. You say "there is no honor in being….." So there is honor in being a Muslim? You are also born into your religion just as you are born into a country. So does that mean that Hindus or Budhists have no honor? All human beings of all nationalities and religion are honorable people. You talk about Muslims pursuing their common interest? What common interest? What common interest does an Indoensian have with a Palestinian? You talk about "pursuing common Islamic values" Is this what this is all about? Pursuiing Islamic values? And how do we pursue Islamic values? How does a Pakistani pursue Islamic values? and how does he pursue Islamic values with an Egyptian? This is nonsense my friend. Also keep in mind that morality and values are common to all religions. Religions have different doctrines but the values and morality of Islam are the same as the morality and values of Christians, Budhists, and others.
This is not about religion. This is about a common national projects and Arabs need to unite and pursue a national liberation project. This is about the liberation of Iraq and Palestine. You oppose what you call secular nationalism, but you want to unite all the Muslims! Why are you opposed to uniting Arabs together but want to unite all the Muslims? I think you have a problem with the Arab identity and the Arab people. And if you want to unite the Muslims, why not start with Arab unity? Aren't the Arabs mostly Muslim people? Why not unite the Arabs from Morocco to the gulf as a first step? And then you can move on to Muslim unity from Casablanca to Jakarta. Its interesting you want to unite over a billion muslims from different parts of the world, but you oppose the unity of Arabs who speak the same language, and live in the same area. You mention the European Union. Im sure you probably think this is a "Christian European unity" even though you didnt say it. Europe united as individual states each with its own language, history and identity. Its not a Christian unity because the US, Canada, Mexico, and all of Latin America, and Russia are not part of it. The example of Europe should be applied to the arab states. They should unite and work together.
Finally, you are a little confused. You do not understand the difference between a Nation and a state. yes we have a kuwait, jordanian, and Lebanese state but there is not kuwaiti nation or a lebanese nation or a jordanian nation. There is an Arab nation. The arab nation is divided into states because it was divided by the western powers to weaken the Arabs. Dont confuse nations with states. States come and go but nations are alive.
There are standard human values set forth through the years by ancient thinkers that shaped the world you live in now. You can find them in believers and non believers’ societies. What you fail to recognize is that societies were formed first by nationalistic ideas not religious ones. So, you are mistaken when you strip Nationalism of its contribution to “morally justified system of values” as you noted. Our leaders are trying to form micro-nationalistic societies in individual Arab states to control the ambition of the masses to create a viable Arabic entity. The Zionists are doing the same thing by referring to us as Palestinians, Iraqis, Jordanians, and so on rather than “Arabs”. You can find the wisdom behind this approach just by examining the pathetic clout Arab Americans enjoy at all levels of the U.S. political process.
I understand the delirium you live in. It is restricting you from understanding other views as it is restraining me from being completely forthcoming with you. Good Luck.
My dear friends,
Mazen and Abu Rami,
Once again both of you fail to understand the point I'm trying to make. I'm not opposed to Arab unity at all (as you pretend I am). I believe that common religion (Islam in the case of Arabs) plays a pivotal role in uniting masses.
Secular nationalism is what you prescribe for Arabs, but keep in mind that if the prophets had taken your advice seriously, we wouldn't have religions to talk about. Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H.) brought a message from God. Was the message sent just for Arabs? No! the message was a universal one, And I'm happy my ancestors were among the receivers of that message.
Mazen wrote:
"Im sure you probably think this is a "Christian European unity" even though you didnt say it."
Contrary to what you think, I meant exactly the opposite. Europeans seem to be happy for getting rid of religion's involvement in political, economical and scientific issues. They have their own reasons for behaving the way they behave. But that does not mean that Muslims should follow the same path. Europeans' refusal to take advantage of their common religion does not mean that we are obliged to do the same.
Arabs and some of israelis have common origins. They are all semites. Does that mean they can unite? Theoretically yes!
Mazen wrote:
"What common interest does an Indoensian have with a Palestinian?"
A jew, regardless of his/her nationality and country of residence, can claim his/her share of the holy land. jews of different nationalities, ethnicities and skin color are living in occupied Palestine. Suppose that they would argue (like you) that "what common interest does an ethiopean jew have with an Iraqi jew?" Yes they formed an occupying state and their unity came at the expense of Palestinians.
Mazen wrote:
"You are also born into your religion just as you are born into a country. So does that mean that Hindus or Budhists have no honor?"
I talked about religion in general and Islam specifically in the case of Arabs and other Muslim nations.
This is what I wrote in my previous comment:
"There is "absolutely no honour" in being a Turk, Kurd, Arab or Persian, because that's decided for you by chance and long before your consciousness is formed. Being as such has implications. But surely there is honour in behaving upon a morally justified system of values (think of an atheist choosing his/her way of life and preferences for moral reasons not coming from any form of religious belief)".
I didn't even exclude an atheist from being honoured for the way he/she behaves and moral grounds that decide his/her preferences. But is it really important what nationality this atheist comes from?
We have a poem in persian, a rough translation of which would be like this:
There are many examples of a Hindu and a Turk that understand each other
There are many examples of two Turks being like strangers
So, mutual undestanding is something special
And that's more valuable than speaking the same language
Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali
@Ali –
Ali, its very difficult to have any discussion with you if you keep living in the 7th century. You raise alot of slogans about Islam that mean absolutely nothing at all. What worked in the 7th century is not something that has any applicablity to modern life. Islam is a religion like all other religions it is universal, but when you raise a slogan like "Muslim unity" it means absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Modern life is formed around a state. Do you believe in a state? Or what? You still have not told us what you mean when you talk about Muslim unity and government? Do you mean like Iran and wilayit al faqih? Or the Taliban? Or the Muslim brotherhood approach? Or do you want a new caliphate? You cannot tell us because you do not know yourself. Its just a slogan. But when I talk about secularism I know exactly what I am talking about. Dont mix secularism with Arab nationalism. These are two different things. When I say secular it means I am calling for a secular state with democarcy, human rights, freedom, and one person one vote system. Its clear what Im talking about. That does NOT MEAN A SECULAR SOCIETY THAT FIGHTS RELIGION. Society can still be Muslim and people will remain Muslims and practice their religion as they please. I am advocating a free democratic state based on democracy and everyone knows what that means. Nobody knows what you or anyone else means when they refer to an "Islamic" government. If what you mean is what you have in Iran, no thank you! Keep your wilayit al faqih and the Khomeini system. We dont want it. We want a modern democratic system which is NOT incompatible with Islam contrary to what you think .
Second, Arab Nationalism is not a form of government. Arab nationalism is simply our identity. We are Arabs, we are not Turks, Persians, or Pakistanis. We live in one geographic area and speak one language, have one culture, one history, and one future together. It is in our interest to build a strong unifited Arab world. This does not mean we do not want friendly relations with Iran or Turkey or others. In the end we are all human beings, part of one human family and the whole world is our common home. But we do need to unite as Arabs. Its simply silly to call for unity between Morocco and Pakistan or Egypt and Indonesia. Thats absurd. And I already mentioned that any reference to an "Islamic government" is meaningless. Again, you cant tell us what that means.
YOU SAY: Europeans' refusal to take advantage of their common religion does not mean that we are obliged to do the same.
What does that mean? Again, this is meaningless. It has no definition. Do you want to eliminate all borders between Casablanca and Jakarta? Nobody knows what this means. Again, you need to live in the modern world not the ancient world of prophets. Your religion is your own personal private realm, you have freedom to practive your religion as you like, but this is not something to base modern world politics on. You simply need to live in the modern world.
YOU SAY: I believe that common religion (Islam in the case of Arabs) plays a pivotal role in uniting masses.
Sure, I agree to a point. Religion also played a role in unting Russia under the Orthodox Christian faith, and the same for the serbians. Religion can play a role. Now imagine what role it can play for the Arabs who are 90% Muslim Sunnis. The Prophet was an Arab, he spoke Arabic, the Koran is in our language, and we carried the message of Islam to the rest of the world. Im sure you read about the battle of al-Qadisiya. And not only that, but they also share a common history, language, culture, and geography. Its not just religion that unites them, but they are untied in every way also. In fact, there is notthing that separates them. So again, we are looking for Arab Unity. You want to deny the Arab identity adn jump to an Islamic idenity and erase the Arabs and have them melt into the Muslim World. That will never happen. Its simply crazy to think you can unite all the Muslims into one group or one state. We can have friendly relations, visit, exchange, tour each other countires, work on common issues, but thsi has to be based on a modern state to state relationsship.
And I know for a fact that Persians, the closest non-Arab Muslims do not like us Arabs very much. And many of them are very chauvinist towards the "desert bedouin Arabs". Many Persians still like to curse the Sahaba of the prophet. And many make pilgrimages to the grave of Abu Lulula who killed Sayidna Omar. And in the recent protests many Iranians were protesting Ahmadinajad for taking a stance on Palestine. They said "mardom chera neshastin, Iran shode Felestin!" (People, why are you sitting down? Iran has become Palestine!").
Lets be serious Ali. Lets live in the modern world. The modern world must be based on human rights, democracy, and rule of law, not on religion. For us Arabs, we also need to work towards unity and overcome the division that was imposed on us by western powers. Of course we can always work together and have good relations. But the days of a "caliphate" are over.
Finally, you mention Jews. Arab jews have lived with us for centuries with no problems. They are not our enemies. In a democratic state they will have one vote like every other citizen and so will the Arab christians, and I think the writer of this article was a christian from the name, Im not sure. And they wiill have equal rights and freedom of religion.
This does not apply to Zionists. Zionists are european settlers who have no right to be in Palestine. Palestine will be liberated and become part of the Arab world again.
@Mazen
Dear Mazen,
I don't care if you label me as a backward thinker living in 7th century, sticking to slogans originating from ancient traditions and opposing modernity, simply because I'm not what you have made of me in your mind.
All of us should be aware of westerners' contribution to the well being of mankind, as we should keep in mind the Islamic era scholars' contribution as well.
I never claimed to have found a final solution for how to form an Islamic establishment. Sure, Iran is not a country in which angels are ruled by other angels.
About 33 years ago the last king of Iran (Mohammadreza the Pahlavi King) replaced the solar hijri calendar with a Persian Kingdom calendar as a nationalist gesture. So, instead of year 1355 (solar hijri) we would have 2535 (Persian Kingdom). This change of calendars caused a great deal of criticism among Iranians. As a result the King was only able to maintain his preferred calendar for about 2 years.
as I mentioned before and you refused to notice, I'm not opposed to "Arab unity" . You wrote:
"You want to deny the Arab identity and jump to an Islamic identity and erase the Arabs and have them melt into the Muslim World. That will never happen. Its simply crazy to think you can unite all the Muslims into one group or one state."
"Arab unity" or "Muslim unity" does not necessarily mean "to eliminate the borders between Arab or Muslim states".
If on 27 December 2008 Arab league member states had requested an emergency meeting and held it the other day and concrete results had come out of that meeting (which would be to the benfit of our Palestinian brothers and sisters) I would have call it a sign of Arab unity for sure.
If the same thing had happened for the ICO (Islamic Conference Organization) I would have call it a sign of Muslim unity.
If an strategic alliance between Arab or Muslim states, that share common interests, enables them to take similar and powerful stances on the most important issues they come across, it will be interpreted as no less than Arab or Muslim unity.
Secularism separates religion from politics and state. As a result, religion (Islam in the case of Arab or Muslim majority states) will become paralyzed in playing its role to unite those states.
You argued that under a secular regime one could still keep and practice his/her religion. How generous an offer!
You are a good Muslim as long as you restrict your religious tendencies to:
- Praying 5 times a day (I'm sure you will remain as good, in case you increase it to 50 times a day)
- Holding your marriage ceremonies, funerals and the like, based on Islamic traditions
- Burying the dead while obeying all Islamic rules about burial and taking the Qiblah direction into account
- Paying "khoms" and "zakat"
- Fasting in Ramadan (no one cares if you fast all year long)
- Using halal slaughter and paying attention to the Qiblah direction in the process
- Going to hajj at least once in your lifetime (you will face no objection if you go to hajj every year)
and so on and so forth.
But all hell will break loose if your religious tendencies inspires you to take part in an Islamic political movement. You will be labeled a fanatic fundamentalist, a backward thinker or even a potential terrorist.
Let me agree with you on one point. Many religious political movements have gone the wrong way and ended in catastrophe. But that does not necessarily mean that religion is incapable of laying down the foundations of a just, moral and progressive system of governance. Also keep in mind that non-religious political movements have done no better (if not worse).
You wrote:
"When I say secular it means I am calling for a secular state with democracy, human rights, freedom, and one person one vote system."
That's a beautiful dream which may come true only in utopia. These terms sound great:
- Democracy
- Human rights
- Freedom
- One person one vote system
But wake up my friend. Look around you and wake up to the real world. Instead of all these beautiful terms we have got "Mediacracy". Media are capable of manipulating public opinion in favor of their owners.
Virtually EVERYONE in the world was informed of a "human rights violation in Iran" when the late Neda Agha-Soltan was murdered by an unidentified shooter. But virtually NO ONE knows the story of the late Bassem Abu Rahmeh, a Palestinian who was murdered when a tear-gas canister fired by an israeli soldier penetrated his chest, or the story of "Rachel Corrie's Death".
The one person one vote system elected George W. Bush, a hawkish warmonger to be the president of US for two terms.
You have freedom to do whatever you want, as long as your behavior does not harm anyone else. But who should decide what actions are considered harmful?
Suppose that in a "secular" "democracy" with a "one person one vote system", a 51% majority arguing on "human rights" grounds demands "freedom" and legalization of swinging or wife swapping, while a 49% minority rejects it as being harmful to the society as a whole. The majority wins the debate and wife swapping becomes legalized. The minority though not happy with the outcome, respects the decision made in a "democratic" manner. And all this happens while religion is absent in the decision making process (although, some of those voting against swinging did it on religious grounds.)
Wow! How modernized these people are. They are not fanatic fundamentalists and religious prohibitions are no longer taboos for them. Nothing is untouchable and every dream concerning human unlimited desires may come true if democratically voted for by the majority.
The people living in this society are considered to be liberated from restrictive religious laws. The fact of the matter, however, is that some of them are slaves of their own unlimited desires.
To read more about swinging, please refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin028.htm
I don't believe that the west is all about pursuing morally wrong and religiously prohibited human desires. No, I don't believe it at all. And as I mentioned before, I'm fully aware of westerners' contribution to the well being of mankind. My point is that your prescription of a secular society based on "democracy", "human rights", "freedom" and a "one person one vote system" may well lead us into a disastrous situation and ruin the society. Keep in mind that media owners are the decision makers!
And finally I advise you to read this article by Gilad Atzmon (titled "Left and Islam: Thinking Outside the Secular Box") :
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15280
Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali
@Ali –
Ali, wife swapping? Is this what your worried about? First of all I am not a defender of the US political system which is nothing but a politically corrupt system ruled by corporations and the military-financial-industrial complex so its not necessary for me to get into any discussion about democracy or rule of law or human rights and I will telll you why in a moment, but keep in mind countries like Denmark, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and others and do not pretend these are societies ruled by sin, hedonism, corruption and wife swapping. Let's be seroius here.
Now, the reason I do not need to discuss any form of government with you is because you already admitted you have lost the argument. You said the following:
"I never claimed to have found a final solution for how to form an Islamic establishment."
You're right, you did not tell us. All you did was raise slogans and make appeals to religion without any meaning or defintion. We still do not know what you want and we still do not know what form of government you are talking about. Until you tell us there is nothing to respond to. All I know is you are against wife swapping.
There is alot of hypocrisy in the application of international standards of human rights and international law. That has to do with international power relations. Please do not pretend that we are defending western wars, aggression, and hypocrisy, and wife swapping and YOU are defending Islam. This game wil not work. The issue was which form of government to create and I believe in democracy and human rights and not the rule of religion.
You have a right to practice your religion as you please and this is not generousity on my part, it is your right, but you have no right to impose your beliefs on others. I wonder if you also recognize the right of others to not practice their religion. If i do not want to pray nobody can force me, if I want to drink alcohol and eat pork it is my right, and if i want to swap my wife with my friends wife for a night, that is also my right. get out of my business and get out of my bedroom.
You said the following: "All of us should be aware of westerners' contribution to the well being of mankind" how GENEROUS of you giving that the computer you are sitting at was invented in the west, the car you drive was invented in the west, every modern technological or scientific advancement came from the west. If you get sick the medicine you take was produced in the west. If you go to a hospital every machine in that hospital was invented in the west. If you travel, you will travel on a plane produced in the west…etc…i can go on and on and on. However, in my opinion technology, science, and civilization is not western or eastern or christian or muslim, it is human. No such thing as "islamic science" or "Christian science" or "islamic mathematics" or "christian mathematics" …etc…etc….This is all a human endeavor which has no religion.
You talk about wife swapping and immorality and blame it on secularism, but how about the immorality of religion. Arent you aware of Muslim clerics issuing a fatwa for a one-night marriage? or a pleaure marriage? And giving it the sanction of religion. Let's not get into this its better for you and for the religious sheiks who often work as PIMPS as they speak in the name of GOD.
I was born into a very religious Muslim family and my background is as Muslim as it can be so do not force me to expose the hypocrisy and immorality of the religious leaders. And Muslims only pay the zakat not the "khoms" which is only paid by the Shia, a minority sect, and its paid to keep those buisnessmen in power and with influence.
I support solidarity and cooperation among all peoples, muslims and others.
@Mazen
Dear Mazen,
You wrote:
"The issue was which form of government to create and I believe in democracy and human rights and not the rule of religion."
Apparently you are out of touch with the reality. I challenged you with a very simple example, which you tried to highlight as the most important thing I'm worried about.
You speak of beautiful words like democracy and human rights. But until you show us how you will implement them these are just empty rhetoric. In fact you have a dream which I fully respect. But a dream is a dream and not a solution.
You wrote:
"keep in mind countries like Denmark, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and others and do not pretend these are societies ruled by sin, hedonism, corruption and wife swapping. Let's be seroius here."
The last sentence is in fact my advice to you. You refused to notice what I wrote after the swinging example:
"I don't believe that the west is all about pursuing morally wrong and religiously prohibited human desires. No, I don't believe it at all."
If you want to be serious, just google this phrase: "swinging in Germany".
You wrote:
"If i do not want to pray nobody can force me, if I want to drink alcohol and eat pork it is my right, and if i want to swap my wife with my friends wife for a night, that is also my right. get out of my business and get out of my bedroom."
I totally agree with you. You are free not to pray Allah. That's something between you and Allah. In an Islasmic establishment you are free to drink alcohol, eat pork and also swap your wife with your friend's wife as long as you keep it in privacy. That's your choice (all 4 of you, your friend, you and your wives.) That's no one's business. In fact my aunt's husband has been drinking alcohol in the Islamic Republic of Iran for more than 30 years now. What is forbidden in Iran, is producing, smuggling and selling alcoholic drinks. Similarly you cannot advertise something like swinging.
Yes, you have no freedom to ruin the society. You are restricted in many ways in an Islamic establishment. If it sounds annoying to you, let me remind you that each and every establishment or state in trhe world has restrictions and red lines you cannot cross.
@Ali –
Here is what you said: That's your choice (all 4 of you, your friend, you and your wives.) That's no one's business. In fact my aunt's husband has been drinking alcohol in the Islamic Republic of Iran for more than 30 years now. What is forbidden in Iran, is producing, smuggling and selling alcoholic drinks. Similarly you cannot advertise something like swinging. Yes, you have no freedom to ruin the society. You are restricted in many ways in an Islamic establishment. If it sounds annoying to you, let me remind you that each and every establishment or state in trhe world has restrictions and red lines you cannot cross.
First of all how do you know its only 4? Maybe I have more than one couple friends, maybe there is six of us and its one big happy orgy. Also if alcohol cannot be sold how will I be able to buy it ? And who the hell are you to decide what "harms" society? And who the hell are the black-turbaned hypocrites to decide for all of us what is harmful and what is not? Who decides the restrictions? and the red lines? AND THIS IS THE iSSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE REAL ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In a democracy people write the rules and they can change them with new elections. The problem with religion is that the rules are "from God", they are "Gods rules" and who decides Gods rules? This is a problem? We have 4 schools of Jurisprudence in Islam, and the Jafari school in the Shia branch. Who decides? Who speaks for God? And who is arrogant enough to claim he speaks for God?
Do you see why I said you are living in the 7th century. This view is backward. You practice your religion in your own privacy and if your religion tells you to not drink, and not wife swap, and pary 5 times a day then you do it by YOURSELF! YOU DO NOT control others by using the state. If you believe God is all powerful then he does not your army, police, or security people to impose his rules. If you believe in God then you believe he is powerful enough to impose his law and make people behave as he wishes. Since he did not do that and gave us free choise who the hell are you or any Sheikh to use the police and army to enforce what you believe god wants.
I offer you the example of Denmark, and Sweden as a great system. Muslims are in Denmark and Sweden and practicing their religion freely and so are others. Its a free society where all people are respected and nobody can impose his ideas on others yet if you want to practice your religion whatever it is, you can.
Also do not be sexist. Wives can husband swap too.
@Mazen
Dear Mazen,
You wrote:
"how do you know its only 4? Maybe I have more than one couple friends, maybe there is six of us and its one big happy orgy." "Also do not be sexist. Wives can husband swap too."
You seem to be interested in probabilities. So, here comes a problem in combinatorials and probability theory:
Suppose there are n women and they decide to swap their husbands. They write the names of their husbands on n pieces of paper, which would be randomly picked by these women, after being mixed in an indistinguishable manner.
What is the probability that none of them would miss the "big happy orgy". By definition a woman misses the "big happy orgy" when that woman, to her regret, picks that same piece of paper on which her "own" husband's name is written (if "own" has still its meaning among swingers).
When I was in highschool, I came across this problem. But it was about n women and n pairs of gloves. Apparently we were not "modernized" enough back then.
You wrote:
"If you believe in God then you believe he is powerful enough to impose his law and make people behave as he wishes. Since he did not do that and gave us free choise who the hell are you or any Sheikh to use the police and army to enforce what you believe god wants."
Mazen's imaginary conversation with prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H.):
"Mohammed, you claim to be sent to us by god to bring us a new religion and lifestyle. Let me suppose you are honest with us and really sent to us by god (though I preserve my right to doubt about this claim.) But, keep it a private matter and don't try to impose on us those laws and restrictions upon which god has wanted you to behave. If you believe in god then you believe he is powerful enough to impose his law and make people behave as he wishes. Since he did not do that and gave us free choice, let me ask you with due respect, who the hell you or any of your followers are to decide for us what we are allowed to or prohibited from doing."
Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali
Dear Mazen,
Also take a look at this article:
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/07/20/islam-post-modernity-and-freedom-by-muqtedar-khan/
Excerpts from this article:
"In the Muslim World postmodernism manifests in the form of religious resurgence which rejects modernist institutions such as secularism and nationalism and instead advocates a different moral/political ethic and a different political unit (Ummah)."
"Secularism and Nationalism, two of modernity’s worst diseases, are now well entrenched in many parts of the Muslim World. Ideologies emerging from the conditions of modernity such as Marxism and liberalism continue to compete with Islam in trying to shape Muslim societies. Even Muslim intellectuals who are seeking authenticity are compelled to succumb to modernist discourses, thereby furthering the agenda of modernity at the expense of Islam."
Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali