Counter-Revolution

by craig on July 4, 2013 8:49 am in Uncategorized

What we are seeing in Egypt is counter-revolution pure and simple, military hardliners who are going to be friendly with Israel and the US, and are committing gross human rights abuse.

Western backed counter-revolution is going to be sweeping back across the Middle East; do not be distracted by the words of the West, watch the deeds.  It will of course be in the name of secularism.  There is an important correlation between what is happening in Turkey and Egypt.  I made myself unpopular when I pointed out what the media did not tell you, that behind the tiny minority of doe-eyed greens in the vanguard of the Istanbul movement, stood the massed phalanxes of kemalist nationalism, a very ugly beast.  “Secularism” was the cry there too.

 

Tweet this post

712 Comments

  1. Arsalan, having the vote is not a sufficient condition to ensure democracy on its own. After all Hitler was democratically elected and look what he did with it. It seems to me that for a democracy to function properly it has to be propped up by three basic pillars (and the institutions that support them) – the right to vote, freedom of speech/press, and the rule of law.

    Oh fickle matters of majority voting is no longer the issue in a democracy, seeing as the narrative faxed through for the sound bites; “there is too much emphasis on the ballot box, and numbers”!

    Oh Mr. Darcy! fuck me with kippers democracy is what the “massers” in the West say it should be, and the meaning can be changed, as and when the West finds the wrong bastards are winning the ballot box battles set.

    Have not got the time, but will be back into this thread now that it is getting interesting. However there should be a working definition of democracy so that we all know what the fuck we are on about instead of the current arbitrary woolly concept that is more fluid than fucking quick silver.

  2. Jon
    ” Egyptian people voted for them on that basis. From my limited understanding, ”

    This sounds just like talk of the “White man’s Burden”.
    You know about how us lesser races can’t understand what is best for us so need the devine guidence of the white race?

    The army ruled before the election. And now they rule once again.
    This wasn’t due to the brothehood failing the next set of elections, which is what would have happened of people did actually change their minds.
    What happened was the army just took back power.

    Brown people do not think differently from you due to their lesser understanding, they think differently from you because they think differently.
    The people in Egypt are Muslim people. They don’t eat what you eat, they dont dress the way you dress, they don’t believe in what you believe in.
    So get over yourself!
    They choose their own way, and you can choose your own.
    And no, Islam for UK and anyone else the racist press are telling you to fear are doing no actions to take over this country.
    They haven’t given F16s to an Islamist coup here, that is what the Americans have just done in egypt.
    So I repeat No Muslims have understaken any actions to take over this country at all.
    No one in the army here has been bribed to do a coup, Not by Islam 4 UK, Not by any other group for extreme or less extreme.
    No Muslim army has invaded this country and no one is planing to invade.
    But it does happen the other way. It is us who are the ones being invaded by you.

  3. rr

    I believe in the rights of religious minorities living in Muslim countries because and only because Islam gives them that right.

    It wasn’t our Islam that did the Spanist Inquisition. Hitler wasn’t implementing Shariya.
    Not to mention the religious rights given to the native Americans when their lands were stolen, or the blacks carried their from Africa.

    We give religious minorities their rights because Islam gives them these rights.
    And when Muslims treat religious minorities badly.
    The way to solve it isn’t the great example shown to us by the white man.
    The way to solve it is to see the example given to us by our own Quran and our own Prophet pbh.
    No Islamic group however extreme intends to force others to convert to Islam at gun point. That has never happened and that never will.
    If you want to see forced conversions, look to your own history.
    Speak to native Americans and African Americans about it. they will give you all the information you need to know about religious rights of minorities.

    SS
    My loyalties lie with the one that created me.
    Not to any race.
    you can call it stokeholm syndrome if you want.
    I call it tawheed.
    You should try it.

  4. Arsalan,

    You seem to have skipped over all the points I made to you. Whilst I agree with Craig that a coup by the army may be a slide back into authoritarian military rule, I put it to you that the coup received genuine, mass support. Do you believe the people supported the coup or not? Would you bring back the Brotherhood if that was against the stated wishes of the people?

    I should note as an aside that this stuff is complex, and my not condemning the coup outright – given the apparent popular support – is, of course, not the same as agreeing with the American position. Hopefully that is obvious.

    Much of the rest of your post I’ve already responded to. I still think you need to avoid the sweeping generalisations of what you think people believe based on their skin colour. “Brown people” do not all agree on introducing theocratic rule across the Muslim world. As I’ve said before, “brown people” have a wide range of hugely differing views on this topic.

    As for my need to “get over [myself]” and my having apparently “read the racist press”, we can’t have a sensible discussion if you are going to mistake me for a racist right-winger. My criticism comes from the left, not the right, and whilst I do think sensitivity is appropriate in mass-media discussion given the current global context of Islamophobia, we’re here having a small discussion in a very quiet corner of the internet.

  5. I did read that point. I just didn’t see it as worth dealing with.
    Why?
    No one denies the losers in elections have support.
    Few elections have 100% victories.
    No real elections have that.

    The wide spread support you refer to are the support of the people who lost.
    The support of the people who supported the dictator who ruled before.
    Even though he wasn’t elected, he did have support.
    And most importantly, the support of the army itself.

    There was an election. The people that want to be ruled by Islam won. The people that want to follow your ways lost.
    And that is all it takes for you to loss all your democratic principles.
    :)
    If it was the other way. And the Islamist had lost the election, and did a coup to take power, i’m sure you would condemn it out right woundn’t you?

    Yes in Muslim countries people differ on many things.
    We have the majority that believe in Islam and try to live by it.
    We also have what African Americans would call uncle tom Niggers.
    People that love the whiteman, want to be the white man.
    See the white man as superior to themselves and see the majority of the people in their nation as beneath themselves for being less like the whiteman then themselves.
    These were the dictators, their families and supporters.
    The elections have shown the are the minority, but the elections also showed they do exists.
    And less than a year after the elections, these people took back power with the same means they kept power for so many years. With the Army.
    And when they did, racist white people support them, over the majority they suppress.
    Why?
    Unlike their less enlightened country men, these men recognise the superiority of the white way of life.
    You can say they are like the civilised tribes. The tribes of native Americans that were allowed to live, because they adopted white dress, white names and the white way of life, while all other native americans were exterminated.

    Democracy is useless isn’t it?
    You have your secularism.
    I have my Islam.
    If democracy were to show people liked your secularism more than they like my Islam you would say you believe in it.
    It doesn’t so you reject democracy.

  6. Oh yah, I said it before. But you probably missed it.
    I am not a supporter of the brotherhood.
    LOL
    They were idiots for taking part in an election.
    Did those morons really think the army that had ruled for so many years would give up power just because they lost an election.
    lol
    morons!
    lol
    The army always knew what the majority of people in egypt want.
    That is why they ruled egypt so harshly.
    The election was bait to get the idiots to show themselves.
    To come out of hiding to caste their votes.
    And as soon as they came out of hiding and took part in the elections.
    Wossssshhhhhh they all got arrested.
    Idiots!

    The next elections will be fake, just as they were for the many years Hosni Mubarak had been getting more than 100% of the vote. with the results revealed even before the votes were cast let alone counted.
    LOL

  7. The term ‘fundamentalist’ is used a lot these days, most recently in relation to so-called muslim fundamentalism. If we agree that the term means a strict adherence to the accepted principles of a given belief system or idea, then I’d like to question how the term has come to be used as a pejorative or criticism.

    Do we call engineers and scientists ‘fundamentalists’ when they adhere strictly to the practice of observing mathematical accuracy in their calculations? Should they be liberal with rounding numbers such as Pi? Should bridges and aeroplanes be built using less exacting standards?

    Are doctors ‘fundamentalists’ when they adhere strictly to safe hygenic practices and compliance with established medical procedures?

    Should lawyers and judges be more flexible with language and principles, and less ‘fundamentalist’ with a strict adherence to the letter of the law?

    So on what basis are religious ‘fundamentalists’ wrong, bad or backward when they adhere strictly to their religious texts? How are scriptures to be interpreted when they make perfect grammatical sense as they were written? How can they simultaneously believe that their ascension to heaven is dependent on their compliance with God’s will but then regard the textual origins of his will to be so ambiguous that it must be interpreted in manifold competing versions?

    Of course, it is too easy to point out that so many stories, principles and edicts within various religions are stupid, ignorant, primitive, offensive, violent and destructive. But that describes perfectly what the whole religion is. What is Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, if not the various stories, principles and edicts that comprise them?

    To selectively ommit or modify the principles and edicts of a religion is to admit that it is not the supernatural divine force that it falsely purports to be, but an evolving human invention that is shaped to conform with contemporary political agendas and pressures.

    Therefore, criticising muslims for the strictness with which they adhere to their beliefs is, well, ‘fundamentally’ stupid.

    And if Sharia Law implements God’s will for the rule of society, why should a democratically empowered muslim majority accomodate the non-Islamic demands of non-muslims? Because the idea of democracy predominates over the principles of Islam? It makes no sense that people who ‘know’ they are right should accomodate those things that they ‘know’ are wrong.

    So, asking muslims to be less muslim doesn’t make sense.

  8. Arsalan,

    The wide spread support you refer to are the support of the people who lost.

    Ah, this is rather telling. What you mean is, people are entitled to vote in the Brotherhood, but if the popular will is to the chuck the Brotherhood out, they should not be permitted to. This makes your argument even more inconsistent: in Egypt, I previously assumed you would support democracy until such time as a Sharia party dismantles the fledgling mechanisms of democracy. Now it seems, if they throw a Sharia party out in (what might be) a popular bloodless revolution, you’d ignore their democratic will even earlier!

    I earlier asked you if you believed that this was not a popular revolution. However, the reportage appears to show it has widespread support, and you’ve not come back to me on that, so I assume you believe the reports to be accurate.

    If it was the other way. And the Islamist had lost the election, and did a coup to take power, i’m sure you would condemn it out right woundn’t you?

    If we’re talking the Brotherhood here, you’re completely wrong about my view, which invalidates at a stroke everything you’ve said about me being undemocratic. If a democratic Islamic party (which I assume the Brotherhood to be) has huge popular support, in contrast to the incumbent which is hugely unpopular, then I think a bloodless coup would reflect the will of the people, and I’d cautiously support it. (Coups are, of course, not subject to democracy’s checks and balances, but they are sometimes better than tolerating a dreadful regime).

    However, if the nature of an Islamist party was to oppress its own people, and a reasonable analysis of a coup suggested that such a ruling power would treat the people in a worse fashion than the last lot (police state, extrajudicial punishments, no legal system, rule by decree, no mechanisms to regulate power, etc) then there would be reasons to reject it. But, as things stand in Egypt, I think I would support a popular coup from the Brotherhood, since they seemed to want to rule more fairly than Mubarak’s gang.

    As I say though, the events on the ground appear to be going the wrong way for you. You are so desperate for an Islamic party, you’d force it on the Egyptian people even if they march in their millions against it.

  9. It occurs to me that a solution to the present woes would be to hold another election, to underscore (or reject) the legitimacy of the new government. Here’s an interesting article with a new representative.

  10. Interesting observation: When I read Jemand’s comment of 8:29am, today, I thought had been written by Arsalan.

    Arsalan, I’m sorry to have to say this, but I think you’ve been sold a crock. Calling for Apartheid and lebensraum is the politics of C20th Nazism.

    Is it not ironic – and this may be discomfiting or embarrassing or maybe even inappropriate for me to iterate this – that as far as one is aware, all the supporters of Islamism who post regularly on this blog are (possibly white, British) converts to Islam who appear to have swallowed, hook line and sinker, the C20th postmodern dogmas of Sayyid Qutb, Abul A’la Maududi et al and believe it is the sole truth. They also presume to speak for one billion Muslims, which seems to me a sign of supreme arrogance. This combination justifiably might be described as, ‘supremacism’.

    The truth is, thankfully, they do not even speak for the majority of (white, British) converts to Islam.

    Nonetheless, they politics they espouse must be opposed on every level from within Muslim communities. This is not helped by Saudi Arabia/UAE bankrolling Islamist preachers and paramilitaries and by the strategic alliance of the UK in particular with Saudi Arabia and the tactical alliance of the UK with Islamist paramilitaries. As Jemand’s comment also exemplifies, the Far Right and indeed what one might continue to call imperialists (of which the British Far Right partly is a manifestation) actually are very comfortable with (that mirror-image Far Right) of Islamism because it fits with their political philosophy and serves their interests. That should tell us something.

  11. “My criticism comes from the left, not the right…” Jon.

    Jon, they hate the Left above all else. They like the Right. They are of that aspect of the Right which is defined by tribalism. The Right likes them – because they serve each other’s purposes and because Lebensraum is a political philosophy common to both.

    We see this globally. Saudi Arabia/UAE/Pakistani ISI-Military (the Right) bankrolls and supports them and the first two of these remain (have been since WW1) firm strategic allies of (the Right) in the form of NATO/USA/UK et al.

  12. Suhayl, how does my comment exemplify the far-right? Or are you saying that I am far-right and identify with the far-right nature of Islamists as demonstrated by my comment? How is that?

    In any case, you’d be wrong. My comment is but a logical argument about the irrational criticism of ‘muslim fundamentalism’ as if any religious belief ‘should’ not observe fundamental principles from which they supposedly derive the laws and customs that characterise their culture. To put it simply, if I must, why would someone act in contravention of their stated beliefs?

    All monotheistic religions are supreme because they claim to know of and are faithful to a supreme power in the form of a God. And, they often claim, they know God’s will and his will is that all of humanity is to surrender to it, and their job is to ensure that. Supremacists? Yes. So what? Religions weren’t conceived to be pluralistic.

  13. Suhayl, agreed. I was responding to Arsalan’s implication that I’m gullible enough to have been taken in by the reactionary British media. I thought that it was important to reject that specifically, and to note that I am sympathetic to Islamic people in Britain whilst they’re under Official Government And Media Suspicion. It’s a balancing act, of course, since one doesn’t want to accomodate religious political fundamentalism either.

  14. Suhayl, I think you misread Jemand. I think his contribution was from an atheist standpoint (see his link) but was suggesting (perhaps with some irony, to highlight its contradictions) that there’s no such thing as religious fundamentalism, since religious belief is so hard to pin down.

    That said, Jemand, I do think there’s a fault in your analogy. Scientists, doctors and engineers cannot be less “fundamentalist” with their work because they deal with the real, physical, proven world. Religions can, and do change, and since their very nature requires faith. By fundamentalism, I mean that the context and time of the holy books’ creation is ignored, and thus the spirit of God’s laws becomes increasingly incorrectly applied as time goes on.

    In the Old Testament, it is written that a menstruating women should be shunned for seven days, which because of our understanding of biology, and decent moves towards equality of worth, we now correctly regard as stupid. Perhaps the rule to smash any jar that had a lizard fall into it was a primitive understanding of hygiene, but now we would just use hot water and soap. Early rules on abstaining from sexual behaviour stemmed either from reducing STDs (hardly understood at the time) or derived from shame-based psychologies (hardly understood at the time).

    I accept the danger that one could rewrite a religion and lose its original spirit, but if a process of modernisation is undertaken by leading scholars of that religion, taking into account the changed circumstances of the world, I see that great strides could be made.

    I would rather that people did not wear their religion on their sleeve; in fact, I wish people were not religious at all. But as I said recently, people must be entitled to make up their own mind upon that.

  15. Okay, thanks, Jemand, very sorry if I misread your comment. Perhaps it was the context of the stream of comments that led me astray.

  16. “people are entitled to vote in the Brotherhood, but if the popular will is to the chuck the Brotherhood out,”

    What do you mean it was the popular will to chuck them out?
    LOL
    What planet do you live on?
    The army chucked them out!
    The same army that have been ruling for all these years.

  17. SS

    LOL

    I can repeat what I said to Jon to you.
    What planet do you live on!
    You call the Islamists a minority when they won the election.
    LOL
    You say:
    “This is not helped by Saudi Arabia/UAE bankrolling Islamist preachers and paramilitaries and by the ”

    When Islamists are tortured, arrested and murdered in these countries.
    When it was these two countries who sent billions to the people that did the coup.
    LOL
    What planet do you live on?
    I think to accuse you of lying would be an understatment?

  18. Arsalan, by “popular will” I mean “the opinion of the majority of the citizenry”. Here’s that story again, please read all of it. Here’s an important bit:

    A military source told Reuters that as many as 14 million people in the country of 84 million took part in the demonstrations.

    What appears to be happening is that the people no longer support the Brotherhood. I accept that may not be true, but if that’s your view, please supply alternative links that show a different picture.

    I agree that the army staged a coup, and I agree that it is largely Mubarak’s old army. But the Egyptian public seem to widely support what is happening. What is your view on that, please?

  19. For what it’s worth, a similar demonstration against the British government would have to comprise of about 10 million people around the country (based on our having 60m citizens). I would say that such a figure would constitute an uprising were it to happen, and if their demand was to topple the government, elections would have to be called immediately.

    As to whether the British army should seize power in such circumstances, that’s a difficult question. It has been suggested on this board in the past that they would look to the monarch for guidance. I’m not in favour of the monarchy, but I think the Queen would probably handle such a duty quite well (and the likes of Philip or Armaments Andy would be disastrous).

  20. @Jon 

    “Suhayl, I think you misread Jemand. I think his contribution was from an atheist standpoint ..”

    Correct, but I think seeing these contradictions doesn’t require atheism, I would hope that it leads to atheism. But so many believers are in denial of these anomolies while they laugh at Scientology’s ridiculous claims.

    “Scientists, doctors and engineers cannot be less “fundamentalist” with their work because they deal with the real, physical, proven world.”

    Jon, this idea of what is real, inside and outside the apparent physical realm, is a subject of endless philosophical contention – to my enjoyment. We can agree, I think, that the hard problem of consciousness is one example of the unknown that leads us to understand that our collective knowledge is a subset of all that can be known. Religious believers exploit these examples of knowing that something exists without knowing how it exists. They will say that their beliefs are unprovably true (when they lose the first round of the debate). But you and I know that unfalsifiable beliefs are just bullshit. 

    Religions can, and do change, and since their very nature requires faith. By fundamentalism, I mean that the context and time of the holy books’ creation is ignored, and thus the spirit of God’s laws becomes increasingly incorrectly applied as time goes on. 

    True, religion evolves by political selection but believers are in denial about the reasons for change. We can see a lot of that in Catholicism as it adapts to new political and social pressures. But I don’t see how anyone can authoritatively know what the “spirit of God’s laws” can be if they are not already understood from the text of the scriptures.

    Science, on the other hand, also changes but scientists (mostly, I think) accept the inevitability of change as we accumulate ‘knowledge’ in our exploration of the physical and metaphysical universe.

    In the Old Testament, it is written that a menstruating women should be shunned
    for seven days, which because of our understanding of biology, and decent moves
    towards equality of worth, we now correctly regard as stupid. 

    Whoa! Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. I didn’t say I disagree with everything in religious beliefs.

    I accept the danger that one could rewrite a religion and lose its original spirit, but if
    a process of modernisation is undertaken by leading scholars of that religion, taking into account the changed circumstances of the world, I see that great strides could be made.

    But what is the “original spirit” of religious texts? This is a perennial source of conflict, a bit like American constitutional law with regard to the original spirit of the “founding fathers” in drafting the clauses of the constitution.

    Indeed, in all Abrahamic scriptures, it is a sin to admit, modify or omit anything that was not originally written in them – and I think, by implication, all interpretations that depart from unambiguous statements. From this, we witness internal divisions between reformers and conservatives, the latter referring to the former as heretics. See link below.

    I would rather that people did not wear their religion on their sleeve; in fact, I wish people were not religious at all. But as I said recently, people must be entitled to make up their own mind upon that.

    I agree, to the extent that their beliefs do not target me for harrassment, discrimination or social antipathy.
    . . . .

    God will shit on you if you change the gospels -
    http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-21-must-follow-bible-exactly.htm

  21. Jon was that some sort of Joke?
    Were you trying to get a laugh out of that or do you really believe what you write?

    “A military source told Reuters that as many as 14 million people in the country of 84 million took part in the demonstrations.”

    Can anyone spot the Key word there?

    here is a clue, it comes after the first word “A” and before the third word “source”.

    But to be honest, if the army that did the coup told you, they did it because 100 million egyption citizens demonstrated in a country with a population of 80 million you will still find it as believable.

  22. Arsalan, you have claimed that nobody wants Sharia law for the UK. How do you explain the agenda of Hizbut Tahrir?

  23. Arsalan, so your view is that the army is misrepresenting the level of support for the coup? How do you explain the pictures of the recent demonstrations then?

    I am very well versed in how propaganda is used in the MSM, so accurate answers please. Perhaps the pictures are from the first wave of the revolution that ousted Mubarak? Or, perhaps they are faked? Or, maybe the numbers are accurate, but they all support Morsi? Or some other explanation?

    At present, each of your contributions doesn’t shed more light onto the discussion, and I have to exert substantial effort to obtain an accurate understanding of what you think. At present, my view is that you supported the first revolution because you agree with it, and you wish to quell this second revolution because you disagree with it.

  24. Jemand HT are working to establish an Islamic state in the Muslim world.

    I wish you lot would go and ask people what they work for instead of relaying on ruport murdock for your information.

    I repeat no Islamic group is taking part in elections here to take over. No Islamic group has constructed an army and are stock piling weapons to take over. No Islamic group are in negiotiations with the army here to do a coup.
    Islamic groups that get involved in Politics do so to make a change in Muslim countries.

    Jon
    As I have told you before.
    the coup does have its supporters.
    Mubarak did have his supporters.
    Whether they equal 1 million, 10 million or even more. They are the minority that loss the election.
    They are the minority that kept power for many decades using the army, and soon after the elections they have taken power again.
    And they intend to keep power.
    That is why they have arrested hundreds of Brotherhood members. Taken all brotherhood assests. Fire at brotherhood demonstrations and kill as many as they can.

  25. Jemand.

    I think there is a difference between the words “want” and “work towards”.

    For example, if the people and government of this country became Muslim here and now and said “We want to rule by Islam”.

    And then they ruled this country by Islam.

    Would I see that as a good thing?
    Would Muslims see that as a good thing?
    Would groups like HT, Islam for UK, or even moderate groups, and groups that don’t get involved or even care about politics see that as a good thing?

    Yes!
    We will all see that as a good thing.
    So you can say, Muslims want that.

    But are any Muslims working towards that?
    No.
    A Muslim might read the quran. And say “chop the hand of the theif”. But do we go about doing it here?
    No.
    Do we loby parliemant to introduce that law?
    No.
    No Muslims in general. Not HT, Not ISlam 4 UK. No one does.
    Muslim groups that talk about ISlamic state and rulling by ISlam do so in regards to Muslim countries.

  26. Arsalan, I think you are ignoring the evidence I’ve put to you, and you won’t answer my points, so I’ll leave it there. Best wishes to you.

  27. what you site as evidence isn’t evidence.
    Will you use statements from the dear leaders millitry in North Korea as evidence of how the north koreans love him?
    What you site as evidence can be described as a joke at best, but most probably something worse.

    Your photo of the demonstration was even worse than your quote from the army that did the coup.
    You can’t really use a picture of a demonstration in support of the army coup as evidence that people support it when the army shoots at people demonstration in against their coup.

    Well I can see that, if you can’t, maybe it is best that we leave it.

  28. We call for democcracy for the natives.
    That is unless the feeble minded natives vote for anyone but who we tell them to vote for!

  29. “I think to accuse you of lying would be an understatment?” Arasalan.

    That also crosses the line. But no matter. Here are two points:

    1) Saudi Arabia and the UAE continue to bankroll Sunni Islamism and the ISI of Pakistani continues to run its paramilitary training camps.

    Is that a lie?

    2) You do not represent one billion people.

    Is that a lie?

  30. And more:

    3) The UK and USA are in a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

    Is that a lie?

    4) The UK and France and others helped the Islamist paramilitary forces in Libya and continue to help them in Syria. The USA and UK (along with Pakistan) helped create the Islamist paramilitary forces in Pakistan during the 1980s.

    Are these, lies?

  31. 5) And finally, Arsalan, you are a white man who claims to speak for what you depict as “brown people” and for all Muslims.

    Are either of these claims, true?

  32. Heh, I was going to leave this one, wasn’t I? :D

    Arsalan: the reason I suspect that the Guardian story is true is simple – perhaps I should have stated it before. The Guardian makes some very clear points:

    1. 14 million people have recently demonstrated in Egypt
    2. They are demonstrating against the elected Morsi government
    3. The spirit of this second major demonstration is a grassroots continuation of the first
    4. The demonstrators believe that the promises made to the people after the first revolution have substantially not been met
    5. They want a new government to be formed

    Now, the media isn’t always accurate, and sometimes it gets things wrong, and sometimes it is used as a conduit for outright propaganda. However, in this case, each of these points can be very easily checked. This is especially the case since the advent of blogging and micro-blogging, well-established in Egypt.

    So, my contention is that all of those statements are true, and it would not be possible for Guardian to make a deliberately false claim. If you believe that they have made a mistake, which of the above points do you contest?

    Or, do you believe that a revolution of any size should be repressed?

  33. Interesting letters in the Guardian, one for, and three against the coup. I’ll cheerfully admit that when I find myself saying the things as that criminal Anthony Blair, I have pause for thought.

    Notwithstanding, your answer to my above questions would be most welcome.

  34. The interactions on the subject of “Islam-ism” on this board is tainted with a mixture of; daily two minutes hate, bias against religion, bias against religious observance, and bias against perceived liberal values.

    These tainted abstractions are then subject to vigorous proletarianisations, in an almost comical interaction that clearly indicates the sallow understanding of those defending their attempt in guiding the errand “Islam-ist” onto the righteous path of “liberalism”.

    The lazy catch all “Islam-ism” has come to encompass any debate about the countries in the mid-east. Fact that “Islam-ist” themselves are in differing factions with disparate political and moral imperatives somehow is never entertained, and the generalisations further obfuscate the issues further.

    The current anti-Muslim band wagon further encourages this obfuscation, because without any such confusions the neo-liberal doctrine of intervention for the benefit of the “poor oppressed” that includes: Women, minorities, secular liberals, “trapped” in the clutches of the “Islam-ists” who are bent on enforcing “sharia” on these downtrodden people. This of course is achieved through humongous killings of the recalcitrant and reactionary “Islam-ists” by carpet bombing of their countries.

    Egypt was subject of the “colour/spring revolution” introduced by the same sponsors who set up Saakashvili because Georgians were sick of their last “dictator”! These days the oppression in Georgia is never the subject of any “news reports” or articles, because our man from Uncle is at the helm.

    Morsi turned out to be a bit of a handful and soon the “Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook” was referred to and a short time thereafter Morsi and his MB are now behind the bars as the “balance” is restored and the Generals are back in power.

    All is well because the “democratically” elected Morsi is really a Hitler and all that and ballot boxes are meaningless because “democracy” is what the West decrees, and it varies from day to day sort of depending on who has won, and what has been the result of the the ballots?

  35. Suhayl Saadi

    Nice attempt to change the subject?

    So let me get this straight, even though MB is illigal in UAE and Saudi. Even though there was mass arrest of MB in UAE just before the coup. Even though they are excuted in Saudi.
    Even because of all this, to you MB won the egyption election due to Saudi and UAE support?
    Even though UAE and Saudi gave billions to the generals after the coup?

    What world do you live in?

    Well one where democratically elected governments are dictatorships, and the unelected army that removes them is a democracy?

  36. Jon

    It was your own quote that said that information came from a millitry source.
    :)
    I didn’t make that up, if anything it was you.

    And the guardians support of the millity coup in egypt after an Islamic government was elected does not come to me as a surprise.
    That news paper supported the army in Algeria too when the Muslims won the election there.

    A lot of whites have a racist mentality. They like to talk about how democratic they are.
    But when brown people elect people whites don’t like.
    Whites suddenlt loss their democracy?

    LOL

    Sort of like how you preach freedom of religion to us lot, when it is your own countries with bans on Hijab.

  37. Yes I don’t represent 1 billion people, or 2 billion for that matter.
    What what the elections in egypt represented was the will of 50 % +20 %=70% of 80 million people.
    And that doesn’t mean anything to you does it.
    Because when these people vote for something you and the white master race don’t like, you support the unelected Pro Israeli army. An Army that was given f16 after the coup by the Americans, billions by the saudis and UAE. But yet you still carry on saying, MB win was some American plan, because Saudi and UAE may or may not give some Money to stuff the Pakistani government does?

    Only you alone know what any of that has to do with the elections in egypt.
    Well I think you don’t know, it was just you attempt change the subject.
    Nice try.

  38. Yes you and tony Blair agree on it.
    Lesser races need the divine guidence of the mighty white race when it comes to ruling themselves.
    Invasions to bring democracy when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq.
    And coups to remove it when it comes to Egypt and Algeria.
    Well, any nation where silly people use their democractic rights to vote for anyone the white masters dont want them to vote for?

  39. Arsalan, I put five points to you, and by coincidence, so did Suhayl. I should very much like you to write out the numbers 1 to 5 in the comment box, and adjacent to each digit, answer the questions put to you – from either of us – as fully as you can. If you are willing to do both sets, great.

    Here’s an example of what I mean:

    1. “14 million people have recently demonstrated in Egypt”. (You might say here that you believe this not to be true, and then you can explain why you believe that, or supply a link that shows it to be false).

    Thanks.

  40. Jon,
    I thought it would have become obvious by now, that I don’t take orders?

    I answer whatever I want in anyway I want.
    The days of colonialism are over.

    14, seems far fetched, especially as you quoted, a un-named Millitry source.
    Don’t you think that is biased?
    I mean the army just removed a democratically elected government after the army had ruled for about 50 years and you think what the army says is trust worthy?

    And to add to the point you show a picture of a crowed. Which maywell contain a lot of people, hundreds, maybe even thousands.
    But it in no way proves the millitries claim.

    But lets say there was a trust worthy head count of everyone in the demos by a third party and not the people who did the coup.
    And it showed that 14 mil of the 18 mil that supports the army went on to the streets.

    It might be a justification for you.
    Because your democratic princles end with the election of people you disagree with.
    And you seem to ignore the fact that when any of the 40 mil + 16 mil = 56 mil demonstrate againt the coup they are shot at. And as soon as the coup happened 500 of their leaders were arrested, many more since.
    For the crime of winning the election.

    So not only is what you say suspicius, it is also not relivant at all.

    The election showed what most people wanted. But because they want something you don’t want. the elections don’t mean much to you.
    Well to be honest, I would say they don’t mean much to me too.
    You believe in your secularist principles, if most people want it. All well and good. But if they don’t, you exchange your democratic princiles for fascism.
    Where hundreds of people are arrested for winning elections. where demonstrations in support of democraitically elected parties are shot at by the army. Not only when they are in peaceful demonstrations. But also when they are in prayer!
    So by saying what I did I was just showing your hypocrisy.
    I was in no way saying I believe in YOUR democracy.
    YOUR white mans democracy. I was just showing you don’t.
    In the past white men went to the countries of brown men. And said “we will teach you religion, close your eyes”, when the brown men did, and opened them. They found a bible in their hands and thier lands and wealth in the hands of white men.
    All your democracy, your freedom and all your values are just like your christianity. You use them as a slogan when it suits you, and reject them when it doesn’t.

    Muslims should stop believing in the lies of whitemen.
    I repeat the Brotherhood were idiots to take part in the election.
    They should have realise it was a trick used by the white colonial masters to destroy the main opposition to millitry rule.

  41. I’ve not ordered you to do anything. But, if I were to loudly insist that you do not answer my questions, I suspect you’d still find a way to avoid engaging with the debate :D

    Ah well.

  42. Jon, you tried your best. Anyway, your arguments are clear to other readers, so all is not wasted.

    It appears to me as an outsider that a change of govt in Egypt was a popular demand, just lamentable that the process was not more orderly such as a re-election instead of a coup. Decent constitutions should take such circumstances into account and provide for a civilian solution rather than depend on the might of the military who will often have their own, parallel, political agenda. It’s back to the drawing board for Egypt.

  43. Jemand the change of government was a popular demand with the people who didn’t vote for the government.

    And yes, there will be a change in constitution. Like happened in Algeria after the elections there which was followed by a millitry coup.
    One where people can only vote for who they are told to vote for.
    One where if someone is elected, he can only do what he is allowed to do.
    Like Turkey where the government that won by a massize majority are not even allowed to legalise the Muslim Head scarf in for University students let alone dream of allowing school girls to wear it.

    Muslims need to learn, voting changes nothing.
    It doesn’t matter if you have 50% +1, 70% like in Egypt, 98% like in Algeria or even 100%.
    None of it matters, they will never allow you to rule by what you want to rule by.
    And the people who cry that you should respect the vote if you are a minority are the first to support millitry dictatorships when you are the majority.

    Might is right.
    That is all that matters.
    Muslims won elections time and time again, only to have power taken off them by coups.
    So Muslims have to realise the only way to take power is if they themselves do the coup.

  44. Since Arsalan seems unwilling to acknowledge what I thought was common knowledge, okay, let’s do specifically Egypt:

    1) Mubarak regime illegitimate. People -largely not the Islamists – get rid of it.

    2) Quick elections to try for stability. Islamists are best organised and promise better future. People give them a chance and the Islamists are voted into power.

    3) Islamists do what they always do when they into power, but they do it too quickly in Egypt (unlike the ones on the AKP in Turkey) and basically try to turn the structures of the state – judiciary, etc. – into their fiefdom. But more than that, crucially, they do everything the IMF wants them to do, like a good little native elite (again).

    4) “Bread, freedom, justice” is the cry. The Islamists have betrayed the revolution. Many milions of Egyptian people rise up and demand the Islamists relinquish power. The Army steps in to stop the people from taking control and again, to install their own placemen. Yet more neoliberals who have no new ideas or policies wrt the IMF et al.

    Rest assured, if ‘Bread, Justice and Freedom’ are not facilitated, there will be yet more unrest. The Islamists have been seen for what they are, simply the IMF + God (neither of which deliver bread, justice, freedom). The tide is begining to turn.

  45. 1 Mubarak was one person in his regime. Not the only person. Now he is gone, but his regime minus him is back. These generals who removed this elected government didn’t just apear from no where. They were part of Mubaraks regime.

    What you call the Islamist, are the people.
    They are not shiped in from some place else.
    And they are not just the people, the election showed, they are at least 70% of the people.
    I say at least, because a lot of who you call Islamist would never vote in kufr elections.
    Others knew it was a trap which would be followed by a coup, supported by you, yours and your governments. :)

    2: they won, get over it. you are clearly someone that fully supports democracy when it elects who you would vote for. Anything else and then you are a facist.
    :)

    3) Now in Turkey, the Islamist that were voted in are just poster boys. They can’t really do anything but smile for the camera. What ever law they make with how ever high majority. The Kamalist veto it.

    And when the facts don’t suit you, you respond with a lie again. Mursi didn’t do what the IMF wanted, and the IMF refused to give the loan.
    But how ever evil the ISlamist are, the people of Egypt know them. And voted for them. And you just can’t take it that they are not Liberal secularists like yourself can you?
    With all due respect, you are pathetic.

    4) Yes millions don’t want the Islamist. But those millions were in the minority. the Millions that do want them won the elections.
    And they are the ones that get shot when they demonstrate, get arrested when they win elections.
    And that is your democracy.
    :)
    So shove your democracy up your arse.
    It is time for Muslims to learn democracy is a lie. Freedom is a lie.
    It is just dictatorship and fascism by another name.

    The Disbeliever have their own system based on their disbelief. And we have our own system based on our religion. Their kufr democracy will never allow us to rule by Islam no matter how high our majority is.
    So what we must do is take power. It is time for us to stop dreaming that change is possible by voting and engineer our own coup. And rule by our own book.
    It is time to reverse sykes picot and reestablish the Khilafah.

    3)

  46. My message to Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone else that believes in the ballot box is, I told you so.
    LOL
    When will you lot ever learn. ;)

    Will you learn from this mistake, or repeat it a few more times before you start doing what really works?

  47. “It is time to… reestablish the Khilafah.” Arsalan.

    And to re-establish Peter Pan?

  48. Arsalan, when you disagree with someone on a political matter, it is not necessary to insinuate that they are lying. It is more complex.

    http://socialistunity.com/the-role-of-the-imf-in-morsis-downfall/

    http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2013/05/insight-lessons-not-learned-in-egypt-39163/

  49. @arsalan – it’s unnecessary (and wrong) to suggest Suhayl is a fascist, pathetic, lying etc. He is playing with a very straight bat, and seems very willing to debate with you. But you won’t concede any ground, ever. That means you’re hear to preach, not to engage or listen.

    In my view, it is better for to you honestly question the foundations of your opinions than to cling to them blindly – in the latter lies a dangerous path. I’ve learnt a lot from Craig and others here, about liberal thought, the complexities of Israel/Palestine, human psychology, the worldwide financial systems, feminism, religion – really the whole lot. With the best of sentiments in mind, I wish I could “bottle it”, this thirst for knowledge and learning, so you might drink it.

    I don’t claim that it makes me entirely right – actually, I think where people drink of it, it helps us all see where we are wrong. I recommend it to you, with the best of intentions.

  50. ss
    You call our religion Peter Pan. We call our religion, our religion.
    And we choose to follow all of it, including that bits you are not very comfortable with.

    You might call you statements something other then a lie, but then again. You regard an elected government as dictatorship and a millitry coup as the will of the people.

    Jon,
    You sound like Blair.
    Boohooo
    “Muslim Fundamentalist is unhappy with me for supporting a millitry coup, and the killings that came with it.”
    Boohooo
    “Why wont he concede any ground?”
    “Can’t we just all get along!”
    LOL
    In a lot of issues there is ground to give.
    Well not here, when people have been arrested only for the crime of winning an election.
    To call winning an election a dictatorship and to call a coup the will of the people isn’t a difference of opinion. it is orwellian.
    Tony blair would be so proud!

    Just to make clear, I am not, nor have I ever been a supporter of the brotherhood.
    So this isn’t an issue of they are right cause they are my people.
    My point is, they are the people of the Egyption people.
    And what you and sahal say about the ability of the egyption people to choose their own government smacks of racism of the most extreme kind.
    It is the colonialist mindset. Whitemans burden.
    The same mindset that said whitemen liberated blacks by enslaving them.

    So yes, I do call you both facists.
    If that isn’t the word for the coup against an elected government, the arrest of hundreds of elected people, the killing of people who support those elected people, what is?

  51. What is this, Stockholm Syndrome? Lebensraum? “Our ways”. Yeah, sure. “Our ways”, defined by Maududi and Qutb and propelled by the House of Ibn Saud.

    Cannot keep your fangs hidden for long can you?

    Why do you assume Arsalan is “white” and lives in this country?

    Throughout the debate you have conflated “Islam-ism” with extreme Wahhabi school of thought that in fact are a reactionary off shoot bent on perpetuation of the current status quo; the Saudi/Qatari/Kuwaiti/Bahraini ruling pederasts to be kept in power, with the help of the “religious leadership” misinterpretation of Islam, aided by the fire power of their sponsors the Western political carpetbaggers.

    Fact is you should know that “Islam-ism” or political Islam is not the Wahhabi schools’ philosophy, yet you insist on conflating Political Islam and the reactionary Wahhabi doctrine as one and the same, hence your constant references to “jihadists”, “taliban”, “ISI inspired taliban”, etc.

    Arsalan is only reacting to the hatred towards Muslims, and interference in their affairs that is so matter of course and taken as granted entitlement of the outsiders. This can be to any impartial observer.

  52. I should clarify something, even though previously I couldn’t be bothered.

    What race am I?

    I will start with what I am not.
    I don’t belong to the white, black or asian race.

    I am me. One Person.
    Who do I share my race with?
    About 7 billion people.
    The Human race.
    As someone that believes in a creator, that created mankind from a single pair, (not many racial pairs).
    I believe I am one of the children of Adam, or Bani Adam, and so are the 7 billion other bags of flesh I share this planet with.

    When I mention race, it is an attack on racism. I think that is obvious to everyone. Because only one person indicated it was something other than that, and I don’t think that person was being honest in that confusion.

    Something I want to clarify to everyone. I don’t recognise the words Islamism/Islamist.
    There is the arabic root word s l m, (to submit, he submitted past tense).
    When refering to a person, that has done this, we add the letter m, infront. Muslim. When refering to the system, it is Islam.
    So there is no room for words such as Islamist, because a person that believes in Islam is a Muslim. Islam is the system, so there is no need to indicate a system by adding an ist at the end.

    Something I want to clarify to all the non-Muslims here.
    When it comes to “the extreme wahabi school of thought”.
    I don’t recognise the term.
    The word Wahabi is only used as an insult in the Muslim world. No one lables themselves Wahabi.
    There are four Sunni schools of thought. Hanafi, Shafi, Malaki and Hanbali.
    The word Wahabi can be used as an insult to someone who follows muhammad ibn abdul wahhab a 18th century Hanbali scholer that helped the Saudi family rebel against the ottoman(who were Hanafi) Khilafat.
    So to make a conection between the followers of the 3 other schools with Wahabi is ignorant beyond belief. I would say, it is lying to fool the ignorant. If the word Wahabi can be used for anyone, such a person would regard the Taliban, the brotherhood and any other group that are commonly labeled as Islamist to be heretics.

    To use it for someone that believes in the re-establishment of the Khilafah is beyond dishonest. Remembering that it was the followers of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab that rebeled against the Ottoman Khilafah and established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    This is one of the reasons why I used the word lying, and not mistaken.

  53. More hot air and absolutism. Goodness me. This political psychosis is what we in ‘the Muslim communities’ (however one wants to define that) are dealing with. Everything in the posts above comes straight from the mouths of Sayyib Qutb and Mawlana Maududi, only sort of… mass produced like plastic toys. It’s like a cross between the Manson Family and Peter Pan. It is an abrogation of thought. They have no idea how bizarre they sound, and how bizarre they would’ve sounded 40, 70, 100 years ago in majority Muslim countries. Ah, the irony!

  54. However it sounds. And whether 70% + of the population voted the way they did because they picked up a copy written by Qutb or Maududi, they did vote the way they did.
    I don’t believe they did, because under mubarak both authers were banned and people would go to prison for a very long time for the crime of being caught with one of their books.
    You know this, so I don’t believe you are being entirely honest with that statement.
    More likely, they want to be ruled by Islam because they read another book that wasn’t banned in Egypt, even under Mubarak. The Quran.

    You may have voted different. But they voted for what you call “political psychosis “. political psychosis is what the majority of the population want to be ruled by it is there business.
    But be honest 40, 70, and a 100 years ago. People didn’t decide, lets abandone the Islamic ruling system and follow the enlightened white men.
    The French and then the British invaded Egypt, and imposed their way of life on Egypt.
    The mentality you talk of that existed in the not too distant past wasn’t by choice, it was imposed by guns, bombs and torture. Just as this coup isn’t by choice, it is by guns,arrests and torture.

    What did the French, The British, Nasir, Sadat and Hosni do to people that wanted their rule to be replaced by Islamic law?

    The same applies to the rest of the Muslim world.

  55. And before the French, Arabs invaded Egypt and imposed Islam on the people there.

    Arsalan, don’t pull that self-righteous bullshit on us about the innocence of muslims in their own brutal political ambitions and proselytizing. You muslims accuse each other of heresy and treason, and claim the high ground of divine purity for your own sects, but what you all have in common is you call yourselves muslims. You are what you say and do and you can’t blame others for it – they didn’t put words in your mouths, they didn’t swing the swords that you wield to slaughter your enemies – you did.

  56. Before the arabs it was the romans,etc. And the UK is nothing but German tribes and others invading the BRitish Isles. Every nation has come from some place else.

    Re-read the context of what was said.
    What was meant was westernisation was alien, and came from an external source. An invasion.
    Islam is the natural state of Muslims.

    It was said in Suhayl Saadi

    17 Jul, 2013 – 7:47 am

    Where he stated “bizarre they would’ve sounded 40, 70, 100 years ago”. Well that golden age of westernisation he talks about was imposed by force. And people are now returning to what they once were.

    My point was, what was removed by force is coming back by choice.
    And the westernised minority are confused between supporting the western slogan of democracy or support the imposition of the ways of the west by continued dictatorship.
    Because during dictatorship, they said, “why can’t we be democratic like the white man”, but when there is a free vote, and the people vote for the most Islamic parties the army and the imperialists allow them to, they scream for dictatorship to save them from the results of democracy.

    I am not being self rightious at all. What I am stating is westernisation was imposed, it wasn’t by choice. And the return of Islam isn’t being imposed by some external choice, that is what is by choice.

    The hypcrits that want to claim they believe in democracy when they really believe in facist dictatorships that imposes ways of other nations on people who do not want it, but insist they are calling for what those people want.

    Just to clarify I haven’t even mentioned my sect or school of thought, let alone say it is the best. The people I am saying were democractically elected and choosen by the egyptian people, aren’t even people I agree with.
    What I am saying, the election has shown they are the people the egyption people agree with.
    If your statements refer to what you read from me, I am confused on what gave you that idea.

    Not that it has anything to do with the democratically elected government being removed by the army being democracy. The brotherhood are not secterian. They don’t belong to one particular sect or school of thought.
    But come to think about it. I don’t know many Islamic political parties that are secterian at least not the ones that want a unification of Muslim lands in to a large Islamic state.
    Secterianism stands in the way of this aim in the same way racism and nationalism would.

    That is why I mentioned, to contect groups like MB to the Saudi state is so idiotic, and when said by people who know better, it is a lie.

  57. Arsalan, I’m not going to try to sell you, or anybody else, ‘democracy’ because I’m not a true believer. Although it is my default preference in the absence of anything better. But I will put forward the idea of realpolitik, which basically doesn’t give a shit about what people want, unless of course, they have the power to achieve their objectives.

    With that in mind, you can want anything you like, including the formation of an Islamic state anywhere you want. Achieving what you want is another matter.

    As you know, muslims can faithfully use any means necessary to advance an Islamic agenda without apology. What you should also understand is, non-muslims can similarly use any means to advance their own agendas and not owe anybody an apology for it.

    So I guess I would like to ask is what do you hope to achieve, either personally or for Islam, by posting comments on this blog? You don’t need our approval, after all.

  58. The Saudi state is happy to export money, guns and personnel for Islamist paramiliatries but/ because they don’t want them on thie own soil, as they would be a threat to the Saudi monarchy. It’s an old deal that goes back some decades. Same with the UAE. To deny that Saudi Arabia/UAE actively support Islamist paramiliatries and their political wings across the (especially, but not exclusively, Muslim) world is surely to fly in the face of the evidence.

    Actually, I don’t agree with what the Egyptian Army has done. I think that again they have stopped the people taking power. But the Muslim Brotherhood and the IMF, together, have proved their uselessness in meeting the needs of the people of Egypt. That is why, having voted the Muslims Brotherhood in, the many millions of Egyptians rose up and kicked it out of government. The IMF remains in power, though, sadly. Ideally, the Egyptians will rise up again and boot out the IMF and its new proxies too (as did Argentina in the late 1990s).

    Ideas do not adhere to a single group in time or place, they never have.

  59. There is nothing ‘fundamental’ or ‘original’ or ‘authentic’ or ‘traditional’ about Islmaic Fundamentalists, though they claim all of these attributes. Islamism as we know it today is a thoroughly postmodern phenomenon – largely defined by what the Islamists would term ‘Western’ parameters – and is the product of a crisis of modernity in Islamic societies.

  60. So what adjectives would you use, Suhayl, to comprehensively describe Islamic Fundamentalists, if they can indeed be described?

  61. Absolutist, supremacist, exclusivist, oppressive, lobotomising, postmodern… [these are the polite adjectives]

  62. Postmodern: Like everyone, they pick and choose and magnifiy and contract. But the difference is, they deny they are doing it, claim absolute truth for their interpretations and then fix their specific interpretations so that these interpretations cannot be questioned. They claim to sit outside of history, when it is clear that they are a product of history. They then oppress anyone who dares to question them. In Muslim counties, they kill those who dare to question them. This suggests both the insecurity of their interpretations and the nature of their concepts of power and governance.

  63. We see how they discourse on this blog. – not just now, at this juncture – but for years, the same slogans, the same bellicosity, the same need to view the world as black and white, to address politics in theological terms. That is emblematic. These are educated people – and many are educated people – but they have closed-down their minds. Islamism is an urban, middle class phenomenon. In these respects, it resembles a cult phenomenon; the Manson Family, writ large.

  64. I agree with all of that, Suhayl, but I don’t understand how you see these descriptions as not being a natural part of religion. All religions evolved by political processes – “evolution by political selection”, Darwin might have called it. And the past is replete with primitive, brutal violence which also infused its scriptures, edicts, culture etc.

    Can any religion, which by definition claims authority from invisible forces, be anything other that an anachronistic stone chained to our ankles as we try to stride into a future of enlightenment?

  65. Good point, Jemand. Yes. I certainly think that religion and politics should be kept separate.

  66. Jemand – Censorship

    I would say that is exactly what they are doing in the non-white world. Not just the Islamic world.
    Whether it is latin America, Asia or Africa.

    The key difference here is we are talking about ruling Muslim countries by Islam. And what others are talking about is ruling Muslim countries by secularism.
    No one is talking about ruling non-Muslim countries by Islam.
    This thread is about a party winning an election in egypt and the millitry removing them. Some people support the army take over and are hypocritical enough to claim to believe in democracy.

    I think if we are honest.
    Democracy doesn’t come in to anyones equation.
    I’m just not hypocritical enough to say it comes in to mine. While that people who belive in dictatorship when democracy results in something a little more Islamic than what is here and now, claim to believe in democracy.
    I call them liars. They should call themselves secularists instead of pretending to believe in democracy.

    When it comes to you saying democracy is your default setting.
    Does that only apply when people want what you want?
    Or does it equally apply to the situation in egypt?

    What am I doing on this forum to result in world wide islamic revival?
    Well nothing much. I’m not part of any group. So to be honest with you, I’m just wasting time. My spelling is rubbish, and writing here and in other forums about cooking and fish does help me improve it.

    I don’t really believe in any means necessary. Just a coup.

    But getting something in to context here.
    We are not talking about a fanatical fundamentalist like me getting in to power. Not someone that wants a world wide islamic state that covers as many muslim majority countries as possible.
    I wasn’t the one that won the election.
    Who won the election was the Muslim brother. a group that would pretty much rule by the system that exists there now. No Islamic law being impossed any where other then bans on Hijab and beards being lifted for government employees.
    But even that is too much Islam for the people that support the army.
    So this isn’t about the unreligious being forced to obey religion. It is about the religious being able to practice their religion freely.

  67. SS the saudi state is the American state. They support who America tells them to support. And stand against who America tells them to stand against.
    But to claim they support the brotherhood, and that is what we are talking about on this thread.
    Is a lie.
    Because the brotherhood are executed in Saudi, arrested and tortured in UAE. And both countries gave the Egyption army a hole heap of money when the army did the coup. And the Americans gave the egyption army f16s.

    When it comes to the ability to rule?
    Just how long have they been ruling?
    How many months?
    And how many more would it take for the country to feel the difference?

    SS
    You know as well as I do that this has nothing to do with the MB obeying the IMF too much.
    Why?
    Do you think the army that replaces them, the general that rules now who was Honsi Mubaraks right hand man. Do you think they will obey the IMF any less or much more than the brotherhood?
    So don’t play games.
    It wasn’t the egyption people that removed the brotherhood. It was the army.
    It takes 70% of the population more time to change their minds then straight after the election. You sure the demonstrations against them contained something other than the 30%?

  68. SS
    You say all this when it is the secularists who have just done all the above?
    Not just “Just”, but have been doing it during the many years they have ruled.

    Just as you call a army coup, the will of the people. you use the words that should be reserved for the secularists, who support dictators for the people who just won the election?

    So I just have one word for that:
    Hypocrisy!

  69. The westernised elite share this view. Honsi and the General that has just replaced him.
    These are the same words they would use for the people they rule “Absolutist, supremacist, exclusivist, oppressive, lobotomising, postmodern… [these are the polite adjectives]“.

    You believe religion and politics should be kept seperate. But I repeat the elections prove the vast majority of people in Muslim countries don’t agree with you.
    Is it because they are :

    “Absolutist, supremacist, exclusivist, oppressive, lobotomising, postmodern… [these are the polite adjectives]“.

    While you are the enlightened one?
    Are you sure these words don’t apply to you?

  70. In Muslim counties, they kill those who dare to question them. This suggests both the insecurity of their interpretations and the nature of their concepts of power and governance.

    What kind of a baseless assertion is this?

    Has the author researched and picked this little gem from Selective Memri?

    Islamism is an urban, middle class phenomenon. In these respects, it resembles a cult phenomenon; the Manson Family, writ large.

    Denounciatios abound, a clear lack of understanding of the Muslims evidently need not get in the way of a goodly diatribe.

    Given the freedoms that are to be held so sacred, could there be a slight matter of freedom of choice concerning the synthesis of a political doctrines from Islamic perspective? Although given the appalling record of the West in suppressing the minorities (other than certain minorities, that evidently can do no wrong) specifically the Muslims and blacks. Is it not an extension of such an unsavoury status quo that forbids the political aspirations of the Muslims?*

    - – -

    comprehensively describe Islamic Fundamentalists, if they can indeed be described?

    Politics And The English Language By George Orwell revisited, the term of “Muslim Fundamentalist” denotes a pejorative contextualization; reactionary, backward, retrograde construct, etc. Although curiously there has never been much of Jewish Fundamentalism bandied around, instead they are referred to as Orthodox Jews.

    * No sophistry and evocation of the tired and worn out bones of the Austrian Painter sporting a Moustache are to be accepted.

  71. Arsalan, no I don’t wish democracy for everyone, just me, for my benefit, for the time being. Although I might advocate democracy for certain situations where I believe it to be worthwhile. Democracy for Egypt? Only if people want it and if it will provide an enduring improvement to their lives. They have to work it out for themselves. If they want an Islamic state, then they can fight for that too.

    “No one is talking about ruling non-Muslim countries by Islam.”

    Well sorry, but plenty of people do, including Hizbut Tahrir – although you say they don’t talk about that. Remember, Arsalan, Islamic countries were once non-Islamic countries and we know that Islam came to dominate their lands not by democracy but by migration, invasion and conquest. Let’s not pretend that non-muslims have enjoyed the same rights in those Islamic countries as their muslim compatriots. And they certainly cannot practice lifestyles that are offensive to muslim sensibilities.
    . . . .

    Muslim Fundamentalists vs Ultra Orthodox Muslims – Yes, that sounds different.

  72. You see? As long as they are pampered and indulged here, they are fine. As soon as one questions their core views, there is an onslaught of vitriol. It is to be expected. This is how their political philosophy plays out, in practice, in every Muslim country today. It is the worst thing that has happened to Muslim societies in recent times.

    “In Muslim counties, they kill those who dare to question them.” Me.

    One recent example, among many:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer

    Another recent example, among many:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahbaz_Bhatti

    We saw what Islamism/Islamist rule did to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do people want that? No, I think in general people tend to want “bread, justice, freedom”, probably in that order. Islamism has proved that it cannot be the answer to the problems of these countries. In every case, it has just made the problems worse. In Iran, the mullahs continued some of the better things the Shah had instituted, like mass education and so on and that is good. But we are talking here largely about Sunni Fundamentalism, which is by far the dominant form.

    I wrote that the current rulers of Egypt are unlikely to defy the IMF, but you three wise men are not interested in reading what I write, you are interested only in denunciation.

    And inferring that I derive my ideas from suspect websites is amusing. I do not have to derive my ideas from the web, or from what some cult leader tells me to think. I can think for myself – it is permitted.

    In any case, are the three of you not behaving here a little like members of a cult?

  73. Jemand – Censorship Improves History

    And I know you and others don’t believe in democracy. The problem I have is with people who claim they do, when all they want is democracy when people agree with them and dictatorship when they don’t.

    The people of Egypt have stated what they want in an election. And elections failed, democracy failed. And now it should become clear to them democracy is no way to change a state. But I don’t want them to take up arms against each other to achieve the change.
    A clean bloodless coup is a much better alternative.

    And no, HT, or any other group are not trying to establish an Islamic state here.
    You should try going up to them and asking them instead of taking the word of the ropert murdocks tabloids.
    They are not having secret meetings with british generals to do a coup. They are not hording weapons to do a revelution.
    Any man that thinks they are is a fool.
    They are working for change in certain Muslim countries.
    If you want to translate that in to, “well if they take power in a Muslim country, maybe they will take power in some more, and unify them in to a great big country, that will take over this one and make me grow a beard” as they are working to implement Islam here, that is a stretch of the English language that I would say crosses the line between truth and falsehood.

    I don’t accept what you say about the Islamic state in the past. Some Muslim countries treated non-Muslims very well, others not so well. But when compared to how European countries of that time treated their citizens of other religion, there is no comparison between the best of the European nations with the worst of the Islamic ones.
    There was no Spanish inqusition in the Muslim world, when a nation was taken over by Muslims there was no extermination of the sort the native americans suffered.
    So there is no comparison. We need no lessons from you on how to treat minorities.

  74. SS, how Zionist!

    How racist!

    You talk like someone that responds to a Black man wanting equality by stating, “you see what you lot are like, in some far off country that you have never heard of someone of your skin colour stole my grandmother purse!”

    How can I put this in words even you can understand?

    OK, I will give it a try.
    We are talking about an election in Egpyt being where the winners 70% vs 30% were arrested for the crime of winning the election.
    And you give the example of two Pakis, in Pakistan being killed by other pakis?
    What conection do they have with the Muslim brotherhood?
    That is such a Zionist argument.

    You sound like Karimov, when he boils people alive.
    Isn’t that the argument he uses?
    “but they are evil, look at what they will do when they take power”
    Or the Zionists who always insist whenever they stop killing palistinian babies a new holocoast will happen.

  75. Now, instead of building proper schools for the children of the poor that would produce what those inspired by Islamic thought are capable of achieving, they built so-called madressahs which churned-out suicide bombers.

    Instead of building a resistance movement of thinking people, it spews out clones intent on killing themselves and as many others as they can.

    So-called mujaheddin and Taliban – wholly negative development for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Iraq: Islamists of all shades killing civilians, and for what? Religiously pure enclaves. De facto apartheid. And the same people criticise Israel for this?

    Somalia: enough said. Not even a state any more. No justice, no security, no bread.

    Mali: Blood and death.

    Syria: Oceans of blood.

    Libya: Where is Libya, now?

    Saudi Arabia: Ask the call girls of Knightsbridge.

    Bradford: Just look at Bradford. Is this what we want for people of Pakistani origin in Britain? Ghettoisation of body and mind.

    What exactly has Islamism achieved? Name one single invention it has generated. Name one single health or education statistic that has been improved by this cult of Sunni Islamism.

    They dream of a restored Caliphate (what, more call-girls?), and dwell on the glories of the Mediaeval Arab empires, yet at the same time deny the achievements of the rationalists which resulted precisely in this high point of Islamicate civilisation.

  76. This debate is interesting to me for what is not being learnt about other people’s views, rather than what is. I beg the forgiveness of Passerby and Fedup for using a previous conversion as an example; I recall that last year we had a discussion that followed similar dynamics, that time on how to achieve a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine.

    Newer readers following this debate may wish to read it, since there’s a lot of prose but very little elucidation about what some key interlocutors actually wished to say. It starts with my comment here, and after some to-and-fro, I ask some direct questions about good Israeli people/NGOs.

    Reading from there, it is interesting that the responses (such as this) dance in the wind, and absolutely, steadfastly, repeatedly refuse to answer key questions.

    Now, one could retort that my questions were a derailing tactic, a pouring out of treacle to ensnare the hapless. However, it’s unlikely to be deployed here for a left/liberal cause – aren’t most people pro-Palestine here? Am I not myself pro-Palestine? Really, it seems that then – and now – my purpose was to rescue views that I felt had dropped off the end of the left and wrapped around to the hard (religious) right.

    Passerby/Fedup/Cryptonym/Arsalan – I don’t mean to impugn you here, since I believe you write with sincerity even when you’re dodging every question put to you. I hope also that, when I speculate about the psychological processes that are at work (on both sides) it is not taken to be a rudeness. In a sense, it’s rather a defence of your position: you detect (perhaps at a subconscious level) that there is a huge inconsistency in your views, and so you attempt with great vigour to avoid confronting that issue (even to yourselves, perhaps?).

    Arsalan, my primary example would be that you say the Brotherhood won the election. I agree, and you’ll notice I’ve never disputed that. My point (which I made repeatedly) was that the electorate/citizenry changed their mind, and the demonstration is a show of that. My view (which I am willing to change if you cite evidence) is that if there was an election in Egypt tomorrow, the Brotherhood would lose by a long margin.

    (For what it is worth, if there was an election tomorrow and the people voted the Islamists in again, I would respect it. But, that would be hugely inconsistent with the demonstrations – I think the citizens are fed up and want a change of government.)

    So, I think that’s the first thing you need to ask yourself. Now, it might be that you regard elections = good, demonstrations = bad. Well, alright, although you appear to be in favour of the first wave of demonstrations that ousted Mubarak? You could counter than Mubarak’s government was illegitimate (I agree) but how many people need to demonstrate against Morsi for you to concede that new elections would be necessary?

    A third internal inconsistency, which is related, is your view that Egypt should get an Islamic government at any cost. I guess this is speculation on my part, but it is a reflection I hold in good faith. If Egypt were to vote tomorrow, and chose a secular left-wing leader, would you respect the result? Presumably the basis of electoral legitimacy is that, if an uprising leads to a new vote, then the new result overturns the old one?

    A forth thought-inconsistency is that Suhayl and I are firmly on record of opposing neoliberalism, Western propaganda, and all that stuff. I am fully in favour of freedom of religion, and have said so many times. Even in this very thread I refer to Tony Blair as a criminal. But neverthless we are dismissed as Murdoch stooges and fascists, even though Murdoch stooges and fascists would never say the things we do. Another inconsistency for you to think about.

    You are welcome to come back to me of course, though this post is more a philosophical commentary about the debate rather than another attempt to further it.

    ***

    Final point, to all supporters of Islamic governance here. On the links I supplied earlier, one of the interesting things about the discussion is that key contributors favoured arming the Palestinians to the same degree as Israel, but were very coy about this view. Reading between the lines, I think Cryptonym was in favour of moving the whole of Israel to a new location. Now, would it not be better to make those views known with great clarity? It was rather as if the opinion-holder didn’t like their own conclusions, and the same is happening here: rather than elucidate what one’s view is, and discover honest disagreement, there’s a great deal of going around in circles.

    As I say though, the discussion isn’t pointless even if key protagonists don’t come forward as much as they might. Both sides can learn from the behaviour of both sides! Apologies for the amateur philosophising and psychoanalysis – nevertheless I think it offers insight.

  77. A key point I forgot to note on my last post: the discussion from last year is perhaps indicative of a mindset that refuses to accept the possibility of the good Jew. Thus, the newborn Jew cannot be good, the Jewish human rights worker fighting for Palestine cannot be good, the Jewish monitors of the IDF cannot be good, the young Jews refusing to do national service on grounds of conscience, they cannot be good either.

    This is either an interpretation of religious text that has been taken out of context (to such a degree that acknowledging the possibility of the good Jew is an offence towards God?) or the distorting effects of hatred magnified over a long period of time. Either way, another item for introspection.

  78. In Iran, the mullahs continued some of the better things the Shah had instituted, like mass education and so on and that is good. But we are talking here largely about Sunni Fundamentalism, which is by far the dominant form.

    What the fuck are you talking about Shah and his “Education program”? That wanker was far too preoccupied with whoring around with whore masters flown to Tehran from; Paris, London, New York, as per William Shawcross ( the Islamic Fundamentalist!!!!!).

    Today Iran boasts if not a university in almost every town at least a college of further education in every town, and the population of graduates and post graduates are growing exponentially. The attained literacy levels of ninety five percent of the Iranians, the remainder five percent are the older population whom shah educated! In fact shah presided over sum total of fifteen universities, and in a token effort towards education at primary and early high school levels, he orderd the conscription into national service (two years duration) of those with a high-school diploma to be turned out as teachers and sent to villages in an outreach program of education.

    If you don’t like Islam that is your choice, however to take up a liberal position and then sink your fangs in; ” what some cult leader tells me to think”. This kind of reference to an official world religion is the stuff of hysterical denunciations of Islam by the ziofuckwits.

    I can think for myself – it is permitted.

    Perhaps it should be clarified that imagination and thought are two different processes. In the attempt of indictment of the Islamic societies Salmaan Taseer is shot by his own security guard Mumtaz Qadri presumably his own body guard, because supposedly the guard did no agree with Taseer’s opposition to blasphemy laws in Pakistan. This “evidence” is considered to be reflective of the “Islamic Societies” and their intolerance in the face of “free Speech”. (a single individual who could have been affected by many factors; Taseer had Musharraf connections)

    Further the case of Shahbaz Bhatti assassination .[5] Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility (the Taliban Movement of Pakistan) clearly a Wahhabi affiliated group that in all probability are a creation of ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) of Pakistan.

    However we the “cult members”, cannot see the error of our ways in the lousy examples of intolerance forwarded. Perhaps we the “cult members” ought to be listening and reading Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, clear examples of “solid unbiased” sources of data (I should cocoa in a cultist way).

    In rebuttal of the above examples, it is pointless to troll the net for examples of intolerance and bigotry, because the fora on the net are filled with hate and bile that is being poured on all things Islamic, along with racist murders, and bombings of the mosques, and a constant attack on the rights of the minority Muslims, and Immigrants in UK and the West in general.

    Although the “enlightened liberals” on this board and elsewhere, have little time for others who wish to live their lives based on their moral and traditional imperatives that could include religious elements as decreed by Islam. The Fundamentalist Atheism has spawned the most grotesque attacks on the traditions and sensibilities of others and deems it permissible to dictate to all the only permitted dogma; politics and religion should be kept separate.

    If you wish you keep these separate, go ahead and do so, that is your choice. The only trouble is politics are religion, and religion is politics, regardless of the demarcations that are supposed to exist. The delineation of dogma from dogma is indeed a farcical endeavour.

  79. Thank you all for the conversation so far. Very interesting.
    It seems to me that Arsalan’s arguments are being somewhat misconstrued. Islamic is not at all the same Islamist.

    I think this lady is saying pretty much the same thing as Arsalan?

    http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/07/40235-freedumb-and-democrazy/

  80. @Xander, thanks. The author of that piece is rejecting US dependence and hegemony, certainly, as I do also. She’s not saying anything particularly new.

    But contributors here I think are embracing a kind of religious blindness that is extremely dogmatic, the psychological processes of which I tentatively explored yesterday.

    @Fedup – the atheist movement has very little in common with the US imperialism and neoliberalism that we both despise. In fact, aggressive capitalism feeds on extreme versions of religion, whether it is the Christian fundamentalism espoused by the violent right in America, or Islamic fundamentalism that you seem to be endorsing. It is capitalism’s inhumanity that causes the desperate and the oppressed to seek out increasingly irrational “solutions” to their woes, and – like mass hysteria – it spreads.

    I see this process at work where even the wealthy and the privileged in the US become religious (religious observance for political expediency aside, of course). Thus, even the comfortable are afflicted by witnessing the inhumanity of the system in which they live, and increasingly they turn to invented spiritual entities to help salve what they see (even if they helped further the inhuman system themselves, paradoxically).

    There is, of course, no such thing as “fundamentalist atheism”. The atheist movement now is, after years daring not speak its own name, is gingerly coming out of the closet. The counter-reaction, from religious oppression that has had an easy time of it throughout The Enlightenment, shows that atheists are doing something right.

    The incongruity remaining for me is that, as I discuss things with religionists here – insofar as it can be called an exchange of views! – is that I may be inadvertently causing you to hang onto your religion all the tighter, which for me is a spectacular own goal. But, that would require secularists to remain silent in the face of fundamentalism, which isn’t an option.

  81. This is either an interpretation of religious text that has been taken out of context (to such a degree that acknowledging the possibility of the good Jew is an offence towards God?) or the distorting effects of hatred magnified over a long period of time. Either way, another item for introspection.

    At the outset let us clarify that:

    1- If there were no “anti-Semites”, the ziofuckwits would have had to invent some, and in fact at times they do so.

    2- Without “hatred” towards the Jews. ziofuckwits will be hard-pressed to justify their existence, further to justify their murderous conduct and their inordinate appetite for land theft.

    3- Without “hatred” towards the Jews. The current apartheid regime in zionistan would not exist.

    Therefore to find the old anti-semi…. charges still prevalent in a post Christianity era, in Europe and elsewhere is a an attempt to resuscitate the almost dead and forgotten hatreds towards the Jews. In fact the absurdity of the claims of hatred towards the Jews dominate any debate concerning the barbaric behaviour of the ziofuckwits, and purely serve as a smoke screen for their crimes: there is no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

    This fact can be corroborated by the franchise of ziofuckwits hatred of all things Muslim to the West. This is corroborated in a bizarre episode, Roberta Moor (UK counterpart of Pamela Geller) goes on record, and admits; They think the league [EDL] is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish division. If anything, we are exploiting them.

    Hence to find the “hatred” of Jews so ingrained in every Muslims heart is in fact the stuff of fiction. No need to explain that long before the 1948 imposition of zionistan on Muslims, the Jews and Muslims were living side by side and had no truck with each other. So far as the extreme Wahhabi interpretation goes; massacre and beheading of Shiites in the Northeastern Diyala province. This is proof that the Wahhabi operatives are in fact firm believers in equal opportunity, and they equally hate everyone across the board, other than a handful few who follow the Wahhabi doctrine.

    Therefore to debate about the hatred against the Jews is in fact indulging the ziofuckwits, as we all know that an undesirable individual could belong to any religion, club, group, tribe or gender, and people only react to what they find, and what they see. A considerate, polite and courteous individual will be equally treated with respect and admiration, and an awful aggressive, thief will be treated with utmost contempt and aggression.

    However, given that ziofuckwits have hijacked the Jewish religion, and imperatives thereof, it is up to the Jews to wrest back their religion and traditions from these extremists and voice their opposition to the current wave of mass murder and grand theft lands. If there is a point to be debated is; there is not enough Jews standing up to the ziofuckwits, and their crimes. As we all know silence before tyranny and oppression can be misconstrued as collusion in tyranny and oppression.

    The debate on this thread has spawned many threads, all of which are valid, and pertinent extrapolations. However, given the frustration of those debating these protracted issues it is an expected outcome that emotions will run high and spill over into fights, but all the participants, should take a leaf out of the “old western movies bar fights” (the very old black and white B movies) after a good punch up put the chairs right and pull a table and sit for another round of poker and drinks, before the next punch up.

    Fact is only through discourse and debate can we find common grounds, and further we should all remind ourselves; so long as the opponents are not advocating murder and genocide, land theft, or other deviant propositions, they have every right to their views.

  82. Suhayl Saadi

    17 Jul, 2013 – 8:04 pm

    This is just racist Nonsense, not worthy of a reply.
    If we remove replace your word “Islamist” for the word “Niggers”, nothing will change.
    Because now it has become obvious, that is exactly the word you mean.

    I am surprised you have a problem with your sterotype of horny Arabs coming here to meet prostitutes. In your secular society, wouldn’t Prostitution be legal?

  83. FedUp, you’re quite right to suggest that the current regime extended education. It is one of the good things that regime has done. However, the basis for this extesnion was established by the Shah’s regime. So, while there were terrible things done by the Shah’s regime, as there have been terrible things done by the current regime, there were/have been some beneficent actions too. As I suggested, Iran seems to have been different from other Islamist regimes/movements in that at least to a limited degree the regime there has implemented some redistributive policies. As we both accepted, however, sadly this has not been the case with Sunni Islamist regimes/regimes or movements heavily influenced by them.

    Here is a good thesis on education in Iran:

    http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12612887/index.pdf

  84. Jon
    You have no evidence of the electurate changing their minds.
    What you have evidence of, is the electurate that lost being unable to to tolerate the fact they lost.
    The people who had their man in for 50 years, found someone elses man had one.

    Electurates change their mins in elections.

    I don’t believe you when you say you would support them if they win a second election.
    I’m not sure how a second election can even take place with everyone in prison?

    So yes, you can claim to believe in the Israeli style democracy that the millitry intends for Israel, oh I mean Egypt.

    In Egypt the majority 70% what you call Islamist. The army didn’t, and the up to 30% of the population who were happy under dictatorship didn’t and Israel didn’t.

    You use the example of demonstrations to prove your pioint. where pro Army demonstrations are protected and pro elected government ones are shot at.
    That is like the demonstrations in Palestine aren’t they?

    I’m sure you will aggree with the Israeli style election that will take place. One where all the opposition sit in jail. Similar to how Israel became the only democracy in the middle east by deporting or exterminating 80% of palestinians.

    And I am not in favour of Arming Palestinians just like Israel is armed. I am in favour of a reversing sykes picot.
    It wasn’t the people who live in the middle east who seperated the countries there, just as they weren’t asked about establishing Israel there.
    These countries that were drawn out of the middle east by the british and french have to reunify. That is what the majority of people there want, just as Islamic government is what they want. But you use the example of demonstrations by the few that don’t to say the majority don’t.
    So what I want to end the conflict between the Zionists and the people who were in Palestine before they arrived is, reunification of the middle east back to what it was before the british and french carved it up. And then a quick clean invasion of what you call Israel.
    Don’t worry, Muslims are not Nazis like the Zionists. We will treat them better then they are doing to us.

  85. “What exactly has Islamism achieved? Name one single invention it has generated. Name one single health or education statistic that has been improved by this cult of Sunni Islamism.” Me.

    Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia, Nigeria… all now have experienced the fruits of this wondrous political ideology.

    And as for The House of Saud and the call girls of Knightsbridge (and Manama, and Kive, and…), well, Arsalan, if you wish to set yourself as the defender of the social habits and hypocrisies of the House of Saud, please be my guest.

    As for your usual liberally scattered red flag words, they might suggest the semiotic weakness, rather than strength, of the positions you have adopted. It’s a bit like yelling, “Spanish Inquisition!” or “Bogeyman!” or “Mummy!” when you find yourself at an impasse and unable to reconcile the contraditions inherent in your arguments, not to mention the facts which fly in their face.

    Anyway, all best wishes, and good luck with the fish recipes!

  86. Jon

    17 Jul, 2013 – 9:18 pm

    Don’t you dare bring Jew in to it.

    The problem with Israel is that country kills babies, steals land and oppresses people.
    That is why people hate it.
    It has nothing to do with the religion of the baby killing nazis.
    If Satanists, did that it would all be the same.

    Zionists are not even Jews.
    The ones the founded Israel were Atheists. They just used the term Jew as some sort of new racial term because they were all a bunch of racist nazis.

    Real Jews hate Israel. Real ones who believe in the torah and practice their religion believe Zionism is appostisy from Judaism.
    I agree.
    You can’t be a Jew and a zionists at the same time.
    Real Jews would probably help us invade Israel.

    http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

    Who do I accept as a Jew, someone that follows all of the religion.
    Or someone that east bacon while waving an Israeli flag.
    Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.
    Hatrid of Israel is to do with hating Nazis, because all supporters of Israel are a bunch of baby killing nazis anyway.

  87. Arsalan, not much time to join in at present, but briefly, I don’t think the Egyptian people have been demonstrating for the army. They were fed up of Mubarak’s regime, and they were fed up with Morsi. In other words, they were demonstrating against the hijacking of the revolution, not in order to go back to Mubarak’s lot.

    You have no evidence of the electurate changing their minds.

    Well, I did, and you didn’t convincingly refute it. Again, you want an Islamic government so desperately, you would force it on a people who appear not to want it.

    I don’t believe you when you say you would support them if they win a second election.

    Here’s a serious problem. I think you believe what you say, but that you are misguided. However, you claim not to believe what I say, so there’s no value in you talking to me, surely?

  88. “You can’t be a Jew and a zionists at the same time.” Arsalan.

    I do understand the reasoning, Arsalan and there are some Jews who would agree with you wrt Zionism. I also realise that you are likely originally to be from the Jewish community. But even those Jews who are anti-Zionist mostly would be unlikely to call most Jews (who do agree with some aspects of Zionsim) ‘not-Jews’. It is one thing to say that Zionism is wrong and not part of the religion of Judaism. It is quite another to argue that those who describe themselves as Zionists are not Jews.

    But again, to make such a blatent statement that is untrue… I mean, why do you get to define who is, and who is not, a Jew?

  89. Suhayl Saadi said;

    Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia, Nigeria… all now have experienced the fruits of this wondrous political ideology

    Let us examine one of the instances you have mentioned; Somalia.

    This very rich country set in a strategic location, and for the last few decades has been a Petri dish of experiments in a governance of a country without a government. However as the Somalians tried to organise through the Islamic Courts Union, an organically developed system that was addressing the ghastly reign of the terror constituted by the feudal structure that had emerged in the absence of a central government.

    Suddenly the experiment was no longer left to its own devices, and there was a need for an intervention, and the Ethiopian Meles Zenawi the shunned and despised communist. At once Meles Zenawi was deemed an ally, and was called upon as an ally to go and wrest back the control from the Islamic Courts Union. The war intiated by Meles Zenawi has outlasted him, and has continued with the remaining elements of the “al Shabab” (the youth). This giving an excuse for the US to set up a base in Djibouti, across from Yemen, and call it Africom (Africa Command).

    Fact that the experiment had backfired was an obvious outcome, which was eventually put down by the application of force. In fact the Western history seems to be celebrating only the application of force. This is seen in the various anniversaries of the wars that are being celebrated, including the coming four years of remembrance of WWI.

    The fact that any problem is to be solved through application of force, has given rise to the one tool Western politicians whom have only a hammer in their toolbox see the world as a series of nails, that ought to be dealt with a hammer! This is in continuation of the admiration of such a historical thugs as Alexander with his title of the; “the great”. Everyone has heard/read of the Gordian Knot, and Alexander’s solution to the intricate knot created by a very clever/dexterous man; sliced it with his sword.

    What a wonderfully intellectual sort of a chappy? Whom was endowed with great dexterity and intelligence. He sliced off the knot as any monkey would, given the sword and the knot. Although perhaps the monkey may try his teeth first before getting frustrated and using the knife. Alas that is the hero and he is celebrated thus. This is telling of the calibre of heroes and leaders who are evidently to be admired and respected, as recanted by the “history”.

    The same culture that deems application of force as an inherent instrument of achiving the desired outcomes, of course will not allow any deviation from the set and mandated parameters of conduct and thought. As we type the NSA, GCHQ and a plethora of other organisations that are set to snoop on us all; are monitoring what we are writing and what we are thinking. Believe me none are Islamic organisations either!

    Hence these measures of control are telling of the dangers of the virus of “free thought” that is a virulent and unwelcome phenomena that ought to be combated at times and by all means. However the levels of sophistication achieved by these operatives, who are engaged in their control of the masses minds, through recourse to various plausible rationale. Hence it behoves us all to use care before we resort to bandy the “freedom” prefix, and to deliver vitriol on the perceived enemy is an elegant consequence of such a comprehensive control measures.

    Finally given the Give war a chance brigade, it is perhaps time for humanity to start transcending the simplistic and infantile recourse to application of force. Further it is time to start to consider the consequences of cultural and collateral vandalism, that war is the cause of. This of course means that; Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia have all been attacked and destroyed without the help of any Islmaists. Thus attributing the current problems the beleaguered populations of these countries are facing to Islamists, is a cop out, and a wilful omission of facts.

  90. Yes, all that may well be true, Passerby. Thank you for engaging. Yet still, the problem remains. There has been not one single successful example of an Islamist regime or movement producing a worthwhile society for its people or even one single invention of use to humanity. Is anyone here denying the strategic goals of the USA/UK/NATO et al? Yet here, on this part of the thread, I am focusing my critique largely on the chimera of Islamism, its inability to deal with reality and its consistent failure to provide, or engender, solutions.

  91. “This of course means that; Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia have all been attacked and destroyed without the help of any Islmaists.” Passerby.

    I don;t agree with that. I see the Islamists everywhere. These countries have been destroyed very much with the help of the Islamists.

  92. I mean, to suggest otherwise is to be in utter denial, surely.

  93. “And then a quick clean invasion of what you call Israel.” Arsalan.

    You sound like Donald Rumsfeld, on the “cakewalk” invasion of Iraq.

    Well, Passerby, you may have to accept that at least one Islamist is ready and willing to cut the knot, the Gordion Knot.

  94. “Don’t worry, Muslims are not Nazis like the Zionists. We will treat them better then they are doing to us.” Arsalan.

    Sorry to burst your balloon, Arsalan. But recent history does not bear out this claim.

    The Armenian Genocide was committed by Muslims against Christians. Muslims slaughtered one another, Shia against Sunni, in a variety of places. Think of Iraq, Syria (yes, let us pluck one another’s hearts, beating and raw, and chew the sinews), Afghanistan, Pakistan. Let us think of what happened in Afghanistan after the fall of Najibullah. Groups of Islamists fought one another and destroyed the city of Kabul in the process. Then groups of Islamists fought each other again (Taliban versus ‘Mujaheddin’). And now, groups of Islmaists are fihgting one another (Afghan Govt versus Taliban). Most Christians have fled the Middle East (except in Lebanon and Morocco). There is a good reason why. And how did regimes in the Middle East – and the mullahs – treat the Jews of those countries during the 1940s-50s? Did any Islamists – did Sayyid Qutb or Maududi or any of them – stand up and stand, “Stop!”? Did any of them try to protect their Jewish neighbours?

    I’m sorry, Mr Goldberg, but you are calling on Wendy and Peter Pan to restore the Kingdom of Narnia and then for Gandalf to descend upon the world and wave his white beard at everyone. It really is a hiding to nothing.

  95. SS
    Well compared to the alternative, which is happening now. Kids armed with stones facing the full weight of the Israeli army.
    Yes it will be a cake walk.

  96. And even if we don’t win the first invasion attempt. We only need to win one of the next attempts.

  97. Suhayl Saadi

    18 Jul, 2013 – 6:03 pm

    I translate this as:
    What have the Niggers ever produced that is worth while. All Hail the great white race!

    There are almost two billion Muslims in the world. They invent many things.
    Since the end of the Othmaniya khilafah you would attribute the inventions they make to whatever society you desire.
    After the Khilafah is established, you will find some excuse not to say it was to do with the khilafah state.
    Just as you say who you call Islamist winning the election is not democracy, and the coup that removed them is.
    :)

  98. Lies again?
    LOL
    The armian genocide was done mainly by the young turks. Secularists. Your people arent they?
    Even so, unlike the genocide Israel does, and the Americans do in Iraq and Afghanistan. The turks did prosecute about 500 officers for it.
    How many soldiers did Israel prosecute for all the babies they killed?
    lol
    I think you take your history straight from the BNP.
    And what happened before the young turks gained full control of the army was due to a total war between the armians and the Kurdish tribes men they fought.
    You selective amnesia might choose to forget that the armians started it, and tried to wipe out the kurds.
    the kurds fought back, which means they are evil islamist terrorists.
    LOL
    You hypocrit.

    And when it comes to a lot of the other things you mentioned. As for much of the rest you talk about, what happened was the result of the caoos that came with a Kaffir invasion.

    You Blame Islam and Islamists for actions that happen in wars in the muslim world.
    But do you blame your secularism for wars in the rest of the world?

    You are as hypocritical as a Zionist.

  99. Time for a fish supper, methinks!

  100. … while we nestle down into a comfortable apologetics. Now we see denial of the Armenian Genocide.

  101. “There are almost two billion Muslims in the world. They invent many things.” Arsalan.

    I’m sure they do. Sadly, they do this mostly in secular, non-Muslim societies. But if you remember, I challenged you to name one single invention that Islamists had produced. Apart, that is, from suicide bombing.

  102. “I translate this as:
    What have the Niggers ever produced that is worth while. All Hail the great white race!” Arsalan.

    On the contrary.

    http://inventors.about.com/od/blackinventors/a/Black_History.htm

    And that’s just African-Amercians, doesn’t include Africans. Now, can you produce a similar list for ‘Islamist Inventors’?

  103. Well, a very Zionist way to phraise the question :)
    (As mentioned before, you really mean, what have the lesser races produced)

    If we call Islamist people that rule by Islam, every invention that was done in Muslim Scoieties between the advent of Islam to when Muslim countries were colonised.

    Go read a book on Muslim inventions. :)
    Or any book on chemistry and notice all the Arabic words, maths books are fill of Arabic words too.

    I am sure you play with extensiveness and exclusiveness in a way that exclude all Muslim engineers from Islamists and include any Muslim that has ever commited a crime, or what you call a crime.
    :) so you to your racism, and me to my Islam.

  104. “If we call Islamist people that rule by Islam, every invention that was done in Muslim Scoieties between the advent of Islam to when Muslim countries were colonised.” Arsalan.

    Ah! Well, I don’t call those people, ‘Islamist’. I do not equate Muslim with Islamist; the terms are not synonymous. All Islamists (sadly) are Muslim, but by no means all Muslims are Islamist.

    Furthermore, those inventions occurred during the Middle Ages when rationalism – Ibn Rush’s and others’ in the falsafa schools, i.e. schools of philosophy – flourished in Muslim societies.

    And how many inventions – name even one – have there been in Islamist societies? How many in C20th? C21st? Name just one. Can you…?

  105. Anyway, your parallel is silly – an attempt at closing down criticism by screaming, “Mother!”. ‘Islamism’ is not a ‘race’, not an ethnicity. It is something you can adopt and relinquish, like Communism, or Fascism or Scientology. You did (adopt it). And you can relinquish it.

    Islamophobia is real – hatred of Muslims is real and arguably that is racist. But critiquing Islamism might be a sign that one actually loves Islam and loves Muslims and hates what Islamism is doing to it, and to them.

  106. I see the Islamists everywhere.

    Is that not seeing Reds under the bed kind of a problem that may taint your judgement?

    It is one of the good things that regime has done.

    There you go! Do you really believe that a vociferous and unyielding Iranian public used to kicking their “betters” around and out of office, would put up with their current leadership if they were not happy with the said leadership? Iranians wanted an Islamic Republic and despite the best efforts of Shah to prevent it, they managed to revolt and kick the Shah out hold a referendum and and they cast their ballots in that nation wide referendum for an Islamic Republic. Further, it is not just the Iranian leadership that has achieved the current literacy levels of ninety five percent. The Iranians have been working their nuts/butts/pudenda off to get educated, and to work to achieve the levels of self sufficiency they have reached, despite the three decades of sanctions against Iran and Iranians.

    However, without yet again pointing out that your jaundiced view of political Islam is affecting your judgement. This reluctance to accept the tainted judgement too is understandable; as an author, with a “weird”* name you need perhaps to make sure that you are doubly clear in your opposition to political Islam. Moreover your levels of aggression toward the “Islamists”, despite the repeatedly pointed fact that political Islam is not a uniform and homogeneous philosophy. However your references to “Islamists” steadily are becoming shrill, and going so far as the wanker Robert Kilroy-Silk diatribe. This perhaps ought to be toned down for the benefit of moving forward with the debate.

    I can understand your reluctance to accept; there could actually exist societies that are more happy to live under the Islamic constitution, in a Islamic Republic. However, you should be aware of this factor that this probability exists, and ensure that your research/debate is not the kind of Dershowitzery in search of re-affirming your prejudices.

    With the above in mind, could you find a positive aspect in the Political Islam from a third party point of view ? So that you have not incriminated yourself in any way, in case Anthony Glees and co are keeping a tally of what you have been getting up to in your spare time.

    * No disrespect is intended, the term is denote that because you are not Jones/Brown/Green then by all means a potential Islamist terrorist that could be hunted, and entrapped and imprisoned. Given the appalling abuses of the minorities rights in UK at present time.

    ======

    … aggressive capitalism feeds on extreme versions of religion, whether it is the Christian fundamentalism espoused by the violent right in America, or Islamic fundamentalism that you seem to be endorsing.

    Despite my support for political Islam, I am beyond any theisms and find the A theism a fucking teenage angst that has afflicted the undeveloped A theists. This angst in its immaturity finds it necessary to confront the religious people without taking into account the needs of them for the order and belonging that religion could perhaps afford these people in a world of uncertainties. The fact that A theists somehow always wind up proselytising as good as their nemesis the religious people never dawns on them.

    In short, no need to believe in any creator, or any excuse to do good, and be true, living life without; fraud, theft, lies, adulatory, etc. Note I did not included the killing, because I view all human beings to hate and abhor killing the next human being, and any living being. That is other than psychopaths, and deranged fucking lunatics, who will do so regardless, and by resorting to varying excuses for their abhorrent deeds and actions. This effectively strips their personal responsibility and role in murder through a convoluted rationalisation process, making black to be white, and up to become down!

    Based on the above, my support for political Islam is a wish to afford the underdeveloped world an avenue of progress. The fact is these societies need to build up an escape velocity from their current fast; food, culture, politics dependency, remaining consumers of the Western products and services. Only through independence these societies can move forward and raise the fucking bar for general levels of justice, and respect for the inalienable rights of each one of us as human beings.

    The irony of ironies is that A theists, fighting the religious dogmatically without ever realising this. Further the lack of respect shown by these A theists towards the sensibilities, imperatives of those whom believe in a religion and observance thereof. This is indicative of an of immature and undeveloped individual who lacks the understanding; there are many paths to truth, and no one has the copyright/patent on getting there! The first step in building any kind of a relationship is respect, and acceptance of the sensibilities and imperatives of the next pilgrim along.

    Finally although Christianity has yielded extreme forms of capitalism, Islam has a much more nuanced approach towards distribution of wealth within the society and puts more emphasis on the individual responsibilities of those lucky enough to be better off. Although this latter point is not exactly practised considering the excesses of the sheiks and their life style that Suhayl is always reeling about.

    =====

    then a quick clean invasion of what you call Israel

    Are you crazy? If the current “Islam-ist” regimes (those purporting to be observing the tenets of Islam),such as Saudi in particular, that finds invading and killing poor Yemeni revolting against the corrupt and ineffective Saleh types. Or support the murderous Al Khalifa by sending the Saudi army to beat down, kill, and suppress, the revolution in Bahrain. On the other hand the same bunch of ruling pederasts supplying money and arms for any murdering thug in Syria, and Iraq to run amok and terrorise the population of these countries. Or order the religious hierarchy in Saudi to issue a fatwa and forbid any Saudi from praying for the success of the Hezbollah fighters in the thirty three day war of the ziofuckwits on Lebanon. All the while Saudi’s own territories being under the occupation of zinoistan; Tiran and Sanafir Islands, that have been under occupation since 1967.

    If Muslims in various countries manage to constitute an equitable, fair, and safe country, the fall of zionistan would soon follow thereafter. This without firing a single shot. Just take a note of the imploding project that is turning ziofuckwits on their own kind. Their racism and aggression knows no bounds. In fact the astonishing facts about existence of neo nazi groups in zionistan are pretty well hushed up.

    The apartheid regime in zionistan is imploding, and this implosion will be even more rapid, if only the Muslims were to rid themselves from the current batch of Western charge hands set to their leadership positions. Just listen to McCain and find out how worried he is, at the prospect of such an eventuality.

  107. More densely packed, decorative prose, Fedup, that (again) means close to nothing at all. It also misunderstands atheism to a great degree (what is meant by “a theism”, with the word space?). I should state (again) that, in the same way as calling someone a liar, it isn’t helpful to attribute immaturity to someone in a debate. You’re welcome to explain I don’t understand something, and to set out in a clear way what you believe that is, of course – as I did for you.

    Islam has a much more nuanced approach towards distribution of wealth within the society

    I agree. I like its opposition to usury, though I would be worried to live under any absolutist faith-based governance (what recourse do I have if religious observance X becomes mandatory, and democracy has been torn down?). No state should be religious, since a religious state will always have a preference for people who practice the state religion.

    In short, no need to believe in any creator, or any excuse to do good, and be true, living life without; fraud, theft, lies, adulatory

    Ah, life without religion is evil, eh? A common mistake about atheism – you should look up humanism. In any case, atheism is about confronting religion’s power over secular life, not eradicating religion.

    Only through independence these societies can move forward and raise the fucking bar for general levels of justice

    That’s the problem, though, isn’t it? It isn’t clear at all that Islamic governance will always raise the bar for justice, and in some cases, it hugely lowers it, as Suhayl points out.

    In fact the absurdity of the claims of hatred towards the Jews

    Ah, right: anti-Jewish racism doesn’t exist. Nonsense, I am afraid. Is your refusal to be drawn on the “good Jew” (who is fighting for Palestinian justice) a result of your believing that all Jews are bad by definition? If so, this is an End Times kind of narrative, where Good and Evil people can be easily identified – it is desperate stuff, utterly without basis, and demonstrates excellently why religion can be a dangerous thing. It creates and feeds on hatred and tribalism, and I think you have succumbed to it.

    Anyway, I set out some interesting points on the psychology of “not seeing” the contradictions in ones own perspective, and how self-analysis might help guard against this. Do have a read, and come back to me on it if you wish.

  108. That is what I meant by you defining the word Islamist the way you want.
    I have already told you I don’t even recognise the word.
    What I do recognise If Khilafah itself, a state where the laws are based on Islam.
    And what I list is that, it is Khilafah. The Rashidun, Umayad, Abisid, later ottoman rulers were Khalifs.
    That is the system I want to see emulated.
    And I think you know it and you are just playing with words.
    You ask me to defend states, I seek to overthrow. If the Brotherhood had won, it wouldn’t have made a difference to me, because they did not seek to rule by Khilafah.

    My critisium on you was not a defense of the brotherhood, the Iranians regime or even the taliban. It was just an attack on your hypocrisy, and your lies.
    Your pretence at believing in democracy when you clearly dont. Also your sense of your own superiority. What you believe in is the will of the people if only they shared your will.
    You are a white supremicist with a brown skin. What a African American would call a House Nigger, what the Indians call a chumcher or a koli, What native americans call a tom-a-hawk and many other nations have other names for your attittude of self superiority.

    People in the Muslim world are Islamist, if you define it as anything other than secularism.
    The dictators are like you, they look down on Islam, and their own people for believing in it. They see themselves as superior because of their westernisation so allow their people to starve.
    You asked what good Islamist have done. Even thought I don’t believe how the Brotherhood wants to rule is very Islamic(Not khilafah), they feed the people while the secularist rulers feed themselves.

    But to be honest with you. The reason why Muslims believe in Islamic government, is a spiritual reason and not the worldly reasons you would prefer.
    True Muslims want to live by all of Islam.
    While hypocrits, pick off the bits they like and say the rest is politics.
    You may have decided that religion should not have anything to do with state.
    But when any true Muslim reads the quran, when he gets to the bit that says chop the hand of the theif, he doesnt say, “Well that is to do with the state, we must ignore this rule”. A true Muslim wants to see that implemented, in the same way he implements the bits of prayer, fasting and zakat. But even when it comes to things that are to do with the individual, you and not the state. There are still bits you don’t like? Such as the verse of Hijab. And before you say you have your own strange interpretation of it, true Muslims implement it in the way the Prophet pbh interpreted it.

    So we will implement Islam, you will implement what you want to.

  109. You are a white supremicist with a brown skin. What a African American would call a House Nigger

    Calling someone a betrayal of their colour is, in my view, as offensive as racism itself, Arsalan. You should be greatly ashamed of such a corrosive view. Are you not able to argue with decency towards people who hold honest disagreement?

  110. Ah, life without religion is evil, eh?

    Do you deliberately wish to misconstrue, what I have written?

    You assume I am religious!

    This is the dialogue of the deaf, the mute, and the blind. Each setting out their stall and refusing to see the others point of view.

    what recourse do I have if religious observance X becomes mandatory, and democracy has been torn down?

    The working Islamic Republic in Iran so far has not torn the democratic checks and balances. there is no forced conversions of Christians and Jews into Islam.

    Fact that Western democracies are based on Christian tenets seems to be escaping your attention.

    demonstrates excellently why religion can be a dangerous thing. It creates and feeds on hatred and tribalism, and I think you have succumbed to it.

    ROFL you really made my day with this last bit!!!!!

    It is a hoot, although I hope not in an offensive way. How can I succumb when I have no religious affiliations? Trouble is I actually took the time to study the three major religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and then decided I need none to help me to live my life.

    A theism is what it says A theism:

    theism = the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation.

    “A” an instance of the above with a differing dogma, and set of imperatives;demonstrates excellently why religion can be a dangerous thing effectively replacing one kind of dogma with another. Hence A theism. You are off hand rejecting the first ever set of rules and laws that made probable the existence of human societies. Without the laws governing marriage, heredity, and conduct, we human beings were still in the fucking caves mate.

    A mature view would be; although I have no belief in any kind of a religion, I respect those who believe in a religion, and I do not intend to fight them because of my fears and prejudices. You are mistakenly equating anti-relegion with enlightenment.

  111. Fact that Western democracies are based on Christian tenets seems to be escaping your attention.

    Simply not true. Western democracies are based on capitalism and hypocrisy.

    Do you deliberately wish to misconstrue, what I have written?

    No, I don’t.

    We’re not getting anywhere, again. Fedup, my views are held openly and honestly. I think I have answered all your questions, but you have nothing but treacle for me to wade through, still. I take the debate seriously, and you find it hilarious. I am polite to you, and you swear back. I ask you questions, and you ignore them.

    And so it goes, on and on. You then have the audacity to suggest it is me that is offering a “dialogue of the deaf, the mute, and the blind”. I think readers studying the record above, and the one I linked to, will see a different picture.

  112. Hang on capitalism came later. First there was the religious rule that governed Europe as a whole. However the awful heredity laws gave rise to the filthy rich and abject poor and then there came the push to define property and the laws concerning property, which strangely are based on Christian tenets.

    You are skipping the early years. The evolution of the old system has brought about the present system.

    I did not swear and laugh at you, I laughed at your assumption; believing I am religious! Swearing is my style.

    What have I ignored that has annoyed/upset you so much?

  113. There should be a diversity of “governance” systems, in a best of breed (craps this is a supremacist expression) competition. Ever since the demise of Communism the unashamed fascist have gone to their ends, because there is no competing ideology for the plebeians to get attracted to.

    The fascists like the current status quo just fine, a mono idea world of shit. However, this is not for the benefit of we the punters as it is becoming more and more obvious by the day. Can you see why I advocate the existence of differing schools of thought and governance? Or is it still not clear for you?

  114. Jon

    18 Jul, 2013 – 10:34 pm

    Don’t play that Zionist game of twisting my words to suit your arguments.

    You know full well why I called him a white supremacist, and I have told him many times why I have said that.

    He was called that because of the same reason I have called you that.
    The arguments both of you have used is white supremicist arguments.
    Both of you have used the words islamicist the way others use the word Nigger.
    So it doesn’t take long before the truth becomes visible.

    I never once accused him of betraying his own colour. That is something you made up, and you accused me of saying because you are a liar.
    If you are not a liar, quote the post where I accuse him of betraying his own colour.
    If a white man said what he said, and many in the BNP, and NF have said exactly what he said. Everyone would call that white man a racist and a white supremicist.
    So it would be racist of me not to call him a white supremicist.
    I don’t even know what calour you are jon, but I call you one too don’t I?
    Is that racist too?
    If you want to know why I call you that, scrole up and the reason is given in the posts where I do.

    All both of you said is about forcing lesser races to obey the ways of the white man.
    Don’t pretend it isn’t.

  115. native americans call a tom-a-hawk

    A slight detour;

    I always assumed tom-a-hawk denotes an axe made out of a slate/metal blade tied/strapped to a wooden handle by leather/sinew strips. Can you please clarify the roots of your interpretation of the term?

  116. Fedup and John

    I believe Christians should rule by Christianity.
    The fact they don’t leads me to believe on the whole they don’t believe in their scripture.
    But some laws are realted to their beliefs. But since capitalism these laws have become fewer and fewer.
    Thinngs that are still related to belief is the fact that incest is still illigal.
    It isn’t illigal for any form of capitalist reason. There is no money to be made keeping it illigal.
    It is illigal due to Christian beliefs.

    But I can see how it is hard for White Christians to rule by Christianity.
    They don’t even implement it on their own lives.
    And have found excuses to ignore each and every law Jesus lived by.
    They don’t pray the way Jesus prayed, they don’t fast the way jesus fasted, the men don’t keep beards the way jesus did, the women don’t cover their hair the way his mother did, they eat what was forbiden to Jesus, they forbid themselves from marrying more then one when jesus never forbade it etc.

    If people believe in a religion, they shouldn’t shy away from living by it, whether individually or as a whole.

  117. fedup

    Yes that is exactly what it is.
    But when you space it out. It becomes Tom as in uncle tom. A hawk is added after, to indicate, the native bit.
    A native American told me they use that word for natives that look down on other natives and up to white culture.

  118. A native American told me they use that word for natives that look down on other natives and up to white culture.

    This is really exciting (I know little things, please little minds etc.), there can be a link/pollination to the Uncle Tom that is the usual derisory term for blacks being deferential to their “white master”. Native Americans using Tom and then contextualising it with a soaring Hawk to clarify the look down on the origins of the Hawk that is the subject of derision.

    I know this a quick fire analysis with little corroboration, and evidence to rely on. Alas I don’t know many Native Americans let us hope some will come forward to accept or reject the postulation forwarded.

    The fact they don’t leads me to believe on the whole they don’t believe in their scripture.

    Don’t be uncharitable. Christians in the last 2000 years have seen many aspects of Christianity to undergo changes. The present day Christian beliefs due to the elapsed time does not find emulating Jesus as part of their rites. This somehow does not detract from their intention to be good and remain true.

    The concept of ownership is in fact a late arrived at thought, Adam Smith sets out the principles of ownership and defines it, which clearly is indicative of efforts in demarcation of chattel and property and establishing relationship/link to the owners of the said property and chattel, was arrived at pretty late in the history.

    So far as incest goes, it is a destructive interaction that leads to amplification of the genetics defect and is ruinous to the health of the off spring resultant of such a interaction. Capitalists who were too busy changing the master slave relationships and the obligations thereof, could not afford the mass of disabled workers/self motivated slaves. Thus the laws against incest.

    Islam being the youngest religion, has a far more comprehensive approach to the lives of its followers, hence the influence of Islam on the daily lives of the Muslims. This fact always escapes the attention of those whom are not familiar with Islam.

  119. Interesting. You see, one scratches the shell’s surface… and the worm emerges from the egg. It is best that people here see this reality in its full flood and then imagine – have no illusions about – what kind of society would be generated by this reality. And then imagine, just for a moment, what people in Muslim societies are up against.

  120. And in spite the very interesting discourses and dense prose in the stream above (and thanks, Jon, for continuing to engage), there still has been no response to my very simple question. Any inventions by Islamist societies? Even one…? I think this is important because if one is claiming to be advancing human betterment, it is necessary to provide evidence. Is there any?

  121. “… the men don’t keep beards the way jesus did, the women don’t cover their hair the way his mother did…” Arsalan [wrt Christians]

    In this world-view (to which they are fully entitled, but one does not have to agree with it), infant mortality and female literacy rates, for example, are of no consequence, just the presence or absence of beards and veils.

    Even on its own level, it’s just absurd. I’m sure there are photographs of Jesus and Mary, somewhere… let me search in the attic.

  122. Any inventions by Islamist societies?

    The insistence on the label “Islamist” is somewhat confusing. This the curmudgeon may misconstrue as mendacious, given the “stream of prose” on this particular thread.

    If Islamic political systems are being questioned; Iran has had many inventions, the latest of which include nano technology products for water filtration! This invention is a spinoff of their civil nuclear technology; to filter any water input or output into the nuclear plants, as well as any contaminated sources of water, ie any old pond can be treated with this product to obtain filtered water, that can be potable with the addition of chlorine for belts and braces approach.

    Further, Iranians have invented/discovered among other drugs a solution that heals diabetic ulcers on the lower limbs of the diabetes sufferers; preventing the amputation of the affected limbs.

    This kind of genital swinging perhaps is not the best method of assessing any systems effectiveness. Although there is a room for such a metrics, but to table such a question in the manner that it has been repeated, overlooks the simple fact that inventions are in need of patents, to officially protect the rights of the inventor.

    This excludes the ingenious solutions to various problems faced by innovative individuals in their daily lives, simply because the solutions applied are not patented. Further, the latent content of the question can be a source of confusion; what is intended to adduce from such a line of questioning? Is it to prove that:
    Islamic Political Systems are lax on education of their people?
    Islamic political systems stifle innovation and progress?

    This kind of divisive questions are not very helpful, and need to be more concisely constructed and the forwarded.

  123. I’m very pleased that Iranians are inventing helpful things for humanity. Here is another piece on this subject:

    http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/03/article_0004.html

    The question that arises, though, is this. Does the fact that people in Iran continue to invent things, make great films, write good books and so on, have anything to do with the Islamism in the political system in which they happen to dwell at the presnt time? Or were they doing these things anyway? In other words, is it the Islamism swithin the political system that has resulted in these benficent outcomes, or is it that the resourcefulness and creativity of the people continues to manifest in spite of the Islmaism that defines the system. Or, posibly, is that the progressive elements within specifically, Iranian Islamism have helped to nuture such positive talents?

    Iran also won more medals at last year’s Olympics than any other Muslim country, except possibly Kazakhstan (ex-USSR), a fact unreported in the Western media and one to which I mentioned on this blog.

    I think we already agreed that Iran is a complex case, politically, with some inherent socialist elements, and differs enormously from the contemporary manifestation of Sunni Islamism that is prevalent everywhere else. I find it interesting that the proponenets of that Sunni Islamism repeatedly have to refer to Iran in order to find anything positive. But perhaps we should ask Arsalan what he thinks of Iran?

  124. the resourcefulness and creativity of the people continues to manifest in spite of the Islmaism that defines the system. Or, posibly, is that the progressive elements within specifically, Iranian Islamism have helped to nuture such positive talents?

    Certainly from the article that you kindly provided the link for, the young Iranian inventors were aged between seventeen and twenty seven, and included the both of the genders. Therefore we can safely conclude that these individuals were educated in the Islamic Republic and have known no other system. Their nurture and fruition to the productive and solution solving individuals has been a personal and communal process, both aiming to progress for the cause of humanity.

    I am hesitant to join in sectarian discourses, because these detract from the substance of the debate. However I fullheartedly agree with you that Iranian model has proved to be a successful revolution, and those aspiring to constitute an Islamic Political System will do well to study Iranian system and take good note of it.

    The socialist component of the Iranian Islamic system most certainly is under a constant stream of attacks from without Iran, that is aided and abetted by the elements within that country. This too ought to be fully taken on board for without the socialist/egalitarian component any constituted system would lose its Islamic essence, and would emulate the Vaticanesque (no disrespect to Catholic sensibilities intended, referring to Borgia et al)system that became unstuck.

    Finally I am looking forward too, to read the response to your last question.

  125. Thanks, Passerby. Much appreciated.

  126. Wel, Arsalan, Passerby is keen to know your thoughts on Iran. Give us your thoughts!

  127. Jon,

    Are we mates and good to go, or are you going to stay sulky and moody? (stated with in a conciliatory tone, so don’t take it the wrong way)

    The assumption that I am religious could have had a bearing on reading what I have forwarded, don’t you think?

    ===
    Suhayl,

    You have dodged the question: could you find a positive aspect in the Political Islam from a third party point of view ?

  128. “… from a third party point of view ?” Passerby.

    I haven’t dodged the question, I just missed it, sorry. What do you mean by “a third party”? Do you mean a political party, or a 3rd person in a discourse/situation?

    I mean, if anything, if there is to be a ‘political Islam’, I’d have liked to have seen a sort of liberation theology type of movement. There are elements within the religion which definitely point towards that, egalitarianism and so on, but unfortunately, politically, it’s not happened. Some people had high hopes of Iran during the early years or the Revolution, but most were disappointed.

  129. Fedup, are you the same person who posts under, ‘Passerby’? Or are you two different people? It’s just a little confusing sometimes. ‘Fedup’ and ‘Passerby’ seem to possess very similar voices. ‘Cryponym’ is another which I find quite similar.

    If you’re three people, then fine. But if you’re all one person, you know, might it not be better just to stick to one handle? Forgive the speculation.

  130. Forgive the speculation.

    Palm of the left hand on head (hoping you don’t use hair gel stuff) with a deep reassuring voice; you are forgiven child!

    Could the similarities arise because the three of us have similar outlooks ?

    a 3rd person in a discourse/situation

  131. I think that many people are inspired by faith to do many good things. There also are positive aspects of many faiths that can, and do, form the bases of a yearning for social justice and so on. I think of the man, Abdul Sattar Edhi who runs those ambulances and other healthcare facilities in Pakistan, for example. That, to me, is Islam and it is political.

    And if that is what you mean, Fedup, then yes, I think there is a role for what might be termed ‘a political Islam’. It would have to be very different, though, from the kinds of organised political Islam we have seen so far.

  132. yes, I think there is a role for what might be termed ‘a political Islam’. It would have to be very different, though, from the kinds of organised political Islam we have seen so far.

    Bloody hell Suhayl, we are in agreement! The lamb and the lion hanging around cool drinking Pina Colada etc. Best not get too far with this sort of stuff!!

    Silliness aside, without a delineation of Political Islam from the “Islam-ism” there can be no progress. The use of the pejorative term of “Islam-ism” is used as a catch all to describe the little preacher bent on keeping his folk and his income safe from the clutches of the poachers foreign and domestic. As well as the highly articulate educated individuals whom follow Islam and intend to synthesise a modern and viable system of governance.

    This is a first step, towards a better debate hopefully.

    I join you to table the question;perhaps we should ask Arsalan what he thinks of Iran? (not in an inquisitorial fashion)

  133. “Silliness aside, without a delineation of Political Islam from the “Islam-ism” there can be no progress.” Fedup.

    Yes, I agree, Fedup.

  134. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Whatever achievements Iranians have enjoyed in the arts, science, industry and sports, have no divine origin whatsoever. Religious fervour might have inspired some greater effort, but so what? Replace Islam with Christianity, American pride or obsessive personal zeal and you get the same excited motivation that leads to success.

    Apologists of Islam will frequently cite historical instances of personal achievements of muslims as if those achievements could only have occurred under the auspices of Islam. Bullshit. 

    Did Muslims, Christians or Jews invent copper smelting? Bronze? Iron or steel? No.

    Defenders of religion will also falsely claim that civilisation and its moral roots exist only because of belief in an Abrahamic God. Again, bullshit. European pagans were already advanced and civilised (as much as anybody could be at that time) before Judaism was invented. Anyone ever heard of the Greeks? And later on, the Romans?

    Did any of these religions inspire civilisation in the Far East? No.

    It’s lamentable that Jews, Christians and Muslims want to destroy, hide or rewrite history to erase their respective absences, deficiencies, failures and crimes. We see the most recent examples of this behaviour in places like Afghanistan where they destroy ancient Buddhist statues. And in place of historical or scientific truth, we are told legends, myths and fairytales. Propaganda, I think it’s called.

    Bronze flag, c. 3000 BCE -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bronze_flag,_Shadad_Kerman,_Iran.JPG

  135. Suhayl Saadi

    19 Jul, 2013 – 8:11 am

    They are up against people who see them as lesser humans. Fit only to be commanded by superior races.
    These are either colonialists who conquar them or people with brown skins.

    When Muslims rule themselves, they rule in ways you don’t like.
    “You” is the key word here, YOU.
    So you rule yourself the way you in scotland would like, and be happy with them ruling themselves where they are. Even if it isn’t by the secularism you know and love.

    When it comes to the inventiveness of Islamic societies. Well If they want to live the way they do, with inventions or without. That is up to them. You sound like the white faced Christians that exterminated the red man to bring inventiveness to America. Or the white faced Christians who carried off the black man, for the same reason.
    Muslims like the way they live. And they don;t like the way you love.
    Get over it!

    Suhayl Saadi

    19 Jul, 2013 – 9:46 am

    Again, we follow what we believe in, you follow what you believe in.
    We know what JEsus the son of marry and his mother wore, because of the laws they followed. These laws are still there in the scripture. White Christians choose to ignore these laws. We and many Black and Brown Christians as well as Religious Jews still follow it.
    Here in this country it is up to you whether you follow the Laws of the Quran, the bible and the Torah(All of whome agree on this issue). But you are a hyporite for and dishonest for bringing up female literacy and infant mortality. It is your secularists that ban girls from getting an education in school for putting a cloth on their heads. Not just in Racist nations like France, Belgium and Russia. It also happens in secualrist Countries like Turkey, Azerbigan and even countries you might regard as Islamist have schools that ban Hijab including Saudi Arabi, and Karzia Afghanistan.
    So blame yourself and people like you who see themselves as superia to the rest of the people because you have exchanged the verses of the Quran that you disagree with with the values of the Superia white race.
    And this samething applies to infant mortality. Pregnant women have died because they were denied entry in to Hospitals in Bin Alis Tunisa. Even when they are willing to comprimise their religion to save life, women still die, when they find that they are still refused entry even after removing their hijab because their ID card was rejected because they happened to be scarved in it. And this is the laws with the excuse of your secularism. So you blame Islamism for these evils, I blame you, people like you and the seculerism you seek to promote.

    You blame Islam-Ism. I blame your own racism for you even using the term Islam-ism in the way you do. You use it as others use the word Nigger.

  136. Suhayl Saadi

    19 Jul, 2013 – 1:00 pm

    And

    Passerby

    19 Jul, 2013 – 11:23 am

    That is why I kept ignoring SS when he said “What have Islam-ist invented”.

    It wasn’t a true question. What ever you say, that would be, well they did it not because of their islam but inspite of.

    I saw through it. It wasn’t a question. It was a statement. A racist statement against lesser races.

    The same can be applied to other accusations he has made against what he calls Islam-ist.
    was it Islam that caused that, or poverity, wars, sanctions and other things.

    White supremicist make the same arguments about all lesser races.

    So I’m not going to play that game with him and list things.

    Instead I will ask him, SS what have you ever invented?
    You personally what have you invented?

    That comment you made is plagerised from Kilroy isn’t it?
    So i’m going to repeat Paul Merton reply. What have you ever invented?
    What has your secularism ever inspired you to invent. Other then those books?
    Do I need to watch kilroy to get a preview of them?

  137. Suhayl Saadi

    19 Jul, 2013 – 8:00 pm

    Well, I’m sorry to disapoint you but you are not going to get the secterianism you would have hoped for from that request.

    What I believe in is Khilafah. For this to happen Muslims need to get beyond the secterianism the imperialists try to exploit.

    They used it, straight after the revolution. support Sunni against Shia, then use it again when the attacked Iraq supporting Shia against Sunni, and now again to try and get Sunni to attack Iran.
    It is a game. They use school of thought instead of race. They would have just as easily said, Arab against persian.

    I do not consider Iran to be an Islamic state for the same reason I don’t consider any of the countries today as being such.
    The Islamic state is the Khilafah. Anything else is a mix of Islam and Kufr.
    It is debatable how Iran compares to other nations, in the amount of Islam they implement compared to the amount of Kufr. The supporters of each country will admit the country they support isn’t completely Islamic, but they will state it is more Islamic than some other countries.
    I am not going to play that game.

    When it comes to Iranian Tech. Yes credit where it is due.
    I think sanctions have a lot to do with this.
    And the War where the secularists support Saddam against Iran and helped him attack Iran and invade large amounts of it. During this invasion, the imperialists as well as their puppets in the gulf filled Iraq with arms, and restricted Iran from getting them. This created an inventivenes in the Iranian spirit.

  138. Jemand – Censorship Improves History

    Even though you wrote what you did as an attack on me.
    To some extant at least I agree with you.

    People invant.
    It isn’t religion that invents or even a systems of government.
    People do it.

    But somethings encourage advancement and somethings stifle it.
    I believe people like SS get in the way of advancement.
    secularism in the Muslim world is nothing but plagiarisation by people who regard themselves as inferior of a people they regard as superior.
    This doesn’t create advancement or creativity, all it creates is plagiarisation.
    The regimes that were carved out of the Ottoman Khilafah, didn’t suddenly advance to great hights. They stagnated and some regressed.
    They plagiarisation from the white race, while the white nations advanced.
    So all this looking to the white race for answers to our problems, only means an eternal game of catch up.

    I have nothing against learning from each other.
    What I am attacking is the inferiority complex I accuse SS of having.
    And I believe all the secular leaders have this. And I believe a lot of the people SS regard as Islamists, have this too, else they would rule by Khilafah instead of part secularism, part Islam.
    SS and people like him do not result in our nations being as rich or educated as the west. They result in oppresson. I’n police wripping hijabs from girls heads, police wripping beards from men’s faces, and the coups we have seen in egypt and many other countries. And the civil wars that can result from coups

  139. Arsalan.

    This is amusing. What did I invent? Five books. You…?

    Arsalan, in case you hadn’t noticed, the rest of us are having a calm discussion. Take a chill pill.

  140. Actually, Arsalan’s increasingly unhinged ranting sounds like a mirror image of White Aryan Nation propaganda. Have I touched a nerve?

    Remember, now, that this is a white Englishman, who originally was Jewish and (according to a previous post he provided on this public blog) whose name was Edward Goldberg, telling me that I have an inferiority complex, that I am an Uncle Tom, a white supremacist and a racist and that the white ‘races’ are really, really bad. And who seems almost to relish the repeated use of the word, “nigger”.

    Meanwhile, he approvingly quotes the Engish comedian, Paul Merton – another white man and, by Edward’s own definition, a “Kaffir” (perhaps, then, a ‘House Kaffir’?).

    But doesn’t he know that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with ‘race’, that such concepts are alien to Islam? Doesn’t he also know that South African racists used to call Africans, “Kaffirs”?

    And plagiarising from Kilroy? Things may be desperate, what with the “we’re all in it togther” economic situation (the word, economics does not appear in Edward’s mythopoeic lexicon, it seems) but in the name of [insert your chosen deity], they’re not that desperate!

    Some therapy, perhaps…? Arthur Janov? RD Laing?

  141. Being a white supremicist is what I am accusing you of being.
    All you have said, is nothing more that what they say about other races.

    My point is, you don’t have to be white to be a white supremicist. you are proof colour is no bar to be one.

    Islam is what was revealed to the Prophet pbh. That is what we seek to rule by.
    The reason why I call you a racist, is what you have said.
    Things like, “wanting to rule by Islam is bad because some Arab guys might go to call girls in the UK”.
    But at the same time, the many UK men that go to call girls or call boys for that matter has absolutly nothing to do with secularism does it?
    It doesn’t mean secularism is bad does it?

    You are just a racist. If your racist people in the your secular south Africa choose to call Black people Kaffirs, that is their business. But this has to be the most moronic comment you have ever made in regards to the evils of what you call Islam-ism.
    Your previous comments have been about ruling by Islam is bad, because, and then you list a few of the 2 billion Muslims that have done some bad things.
    That was moronic, and in the same level as people who hate blacks and justify it by listing bad things some blacks have done.
    But your last comment, waw, so what is it? ISlam is to blame for racist white south Africans using racist words for blacks?
    Confusing Islam and Muslim is silly, the way you say islam is bad for the action of some Muslims.
    But now our religion is to blame for actions of non-Muslims against other non-Muslims.
    What planet do you live on?
    I don’t think even you can beat that when it comes to moronic justifications of the coup against an elected government by the army?

    When it comes to what you have done and what I have done. Yes, I think 5 books,that can’t feed anyone, can’t house any one, can’t advance society or civilisation. Doesn’t count as an invention, does it? I mean, I’m sure who you call Islamist have written some books?
    So as Paul Merton said to Kilroy, “what have you done other then your boring chat show”, I haven’t read your books, but if they are anything like your comments here, “what have you done other then write 5 boring books”.
    Fiction doesn’t count as inventions.
    What I have done is my business. I’m not getting in to a manhood comparing contest with you.
    The point I am making isn’t about your books. It is about your hypocrisy.
    And you are full of it.

    And my attack on your racism. Your white supremicist racism. Isn’t an attack on whites in anyway. Only a moron, a complete and utter moron would see it as such.
    You just repeat every racist says when defending themselves and their racism.
    Don’t Israeli Jews accuse people of being antisemites when they accuse Zionists of racism?
    Don’t KKK and Aryan Nation accuse people of being racist against whites when they attack their racism.
    And you do the same.

  142. Let me spell it out for you in words you might understand.
    Being against white supremecy doesn’t mean you are against white people.
    Believing in Islam doesn’t mean you hate Non-Muslims.

    It should be obvious to anyone. This concept seems to have gone above your head.
    Paul Merton is white, to the best of my knowledge I don’t think he has converted to Islam recently. But that makes no difference. I like him because he is very funny.
    What I am against is your racist reasons for supporting the coup.
    your white supremecist reasons for supporting the coup.
    And being against your white supremecist words doesn’t mean I am anti white, anti non-Muslim, it just means I am against your racism.

    And be honest, they have largely been racist reasons haven’t they. They haven’t really been about the policies of MB ecconomic or otherwise. It has mainly been, “Islamist, bad, evil, look look what they have done some pakis have killed other pakis, some arabs visit call girls in london, Islamist bad, some non-Muslim south African whites use racist words against non muslim black people, islamists bad”.

    You have repeated what you just said many times. And it makes you sound like a zionists. Isn’t that what they always repeat when anyone tells them not to kill palestinian babies?

    “Islamist bad, look what they did in Iran, bad evil, look what the Germans did to us, Islamist bad”.

    Just like Zionists use the example of actions Palestinians have nothing to do with to scream “Islamists bad”, you use actions the MD have nothing to do with.

  143. Okay, Arsalan, thank you for your contribution.

    Perhaps now the adults would like to resume their discussion?

  144. Painful isn’t it when people disagree with you?

  145. Arsalan, you do your argument a disservice by jumping off the deep end. Please keep your language more temperate.

    I think you are not picking up the nuances of what Suhayl is saying, and for what it’s worth, I agree with him broadly. He has differentiated between Islam and Islamism (or whatever you wish to call it, if this name is not useful for you) and is not mounting an attack on Islam (the religion) at all. But several of us here have made the point that theocratic Islamic governance (possibly becoming a one-party system governed by Sharia courts) is not Islam, it is Islamist (or, again, whatever name you prefer).

    It is this second thing we are disagreeing with.

    I think you understood the point about sustaining an environment in which creativity and inventiveness may flourish, things that are widely agreed as being good for society in general. It is not an atheist point to suggest that moderate non-Islamist governance (which the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt may have turned out to be) generally provides a better culture in which artists, scientists, intellectuals and writers may practice their craft.

    It will surprise you to learn that I moderately approve of Tehran making use of nuclear power to generate electricity. I am opposed to their developing nuclear weapons, but I agree with the US State Department that there is no evidence of widespread activity of this kind, despite the propaganda that tells us otherwise. Now, I am opposed to nuclear power in general for environmental reasons, but it is not up the the Americans to tell the Iranians how they may generate electricity. I would thoroughly approve of a genuine grass-roots environmental movement in Iran that campaigns against nuclear power, though I am not sure what rights they would have to effectively demonstrate against it.

    Suhayl’s point about Arab’s visiting call girls is hardly central to his argument, but I think he was pointing out religious hypocrisy, not stating a view on prostitution. After all, if you voted for a religious government that offered proscriptive views on the exercise of sexuality, and heavy penalties were instituted for infractions, you’d be pretty annoyed if the rich and powerful could flout such legislation with impunity, wouldn’t you?

    If you could drop the KKK/Aryan/Nazi/Kilroy stuff, it would be much appreciated. You’ve clearly no idea how much it makes you sound deranged, regardless of how honestly you hold the views that you do. For what it is worth, I do think you hold your views honestly, and they are better discussed on the Internet than not at all.

    If you are willing to give us some non-identifying detail about your background, I think that would be useful. Were you previously Jewish? That is of interest, genuinely. I was brought up in the Church of England, but the white Zimbabwean minister we had was an ogre, and still for me exemplifies religious authoritarianism. My experience of religion as a child was stultifying and lobotomising, though I know some adults now who speak well of it. I think if religion cannot be rejected it should be enjoyed quietly, without an organisation – it is the latter that pupports to offer solidarity, and ends up exerting political and financial control over the vulnerable.

  146. This is quite boring, Arsalan. You seem to have no ability properly to discourse with people in an adult fashion. You find yourself indulged here, perhaps, but I have withheld that unfortunate customary indulgence, just for a moment, and now everyone can see how you have reacted. This dynamic occurs every time you face any resistance to the specific fanatical ideology through which you seem to have sought personal redemption. One senses a certain increasing desperation in your pronouncements. Your contributions are embarassing – I am embarassed for you, Arsalan. You are making a fool of yourself. For your own sake, please try to relax and put things in perspective. This is just a blog and I am not your personal enemy. I wish you no ill.

  147. Fedup:

    Are we mates and good to go, or are you going to stay sulky and moody? (stated with in a conciliatory tone, so don’t take it the wrong way)

    This shifts more blame for your evasiveness right back to me, again, and isn’t help if you genuinely wish to rebuild the bridges you’ve been blowing up. You’ve given me a right run-around, and frankly I am exhausted by it.

    If you now choose to reveal yourself as non-religious, then I am mystified why you have been strongly and repeatedly arguing for Islamic, or Islamist, governance. But, you write a great deal and don’t say very much; I’ve read thousands of words from you over the years, literally, and I still have pretty much no idea what you stand for. If you want to write a piece that explains that, perhaps with some non-identifying detail about your background, then hey, that’d be very cool.

    What have I ignored?

    Amongst many things, the “good Jew” dilemma (linked earlier in this thread). I commend the challenge to Arsalan too – I am not the angry right-winger you think I am.

  148. There is no internet equivalent of a loud whistle, so I have to invent a one:

    WWWWWWWWIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEE

    Stop this nonsense at once, fighting each other without respecting the Dojo and observing Bushido

    1- Stop calling each other names, and simply being prats.

    2- Start debating on the substance of the issue.

    3- Regardless of the disagreements, you are at least prepared to talk to each other, so why stop doing good, when we all live in a world of shit?

    Here endeth the lecture.

    Arsalan, It is perfectly understandable that whilst most Muslims living under the rule of various tossers who are propped up by the neocolonial expansionists. The poor Muslims have not enough potable water to drink, or adequate shelter to live in, and don’t have enough food to sustain them. To find Suhayl is asking “Tell me what the Muslims have invented?” is an annoying to say the list, and a bloody red rag to the proverbial bull to say the most.

    Suhayl, you find whilst you are getting it in the neck from the cryptoracist surrounding you, then to be subjected to some of the uncharitable labels you get from other perceived minorities, gets you pissed off, and you retaliate. This self breeding reaction arrives at a destructive resonance, and both of you walk away without having achieved anything, and only wasted your time.

    I hope you both wish to move forward and learn from the debate whilst affecting each other positively.

    So far we have agreed that Political Islam should be referred to, instead of “Islam-ism”. Further, given that there could be a chasm in your life experiences, don’t take it for granted that the other understands what you mean.

    In fact I have experienced this particular point, that has been dominating my transactions with Jon. He believed I am religious whilst in reality I am not, and based on that we were debating on parallel tracks. I am sure Arsalan would have adduced that I am not religious but Jon did not. (now Arsalan would start that he thought so too!!). Hence try and explain in more descriptive or use more mundane language, remember you are not seeing each other to decode the semiotics (facial expressions, hand gestures, etc).

    Slap on the butts of both opponents and let the bout begin.

    No kicking the fucking ref for any excuse either!

  149. I’m sorry, Fedup. I have been attempting to stick to the issues. I have critised political ideologies. I have engaged with you and Jemand in a civil tone. Withut any justification, I have been called horrendous and utterly inappropriate names by Arsalan. When, finaly, I make it clear that this needs to stop, you decide to intervene.

    Also, I did not agree that the term, ‘Islamism’ should not be used.

    Finally, I am as puzzled as Jon by your position. You certainly seem to me pretty consistently to have been mostly to be arguing from a religious-political, specifically an Islamic religious-political, position.

  150. If you now choose to reveal yourself as non-religious, then I am mystified why you have been strongly and repeatedly arguing for Islamic, or Islamist, governance.

    The simple fact is for any life form to evolve and progress. The life form ought to be living in an environment that is most conducive to its growth, to further develop on the path towards evolving to further adapt to its surrounds.

    With that preface, the current Muslim societies have been subject of the Western plutocrats aggression with a view to exploitation for a considerable period, further these plutocrats have managed to push and hold these Muslim societies in the orbits of dependencies. The resultant of these combined elements of control, is societies that are effectively consumers and have developed little in the way of self sustaining constructs.

    The exogenous control measures have also yielded the appointment of various charge hands, masquerading as the local leaders, who effectively are catering for the interests of their masters the Western plutocrats.

    In the interest of human progress, and working towards an assured future for humanity, we need to provide an environment that will allow the development of the societies that are evidently suffering from arrested development syndrome. To this end there should exist; a moratorium on aggression, and a period of none intervention ought to be aimed at. Further, to ensure the latter, it would serve the cause of the progress well to rely on the local traditions and imperatives to kick-start the process.

    Islam is a spring board that can help to achieve local autonomy, and due to its comprehensive instruction sets can allow the gradual development of these societies along the path of modernity. The process has worked in the past and surprisingly succeeded with great results. To expect the Afghans to start modernising and stop growing opium crop, we need to let them develop at their own pace and with reliance on their own imperatives.

    Before we go any further, has this clarified the context or are you still mystified?

  151. “Fedup, are you the same person who posts under, ‘Passerby’? Or are you two different people? It’s just a little confusing sometimes. ‘Fedup’ and ‘Passerby’ seem to possess very similar voices.”

    Did you get an answer to that, Suhayl?

    Arsalan, you have shocked me with your nastiness.

  152. In essence, Fedup, it seems clear to me that your intervention is a riposte to that of Jon (4:24pm).

    I question why you may be asserting that you do not hold Islamist (or Islamic Fundamentalist, or what you might prefer to call ‘Politically Islamic’) views when actually, the majority of your input into this blog has suggested precisely the opposite. I wonder whether you post also as Passerby and Cryptonym – I may be quite wrong about this, but the voices of these three handles seem interchangeable, their politica positions indistinguishable. Might this be to suggest that there are three contributors who hold your views, rather than just one?

    There’s no law against this; it simply is an observation.

    Now, for you to play ‘honest broker’ in these contexts, I think is problematic.

  153. the majority of your input into this blog has suggested precisely the opposite.

    In the face of the tsunami of anti-Muslim propaganda, the underdogs need every bit of help, and every man of conscience at the pump, won’t you agree?

    Also, I did not agree that the term, ‘Islamism’ should not be used.

    This pejorative term is aiming to portray and validate political Islam as some kind of a deviant and retrogressive ideology.

    Why do you think the current anti-Muslim wave of sentiments is sewn, propagated and maintained? You are grown up enough to know that “democracy”, apple-pie and all the rest of the brand names are solely for the benefit of maintaining the current status quo, that has yielded the total fuck-up (the latest of which is the “banking crisis”) we have arrived at.

  154. ‘Political Islam could be lots of things – as I suggested, it could be liberation theology, or the Edhi health work which I admire. ‘Islamism’ is an effective and useful term refers to the Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi postmodern hybrid (or its Shia counterpart) and in my view, these hybrids are indeed ‘deviant and retrogressive ideologies’.

    Your attempt to conflate Islam with Islamism is typical and it is what people like Arsalan and other so-called fundamentalists try to achieve.

    It is an obfuscation, an apologetics, an attempt to hoodwink (largely) gullible liberals.

    No, the Islamists are not the underdogs. They have the support of (tactically) NATO and strategically, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan and billions of petrodollars.

  155. voices of these three handles seem interchangeable, their politica positions indistinguishable.

    This really amuses me, a cheap Cluedo thrill moment, to what end?

    What purpose does it serve?

    There seems to be an obsessive compulsive preoccupation with my pseudo identity. Suhayl you used to wax lyrical that I was something “steel” or some other undesirable character that you wanted to out me as. However for some unknown reason the figure three has been a constant in these “outings”, ever thought why is that?

  156. The three is not important, Fedup. But you refusing to answer the question is. Steelback, Apostate and Freeborn are not around, so you needn’t bother deflecting the question by dragging them up.

    Are Fedup and Passerby one person? Because they undoubtedly speak with the same voice.

  157. ‘Islamism’ is an effective and useful term refers to the Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi postmodern hybrid (or its Shia counterpart) and in my view, these hybrids are indeed ‘deviant and retrogressive ideologies’.

    I rest my case. Despite the fact that you know the differences! Yet you go along with the virulent campaign of hatred directed against all Muslims who believe that their political constructs should be an organic construct. A construct that relates to their values, imperatives, and traditions. Throwing the baby, bath water, window and so forth, seems to be so fashionable.

    Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi are just that: Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi! To depict these movements and bundle them together with political Islam and shove these into a singular label of “Islam-ism”, is a mendacious attempt to discount the aspirations of millions of people. Through portraying their ideals as retrogressive and deviant. Communism was the last nemesis that the deviant plutocracies managed to conjure as the evil incarnate, now next nemesis/”deviant ideology” is to be found in “Islam-ism”.

    Further in the absence of a delineation of Salafi-ism/Wahhabi-ism/Deobandi-ism, a direct result of “lazy intellectualism”, that is reliant on general ignorance will yield any questions/objections. Those Muslim intellectuals intent on progressing the cause of political Islam are stifled. Also stifled is the wider Muslim world, that finds itself under further attacks as yet in the planning.

    This of course is a win, win situation for the reactionaries on both side of the divide, the deviant plutocracies, and the deviant retrogressive tribal chieftains bent on perpetuating their feudal rule.

    Indeed there is an attempt in hoodwinking, but who is hoodwinking whom is the question.

  158. you refusing to answer the question is.

    Free speech does not imply a right to dialogue.

  159. I think the term “Islamism” might have been coined as a portmanteau word for “Islamic activism” wherein muslims are agitate for the infusion of Islamic observance and customs in political processes and laws.

    It’s appearance as a perjorative is probably due to the negative context of discussions by non-muslims of Islam related matters. There’s not much that is positive in the news these days, is there?

    If the meaning of the term is understood and agreed, then it is valid and useful.

  160. Fedup, if you want to encourage this reasonable suspicion that you are one and the same person as Passerby, then you will be treated as one and the same. Confusion solved.

  161. It’s got nothing to do with Cluedo, or thrills, Fedup, as you well know. Sockpuppets are used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.

    I take it you can’t answer the question – or at least, you can’t answer it truthfully.

  162. Nope, FedUp. It is the postmodern hybrid – as I said, “hybrid” of the ‘political Islam’ that came out of – was propagated by – Saudi Arabia and its fusion with pre-existing forms with which I have major political disagreement. That is Islamism and it has nothing to do with tradition. It is not in the slightest traditional. “The virulent campaign of hatred directed against all Muslims” is something quite distinct and is something for which I have equal opprobrium.

  163. It is the postmodern hybrid

    This statement is flawed. The Salafi-ism/Wahhabi-ism/Deobandi-ism are no post modernist hybrids. These are adaptations of Islam for the benefit of the feudal practices prevalent in the particular geographical regions, with a distinctive demographies. The adaptation to be classified as a hybrid strictly is not true, because the adaptation of Islam is a perversion of the religion itself and use of hybrid dignifies such a construct, in effect helping perpetuation of the deviances from the tenets of the religion.

    The simple fact that Wahhabi-ism is the brand of choice for Saudi despots, ought to be telling. However the historical narrative deficits, have obfuscated the actualities which in turn have resulted in further suppression of the exploited Saudi citizens who are further marginalised by the current confusion over the direction of the political Islam. This promoted as “conventional wisdom” in the wider world, as well as within the Muslim world.

    In any case fact that an old age pensioner is attacked* and stabbed to death by a Ukrainian that so far has not been named and his religion or affiliation as yet are remaining a mystery, somehow is not enough to stop the venom that is flowing so freely to further marginalise and suppress the Muslims and their political aspirations.

    The simple fact that suppression of political Islam is the desired outcome for the reactionaries on both sides of the divide somehow going missing. On goes the circular debate reiterating the prejudices and preconceived notions. The neo liberal dogma of beating the “deviancies” out of the “Islam-ists” is carried on unabated; all in the name of challenging the “extremists”. The game of civilising (bombing the shit out of them) the “savages” is replayed with a differing set of victims.

    * Mohammed Saleem was murdered in April on his way home after attending prayers in his mosque. His murders were caught after a belated investigation to a bombing of a mosque in June.

  164. I said what I said because arrgance like this needs to be answered in that way:

    Suhayl Saadi

    17 Jul, 2013 – 12:56 pm

    Absolutist, supremacist, exclusivist, oppressive, lobotomising, postmodern… [these are the polite adjectives]

    _ _ _
    The above are insults he uses against people he disagrees with. When I call him a racist. I do not mean it as an insult. I mean it as a statement of fact.

    Statments like “Saudi Arabia: Ask the call girls of Knightsbridge. ” are not statments about idiology or politics. They are racist statements. I am not going to shy away from stating it. Everything he said from start to finnish is nothing but racial generalisations, racial attacks.

    When it comes to the whole issue. About the coup in Egypt. And the arguments the secularists use. “Oh the Egyptians might have voted 73%, in one election for them, and more then 80% in another for them, but they just all changed their minds”, this is nothing but racial arrogance. How stupied do these people think Egyptians are? this is nothing but a colonialists mindset that lesser races are unable to rule themselves.

    When I call him, and some other people racist. That as directed at them as individuals.

    When he said what he did, 17 Jul, 2013 – 12:56 pm,
    It was directed at those who do not share his sense of secularism. It wasn’t directed at one person or one group who did one thing that he disagrees with. It was directed at the vast majority of Muslims as shown by the elections.
    I don’t call that a difference of politics. I call that racism and white supremicy, and I do not shy away from saying that just because he has brown skin.
    If i held him by another set of values from what i hold other people such as the BNP who say pretty much the same thing, I’d call myself a racist.

  165. last post was meant for Dreoilin

  166. Jon

    20 Jul, 2013 – 4:24 pm

    I know you agree with him. And I have said what I said to him to you as well. Don’t feel left out.

    I have said I don’t recognise the word “Islamism” and I don’t recognise the fact that you or he consider it to be one party.
    Why?
    Because the Brotherhood, didn’t arrest all the other parties when they won the election.
    What was one party was the regime they placed. What resulted in arrest was the regime that replaced it. They are the ones that arrested the brotherhood after the elections.

    I think by Islamist, you and he mean Muslims that are not secularists. Muslims that don’t restrict themselves to just obey the parts of the quran that deal with their individual lives but also things that deal with the state?
    Am I right?
    Well then it is Islam you are against.
    Islam doesn’t restrict itself to just advise us on our individual lives.
    It is nonsense, to say it isn’t Islam to obey that parts of Islam that talk about state, but it is this new word we have just invented called Islamism.
    Sorry, I don;t buy it.

    If you were talking about a differences you had with a government, a state, or a political party. That would not have been an issue. I’m sure I have my own differences with them too. Instead it was, “Islamist” and he brought examples of people in Muslim countries doing bad things, completely unconnected with the brotherhood, and often unconnected with politics, like his call girl example.
    I call that racism, not political debate.

    Sorry I will not state any details about my back ground. I want to discuse the issue at hand, not my background.
    The backgrounds of the people debating here makes no difference to how valid thier arguments are. To say it does, is racism.

  167. Suhayl Saadi

    20 Jul, 2013 – 4:30 pm

    When I called you a racist. It wasn’t an insult. It wasn’t ill will to you. It was just meant as a statment of fact.
    I have meant everyword I stated as a statement of fact. None were meant as insults. I appologise if they were taken as such.

    Jon

    20 Jul, 2013 – 4:39 pm

    Jews are not Zionists and Zionists are not Jews.

    fedup
    20 Jul, 2013 – 4:40 pm
    You are right, I knew you are not religious.
    Why?
    Because that is what you stated.
    Unlike Jon, I don’t believe you support Islamic government. I believe you are someone that believes people have better ways of ruling themselves. But how they rule themselves is their business, not yourown?
    Am I right?

    When it comes to things like water and food. Well the secular governments have had about the last 80 years to sort that stuff out. Islam also has a solution to distributing water. Secularist might refuse to apply it because it is a solution given in our religious texts. But the secularists haven’t been able to solve these problems with their secularism have they?
    And I don’t believe secularists even have the will to solve it. What non-Muslims don’t know about the Muslim world and the secularists inside it. Is secularists are a tiny westernised Minority, who think themselves superior than the average person. They have no concerns about how the average person, eats drinks or sleeps, because secularists have access to imported lexuries. They aren’t intrested in water, they get imported bottled water. These secular dictators and the people that support them have ignored the poor ever since they were given power by the colonialists. It was people like the brotherhood that feed the people for all those years. I trust them more to feed the people when they are in government then the secularists, because they have been doing it for the last 80 years while being an illigal organisation.

  168. Suhayl Saadi

    20 Jul, 2013 – 5:07 pm

    Don’t try acting all innocent.
    We can all scrole up and read what you said if we want a taste of insults.
    You act like a Zionists. They bomb cities to bits and cry, and pretend to be an innocent victim when a child throws a rick back.
    How is that any different from you using words like this:
    Suhayl Saadi

    17 Jul, 2013 – 12:56 pm

    Absolutist, supremacist, exclusivist, oppressive, lobotomising, postmodern… [these are the polite adjectives]
    _____________ _
    And then crying, pretending to be a victim when anyone says anything back?
    get over yourself.

    This is that attitude of the secularists who have just taken over egypt. For decades they ruled as a single party, imposing secularism by force. Wripping the hijabs of heads and the beards off faces at the point of a gun. And then there was an election, and they did a coup to get back in power with the excuse. “They are Islamist, look they dont share power, they might stop us dressing the way we want”. When the secularists themselves ruled for decades, unelected on their own. And now after the coup, they do so again. arresting all who disagree with them.

  169. Suhayl Saadi

    20 Jul, 2013 – 7:33 pm

    Your attemp to say that it isn’t is dishonest coming from someone who should know better.
    You know as well as I do, that both the Quran and the Sunnah talk of things that relate to the state as well as the individual.
    To stop using the word Islam for anything but the individual parts of Islam and to make up a new word for the taking Islam as a whole is very dishonest.

    Islamism is just a word racists made up to feel good about themselves.
    What it really means, is Islam practiced in a way the white masters disagree with.
    The colonialists want to pick and choose what we can follow of Islam, and following anything on top of that is Islamism.

    Your attempt to mash togeather Deobandi/wahabi/Salafi with political Islam is a case of “Lets fool whitey”.
    You assume the Non-Muslims here are so ignorant they will accept what you say without further thought because you have brown skin so what you say about Islam must be true.
    You mash togeather political and non Political, you mash togeather different groups in different regions that have no connection with each other. You do all this in the way Jim crow America refused to allow blacks on the front of buses using the example of what some African tribes do in Africa.
    That is why I call you a racist. It was never meant as an insult.

  170. Arsalan, much of what you iterate is simply regurgitated Hizb ut Tahrir propaganda. You appear to have swallowed their entire oeuvre.

    In the end, whatever you call yourselves (and you can call yourselves the Crack Coke Raving Loony Party, for all I care) your (I speak not, now of you, personally, but of that cult with which you have identified yourself) actions on the ground – in Syria, Libya, Pakistan, elsewhere – is the hard evidence that what you bring to Muslims and others is an age of darkness. Blood and soil is what you bring.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir

  171. Their entire political philosophy is one of avoidance and distorting history into polemic to suit their simplistic world view. This represents a descent into political psychosis.

    Arsalan appears to be trying to use the tactics they use on white liberal lecturers and so on in universities whenever they are challenged. It doesn’t work on me and it is patently absurd even to attempt to use those simplistic tactics. I know what they’ve done and I know what they are. I know their arguments and their tactics.

    Does not Arsalan’s mode of argumentation remind one a little of that of Alfred Burdett, the white supremacist retired academic who used to post here on a regular basis, when Dr Burdett continued to insist that there had been, “genocide in Leicester”? For Alfred, it was curry and mitochondria. For Arsalan, it is “kaffirs” and a ‘Star Wars’ vision of human history.

    This is all toxic nonsense and it must be confronted and opposed in a vigorous and consistent manner.

    http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/index.php/EN/bshow/1716

  172. And in the UK, just as the EDL/BNP/NF et al attempt to exploit the racist murders of white people, and deliberately provoke, so too the Islamists attempt to exploit the racist murders of black and brown people for their own purposes. Both these extremist groupings would like to see more murder and mayhem on tribal grounds. They would like to see, ‘Syria’ everywhere. And neither are viable responses to neoliberal economics or the systematisation of imperial war that is both its generator and its instrument.

  173. “You do all this in the way Jim crow America refused to allow blacks on the front of buses using the example of what some African tribes do in Africa.
    That is why I call you a racist. It was never meant as an insult.” Arsalan.

    What utter nonsense.

  174. Arsalan,

    I think by Islamist, you and he mean Muslims that are not secularists.

    Well, read what I said again:

    [Suhayl] has differentiated between Islam and Islamism … and is not mounting an attack on Islam (the religion) at all. But several of us here have made the point that theocratic Islamic governance (possibly becoming a one-party system governed by Sharia courts) is not Islam, it is Islamist

    The difference is stark, Arsalan – Islam is a religion that is peaceful and a billion or so people subscribe to it. Your version, hardline theocratic Islamism, is an abomination of it, a corruption. It becomes undemocratic, violent, and stifles creativity and freedom.

    Here you say:

    Oh the Egyptians might have voted 73%, in one election for them, and more then 80% in another for them, but they just all changed their minds”, this is nothing but racial arrogance.

    I think you’re getting two issues confused. This is what we were talking about initially, the Egyptian revolution. I took the view that a new government should be formed because people were fed up of the Morsi government, not because of their Islamic faith. I’ve already said that I would respect the result if the Morsi government won a new vote, but you claimed not to believe me.

    So, to recap, I am inclined to oppose the continuation of the Morsi government because I think they have no democratic mandate. I am not of the view that they were an Islamist government, and it did not look like they would become one. As I have made clear though, I have not opposed them on the grounds of their faith.

    Perhaps, then, this is the problem:

    Well then it is Islam you are against. Islam doesn’t restrict itself to just advise us on our individual lives. It is nonsense, to say it isn’t Islam to obey that parts of Islam that talk about state, but it is this new word we have just invented called Islamism.

    Here you are insisting that, to implement Islam fully, one must have an Islamic state. That’s fine up to a point, if it has the consent of the people. But must it tear down democracy, as a Sharia system would do? Must it focus on veils and beards rather than female education and health statistics? Must it drive out all creativity and entrepreneurialism in favour of purity of religion?

    So, again, for the umpteenth time: the word “Islamist” in the context it is being used here is not racist or derogatory. It means a very specific thing: a hardline, intolerant form of religious governance. I appreciate it is used in a lazy context by the hard right and the mass media, and I agree that is unpleasant. If there is a word that we can use instead, I will consider using it, but in the meantime, “Islamic” and “Islamist” is not the same thing, at all.

    What it really means, is Islam practiced in a way the white masters disagree with.

    No, not true. Your permanent appeals to racism cannot be used to justify anything you like, Arsalan.

    Some years ago, I spoke for a while to representatives of the local Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Leamington, and I wonder if their message might be interesting to you. They believe that equality, freedom and peace are especially important, and they emphasise it in their teachings.

  175. Suhayl Saadi

    21 Jul, 2013 – 8:44 am

    The blood soil is already there. the secularists didn’t need people who believe in all of Islam to slaughter their populations.

    You sound like Karimov, isn’t that the excuse he uses to slaughter his population?

    And this isn’t about any particular group. Because you reject any ruling by Islam. You have a trancated ISlam, where you have selected the parts of the Quran that you would consider Islam from the parts you call Islamism.

    We can call you, a Karimov without a state, and Karimov is exactly what you would be if you had one.

    Don’t pretend to try and box me and say “you are them”. When you reject not just all political groups that are guided by Islam, but also non-political movements that are guided by Islam.

    Jon.
    democratic mandate is only what you say it isn’t isn’t it?
    It is the will of the tiny minority that lost the election and not of the majority that won it?
    It is the will of the ones that agree with you?

    That brings me to how you view ruling by Islam. It is you and sahal that say anything but secularism is bloodshed. it is I that say the opposite. Most Blood is on the hands of the secularists.
    And when it comes to you stating what the majority of Muslims are, it is amzing you pick a tiny sect which everyone but themselves regard as outside of the fold of islam.

    Just as what you say about vertues of secularism is false. As can be seen by viewing every effort to enforce secularism on the Muslim world.
    What the Qadyanis say about themselves is also false.

    “equality, freedom and peace”

    Where was their belief in Equality and freedom? They were founded during British rule in India, in which they supported colonialism and opposed the independents movement.
    And where is their belief in peace, when they join the BRitish Army and give their full support to British wars.
    These are just slogans. But the reason they are reguarded is non-Muslims is the fact they believe in a Prophet after Mohummed pbh, when Muslims believe he was the last and final Prophet.

  176. SS and Jon
    it is very dishonest of you to try an indicate my views are that of a tiny minority while yours are the views of Muslims.
    Remember this thread is about, people who believe in the fact that the religion of the people should have a say in the running of the state winning the election by a massive margine. When it comes to the upper house, it was more than 80%.
    To say that isn’t a democratic mandate, is hypocrisy and dishonesty.
    To say that you believe in democracy but not the election that elects people who YOU wouldn’t have voted for is hypocrisy.
    But what I call racism, is your attitude, that the Egyption people are so thick that they would all just vote for some people, not knowing they are what you call Islamist, and then before the ink is dry, say, “oh shittt, ticked the wrong box”, and then a millitry coup is the will of the people.

    And Jon, it is you that says Muslims that believe in the parts of the Quran that talk of affairs of state are bloodthirsty. All Muslims believe in all parts of the Quran. the fact that Muslims are not what you say ruling by Islam is, doesn’t mean they don’t believe in ruling by Islam. It means you are wrong about what you call “islamism”.
    I don’t really believe you and SS are wrong, I believe you are lying.

  177. Arsalan, you are entirely correct. Succinctly put.

    Although I would further expand; through respect for self-determination and autonomy of the “lesser men/savages/Islam-ists/etc” the knock-on effect/domino effect will be a more responsive mode of governance in the West. ie when two million people march on London, the government just simply does not ignore them and still go to a war of its choice to kill millions of Iraqis and then prevaricate it has only killed one hundred thousand Iraqis.

    It is lamentable that whilst “liberals/benign reactionaries” on this board and elsewhere are too busy suppressing/denouncing the political aspirations of the “lesser men/savages/Islam-ists/etc”. They are paving the way for the nonsense to be pumped out by the various “nice men on the telly”. Who put a spin on dictatorial conduct as “strong leadership”, my fucking foot. Alas “strong leadership” is the pay off, of trying to civilise the savages. Eventually we all become savages to be civilised by our “betters” whom have reasonable ground to dictate to us all through “strong leadership”.

  178. fedup
    20 Jul, 2013 – 4:40 pm
    You are right, I knew you are not religious.
    Why?
    Because that is what you stated.
    Unlike Jon, I don’t believe you support Islamic government. I believe you are someone that believes people have better ways of ruling themselves. But how they rule themselves is their business, not yourown?
    Am I right?

    I forgot!

  179. Arsalan,

    As can be seen by viewing every effort to enforce secularism neoliberal capitalism on the Muslim world.

    There, fixed it for you :)

  180. There, fixed it for you

    Can you fix “Islam-ism/ists” for us too mate? :)

  181. Jon, you stated that “Islam is a religion that is peaceful”. Do you know of examples of religions that are not peaceful? Can you advise what criteria might be used to determine whether a religion is peaceful or not? 

  182. Jemand – Censorship Improves History

    He wont answer it honestly I will.
    No religions are peaceful except one.
    Only one religion calls for pacafism. It isn’t Judaism, it isn;t christianity, as i am not a lying hypcrit I will admit, it isn;t Islam.
    It isn’t Bodhism.

    The only religion that is peaceful is Jainism.
    But even Jains fought wars. Not just wars of defense, but also wars of agression and conquest just like everyone else.

    It is humans that are violent. Islam does not say turn the other cheeck. No religion except Jainism truely does. But even they don’t practice it.
    What Islam does is provide rules of war. It tells us when we must fight and when we must not.
    I’m not saying all Muslims obey these laws. Even some Muslims who claim to follow Islam find excusses round these laws, just as jains play games with their scripture when it comes to war. Muslims are not perfect, But Islam is.

  183. It’s pretty the party line from Hizb ut-Tahrir we’re getting here from Arsalan and FedUp. Passerby/Cryptonym must be on sabbatical. Check out their website and you’ll see what I mean.

  184. “I don’t really believe you and SS are wrong, I believe you are lying.” Arsalan.

    Nice.

  185. The only other poster who regularly has referred to me as, “SS” is Dr Alfred Burdett, the Canadian white supremacist whose main argument was that there had been “genocide” in Leicester, England, commited by Indians against the British.

    I most certainly am not, ‘SS’.

    The key question, it seems to me, is, who really is advocating the policies of the blackshirt?

  186. It’s pretty the party line from Hizb ut-Tahrir we’re getting here from Arsalan and FedUp. Passerby/Cryptonym must be on sabbatical. Check out their website and you’ll see what I mean.

    Fcuk off man if you cannot be arsed to write a proper rebuttal, then skip coming here and throwing a line or two, only yo fuck off and get on with finger banging Mary Jane rotten crutch.

    This will be of course Moded away but your shite will be left smeared all over the board.

    Trying my fucking patience!

  187. Delightful, Fedup. (Your personality in a nutshell, I might add.)

    ———————–

    The question I’m asking myself, is, what has happened to the Arsalan we used to know? Has be been “converted”? Is he now another (type of) person with different beliefs?
    I never before saw him being so rude, or so aggressive, or for that matter, so voluble.
    Or, expounding the kind of stuff he is now.

    And Arsalan, to call people “liars” who are debating with you in good faith here, is just not acceptable. For starters.

  188. Suhayl Saadi

    21 Jul, 2013 – 3:05 pm

    Khilafah isn’t the private property of HT. The Hadith are the words of our Prophet pbh not of any group.
    Abu Bakr, Umar Uthman and Ali were not members of HT, they were companians of the Prophet pbh. The Umayad, Abasid and Ottomans were not members of the group, they existed long before.
    Again you enter dishonesty, well, at least you were honest about being a communist, thanks for that.

    Dreoilin
    I am still the same person. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me. It is dishonesty and hypocrisy which I don’t like.
    Others on this thread have said they do agree with the millitry coup. I didn’t take issue with them, because they did so honestly and without hypocrisy. Admiting that they don’t believe in democracy.

  189. Fedup: that’s plainly abusive, as well as featuring (nonsensical) strains of sexual violence. Rather unpleasant, surely? I am inclined however to let it stand, as readers need to see the characters involved in this debate when they reveal themselves.

    My invitation to hear something about your background, “perhaps with some non-identifying detail”, still stands. I think having people here say something about roughly where they live, or their broad political worldview, or what they do for a living, is useful. The suggestion is extended to Passerby and Cryptonym too.

  190. What is the point. I can’t prove it anyway unless I give information revealing who I am like my address and bank account details.

    By not giving any information about myself. I only need to prove the points I make and not details about my private life.

    Anyway, one bit of information I will reveal. I am Muslim. It is ramdhan. I should be spending it in worship and not on forums. Bye, I might be back after eid.

  191. Arsalan, I’m not of the view that giving personal information is of help, but non-identifying information sometimes adds some colour and human reality. Me, I’m sitting in a cafe in Birmingham, England at the moment, listening to Feist on headphones. That reminds me: if I need cheering up, I watch this – it is completely childish, and I love it. It’s even better if you know her material – she’s clearly willing to goof off and not take herself too seriously! If you have kids, put ‘em in front of it.

    I sense this discussion is coming to a close, so thanks for sharing your thoughts, even if we didn’t come to agreement. Enjoy Ramadan, and I hope at least that – even if it has felt like an onslaught – you have taken food for thought here. Best wishes to you.

  192. My invitation to hear something about your background, “perhaps with some non-identifying detail”

    Why is there a need for my resume?

    At this late stage?
    What late stage?

    1- You assumed I was religious.

    2- I have lent a hand to the under dog that needs to be helped.

    3- There is a huge respect deficit to human rights, that is my rights, your rights, and everyone else’s rights.

    4- The collapse of the USSR only helped the virulent “capitalists”* (ie plutocrats, oligarchs, and feudal overlords) to be emboldened (using one of their own stock phrases) and further erode our rights.

    5- With the levels of illiteracy of 78% in Pakistan the only way forward is through organic organisations crystallised around their Islamic faith, whilst ensuring against the Deobandi and Wahhabi influences.

    6- Vested interests in security and mayhem will stop at nothing to spike the progress of these societies. Tere is lots more profit in murder than life. Killing happens so quick and not much planning is needed for it, a speedy return on the capital deployed. Life needs lot more patience and effort and then there is the emergent competition from the stable societies that would complicate the rule of the said fuckwits. Those whom verily believe they have an entitlement and a divine right to remain at the “apex”.

    7- The same is true of Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai, Saudi, Somali, and so one. Swaths of humanity effectively sentenced to a stagnant existence without ever achieving any of the potential the is locked in such a vast human asset.

    8- Their rights, are our rights! Our rights are their rights! For disrespect to their inalienable rights is disregard for our inalienable rights!

    * Capitalism is a misnomer, for Capitalism to exist there is a need for free markets, the current rigged and fraudulent markets, and heavily regulated workers rights are anything but capitalism, a more accurate phrase perhaps could be measured slavery of autonomous slaves

  193. Arsalan 21 Jul, 2013 – 2:34 pm
    “It is humans that are violent.”

    It is always worth remembering that most people live not being violent. Kropotkin argued there is considerably more cooperation than violence in nature and that cooperation produces excellent evolutionary outcomes. Attenborough peddles the law of the jungle as a framework to justify greed and war. So good news, it’s a dog lick dog world.

    http://www.complementarycurrency.org/ccLibrary/Mutual_Aid-A_Factor_of_Evolution-Peter_Kropotkin.pdf

  194. listening to Feist on

    Different folks different stones and birds in the hand :)

    I relax thus don’t forget to turn up the bass and fire up the volume.

    Here is some more pump up the volume.

  195. “Fcuk off man if you cannot be arsed to write a proper rebuttal, then skip coming here and throwing a line or two, only yo fuck off and get on with finger banging Mary Jane rotten crutch.” FedUp, 4:21pm.

    Yes, I think that pretty much sums up the Islamist stance whenever subjected to serious challenge. Perhaps it ought to be left in place as a testament, a reference, an historical lexicographical monument that cannot be demolished.

    Do have a peaceful Ramazan (and yes, I spelt it with a ‘z’). Good morning, peace be upon you and thank you.

  196. SS
    you sound like a Zionist who has just killed a bunch of Muslims in Ramadhan.
    “Do you remember a peaceful Ramadhan”.
    :)
    Lets be clear on this, that statement just like pretty much all your statements are an attack on Islam, and all Muslims. Not who you call Islamists. Muslims that believe in the parts of Islam you have rejected because they don’t fit in with your idiology.

    It is all about imposing your ways on people you see as lesser humans isn’t it?
    And then you pretend to be the one with the moral high ground.

    Passer has never said he is Muslim. Well even if he is non-Muslim that shouldnt stop you using him as an example of Islamist should it. Remebering you did use the racist language of non-Muslim white south africans against non-Muslim black south africans, to say Islam and Muslims are bad, didn’t you?

  197. Yes, I think that pretty much sums up the Islamist stance whenever subjected to serious challenge.

    What challenge? Is this another version of the fucking Schrödinger’s Cat? The challenge is seen by you and not the rest of us?

    All you have done is to point your finger and let rip; Islam-ists, Islam-ists, Islam-ists, Islam-ists, Islam-ists, ……….. Hizb ut-Tahrir, …. Islam-ists!

    If your political sensibilities find religion a threat, it is a sure-fire certainty that you will not be making much progress in among the religious demography which you are trying to convert to your political philosophy.

    What is the fucking difference between your diatribes and the EDL’s; we are not against Islam, we just hate fucking Muslims?

    For the umpteen time I am not a religious person, will you stop rounding up on me as an “Islam-ist”!

  198. Peace be upon you both (all), Arsalan and Fedup (Passerby, Cryptonym…).

    And here, we are told in sonorous tones that the ‘z’ in Ramazan is “an attack on all Muslims”. Naturally! Not only is ‘Z’ is for Zion and Zebedee, and “ziofuckwit”, it’s also Persian, for Khuda’s sake, and so really doesn’t fit the party line.

    “And which end of the egg do you crack open every morning?” Dr Gulliver asked the Islamist.

    “The Muslim end,” replies Anjem C, as he digs into his honeypot and pulls out a piece of albumen whose shape miraculously spells the Holy Name of The Security Service.

    Peace be upon you both.

  199. And here, we are told in sonorous tones that the ‘z’ in Ramazan is “an attack on all Muslims”. Naturally! Not only is ‘Z’ is for Zion and Zebedee, and “ziofuckwit”, it’s also Persian, for Khuda’s sake, and so really doesn’t fit the party line.

    What are you smoking mate? Pass the bung to the next guy along, this shit isn’t doing your comments any good! :)

    There are four “Z” and differing pronunciations there of in Arabic, and it is not Ramadan but Ramadzan (but here in UK it has come to be D), however the variances in dialects could also pronounce it RamaZan, However what has this got to do with the rest of the shit you have gone on about?

    albumen whose shape miraculously spells the Holy Name of The Security Service.

    The reliquary that yields this sort of relics is a Christian and Hindu precept, but which secret service are we talking about? Prism, GCHQ, NAS,ISI, there are so many of these bastards and you playing twenty questions is not helping, it is late at night.

    However what any of this crap has to do with our lines of debate?

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos