The Dispatches on War (Part V)

Re: # 46

Fuzair, thanks for the information, but I believe that faisaluno is not interested in such an answer - he wanted to know why facism killed 50 million in Europe and my answer, to him, was to highlight that it not facism alone, which was responsible for the deaths of 50 million people.

Ciao

Re: # 47

Romair, I did answer your questions, though you may disagree, with it. As I said, most of your post was a lecture, to me, and the questions, which you raised; I did answer. As to mixing the historical, with the present that started with faisaluno positing the two and even though I would have wished the discussion to have remained historical, faisaluno made sure that it would not! :)

I was not bringing in religion but stating that religion was a cause of the problem. Romair, Islamic politics are religiously based to such an extent, that it is impossible to treat the subject without discussing religion of Islam and its influence on politics. Had Islamic politics been a secular idea, then your wish of not bringing in religion would have been granted.

Ciao

Ferozek #45: There were two questions I asked:

- How can you compare European mode of politics to an, ``Islamic`` mode, when there is no Islamic mode.
- What kind of centarlized theocracy existed in the Muslim empire of 600-700s that you are refering to

I am not sure if you answered either. The main argument you seemed to be forwarding was that if Muslims want to advance, they need to get out of the Islamic mode of politics and government. When such a mode is not even defined, then what exactly does Islam have to do with anything. You are now just looking at today`s world, when initially, in your argument, you were looking at it historically. Historically, Muslim countries have had all kinds of govts., from secular, to shariah, to kingdoms to tribal, to fascism to anything else. As have all countries in the world. Do keep in mind that the European model, is even today only practiced by a minority of the world. All other non-Muslim countries have had govts. similar to Muslim countries, off and on........

Hence, one needs to look at it as rise and fall of empires, and not bring Islam, unnecessarily into every discussion, as the solution or the problem....

Secondly, I cannot think of a single theocracy in the Muslim caliphate during the 600-700s. How could you state, ``do you not think that Islam, judging by its politics, made the wrong choice in 600s and 700s AD by opting for a centralized theocracy``

The Ummayads ruled till mid 700s. And then the Abbassids ruled. None of the first four Caliphs were theocrats. They were businessman, soldiers, and beaucrat(s). Muwaiyah bin Abu Sufyan, the fifth, was a general, and commanded a portion of the Army, under Khalid bin Walid (?) along with Abu Sufyan`s other son. After him, Yazid down to Walid, I cannot see any theocrat, much less a centralized theocracy. The last one, Abdur Rahman, fled to Spain, and founded the dynasty there, which certainly wasn`t theocratic.

The Abbasides who took over weren`t theocrats either. All of them were kings, who expanded their empries, like most kings do.

So where is this, ``centralized theocracy of the 600-700s`` that you are refering. Once again, aren`t you bringing in religion, as the cause of a problem, when there is no historical context of it.....

I think Chowk`s disease and Pakistan`s disease of seeing religion as the solution or problem of everything - past or present - is quite dangerous........

Feroz,

Aaaah, this takes me back to my undergrad days; intellectual discussions about ``What is fascism?`` I would beg to differ to some extent with your answer. The Fascists/Blackshirts were NOT a conservative party. You`ve allowed the Marxists/Socialists to impose their cockeyed definition of fascism on you. The Fascists were Right Radicals, as opposed to the status quo as the Marxists/Socialists. Mussolini struck a deal with the King in order to gain power; didn`t mean that he was in favor of the monarchy or preserving the artistocracy (although his daughter did marry into it... damn parvenu social climbers!). Something like a rigidly Catholic political party is what you are talking about in your post, not the Fascists.

Now, if you were to argue that the Fascists were coopted by the existing elite, then I would`t disagree with you. Fascism was a result of the nihilism coming out of WWI and the proverbial lower-middle class fear of the mob/working class. The breakdown of law and order in Italy (caused in large part by the Fascists themselves) allowed Mussolini to appear as the Champion of Law and Order and the spokesman for the Silent Majority. The key difference between Fascism and Socialism is that Fascism rejects Marxist Class Struggle as a defining characteristic of all presocialist Modes of Production. Fascism, as exemplified by such institutions as Mussolini`s Grand Council of Fascism, views the state as an organic entity, not capable of being split along class lines. Therefore they attempt to overcome the economic/social/political divisions in society and why their ideas have always appealed to a considerable portion of society.

Considering that Right Hegelians became Fascists and Left Hegelians became Socialists, this view is perfectly understandable. Marxists also hold to the idea of the Organic State--but that it can exist only under Communism and no other mode of production. In practice, both Socialism and Fascism reject the idea of individual liberty and civil rights, and favor the Fuehrer Principle--Mussolini/Hitler/Khomeini/Franco/Zia/Bose/etc is always right. They also reject the idea of the market/economy existing as an entity separate from the state.

While virtually any and all authoritarian govts are labelled ``Fascists`` by ``Progressives,`` there is a world of difference between some superficial similarities and true Fascism.

Re: Romair # 32

Thanks for waiting...

I will start, with comments where I am in partial or complete agreement, with your post.

I agree, that there is an overt emphasis on religion, and not enough emphasis on the rise and fall of peoples and nations. However, all debates on Chowk do dove-tail into either a India-Pakistan-Kashmir-I am right-you are wrong-I am-we are better than you debates, or Islam right or wrong types of debates. There is too much, it seems, intellectualization percolating in Chowk discussions. :)

Having said, I think most of your post was an explanation countering my arguments, which unless you correct me; I do not think needs an answer, because I agree, with a good portion of what you have stated.

The question, which you directly asked concerned the mode of Islamic government. In my definition, a mode of government means the manner in which it is practiced and not necessarily, what it means in a theoretical sense. There is major slip, between the lip and the cup, when it comes to how Islamic nations govern themselves and how they define the rights of their citizens, which in most cases are politically motivated than they are religiously observed as the Quran might suggest. The comparsion, between an European government and an Islamic one can be made, because there is no mention of any correct form of government in the Bible either, which also addresses the issue in generally vague terms. The comparsion can be made in the sense that both forms of government rose in need to the political demand of the day and not due to any religious considerations, and yet how they dealt with the issue of sharing power differed vastly, and would have different consequences for their societies.

As an example, in an ideal sense, power should be transferred peacefully, but in a real world that will seldom happen, so my concept of power transfer is then based on a distributive balance of power. Islam`s politics have been marred by an inability to transfer power peacefully and since, the Prophet (PBUH) did not leave a clear successor, nor nominated one, during his life time, the crisis of power has been one of the most common themes in Islam`s politics.

Elections do not really answer the question on how to improve this transfer of power, as much as an agreement, between different stake holders in power, on how to manage the transition of power from one person to another. Likewise, I define democracy as more of an ability to transfer power peacefully than simply electing representatives. The right to vote does not qualify a nation as democratic, but how it deals with power and balances it within its competing groups, which defines democracy. In the case of Islam, this idea was not well defined and as a result, there were the periodic power struggles, whose aim was not to share power, but to consolidate it by denying it to the others.

The Quran does not, to the best of my understanding, offers a guide on how to faciliate this power transfer and as I mentioned; this power transfer evolved in the light of the political experiences of the Muslim politics.

Ciao

Re: # 42
ferozk
I agree with most of your post, officially Britan has no written constitution, but it has statuettes and precedents, Britain is the birth place of modern parliamentary democracy.
The monarch has no real power, I believe one reason given for not having written constitution is why have something which might be outdated 5 years down line, so they argue why not pass bills as and when required and democracy is more dynamic it adopts to changing times and circumstances.

Regards
aslam

re: faisaluno

This is in reply to your questions about facism.

The answer why facism was responsible for the deaths of so many Europeans in the last century is not as simple as you make it out. Facism was the result of the collapse of the prevailing ruling structures in Europe after the First World War. With the collapse of the European monarchies, there existed a vacuum resulting from the fact that the old notions of European political institutions were discredited and in this space, communism was stepping forth as a major political idea. Facism was a reaction to, what was seen as the communization of European politics and such, it was a political movement and not so much as a political philsophy.

The origins of facism lay in Italy, where Benito Mussolini created a conservative political party in the 1920s to resist communism and thus, end the political anarachy in Europe by re-instituting some sense of law and order based on the old ideas of European conservative pro status quo politics. Later on, in Germany, Hitler would take this idea and infuse it with a sense of patriotism and nationalism as a response to the humilations of the Versailles agreement of 1919.

It was the identification of German nationalism, with the basic idea of facism - law and order, which created a potential source for abuse of power and, which would finally create the conditions that led to the Second World War; German nationalism. What killed 50 million people was not facism itself, but its combination with nationalism, militarism to justify a particular brand of politics.

Ciao

re: faisaluno

Sorry for the delayed reply.

It seems that there is a difference of opinion on the term ``colonialism`` and in my view, it is not important or necessary, for example of Iran and Turkey, to have been physically colonized by Europe. Colonization can also be attributed to the mind and an argument can be made that Iran and Turkey, though not directly colonized, were influenced by the European ideas, which indirectly contributed towards a colonization of the mind in these societies, whereby these states thus were influenced by European political, and cultural thoughts.

Secondly; I think that you are making the implication of the Iranian clerics being influenced by the mullahs in the 1907 Iranian revolution; I did not make this allegation. My suggestion was that political power, in Islam, was always meshed with religion and this was done by non-clerical leaders and not always by the mullah/cleric combine, as you have alleged. Besides, your statement, `` iranian clerics were key players behind the revolution 1907. to claim that these mullahs were influenced by clerics is compltely absurd bordering on comical in fact in my opinion`` seems contradictory; what is the difference between mullah and cleric? In my opinion they are the same and your statment in my opinion is comical! :)

Your reference to the Ottomans fighting wars with Iran as proof of Muslims not submitting to an authority is misleading. Ottomans fighting Iran was, and, is an example of state relations and deals, with issues of balance of power and sovereign interests. It does not shed light on the internal politics of these nations, and nor does it offer proof that the population was able to challenge the notions of a central authority in an internal sense.

Your fourth question/statement dealt, with British constitution. Britain does not have a written consitution per se, but its constitutional tradition is based on the laws passed by the parliament defining the sovereign powers vis-a-vis the supremacy of the parliament. In a series of bills, the parliament was able tor resistrict the powers of the monarchy and was in the process able to create a seperation of powers, which were legally (consitutionally) balanced between the monarchy and the parliament. Britain`s unwritten constitution is based on the legality of the acts of parliament and on legislative precedents. Therefore, Britain does have a constitutional politics, and it was this idea of constitutional politics, which brought to India. Therefore, your statement that Britain does not have a constitution and thus, could not bring it to India is misinformed.

First of all, western nations invaded Muslim lands, because they were politically weak and divided and easy to conquer and in this sense, the fault lies with the Muslim governors of those lands and not with the western powers. This was a simple case of opportunity and there was no morality involved in it and neither should one be attributed. Why did the British conquer India? The British, like the Europeans, took advantage of the political disarry of the Muslims and not because they came with the intentions of conquering the Muslim lands, as you allege.

Why, are Pakistanis immigrating to Canada? Why are the Muslims willing to settle in the west? Why are the Muslims, worldwide, not immigrating to Saudi Arabia, for example?

Your quote: ``please give an example where european colonialist instituted ``the freedom of speech, religion, economic rights`` in lands that they conquered while europeans were ruling those lands?``

India, was one such land, where the British brought their laws and sense of justice and the British constitution gave the Indians alot of freedoms. Had this situation not existed, of political tolerance, Muslim League`s politics and Congress`s politics would not have been tolerated by the British; Muslims were allowed to practice their religion and as to the economic rights; its denial was the result of a Muslim choice not to educated themselves in English and to choose political and economic segregation from the mainstream of Indian political and economic affairs.

Your last question was, ``how do you explain the banning of islamic parties by secular turkish governments for most of the last century? please also explain in what way is the current govt in power in turkey drawing support from western ideology...``

First of all, Islamic parties were not banned by secular governments in Turkey as much as they were by the Turkish military, which had appointed itself as the guardian of Turkish secularism. The present Turkish government, though an Islamic party, is following a western based political model in hopes of gaining enterance into the European Union. The Turks are moving towards an idea of pluralistic politics and are establishing their democratic credentials in order to join European Union and in this sense; the present Turkish government is drawing support from a western ideology - democracy.

Ciao

P. S: Please wait till I have finished replying to Romair, before you post more questions. Also, please know that it takes considerable time to read your comments and make replies to them and if your intention is/was, as you have said to provoke me, then I do not appreciate this intention. I am willing to debate, with you but I am not going to waste my time replying to you if your intention is simply to elict a negative reaction out of me.

Faisaluno

Cultural periphery does not mean officially sanctioned unequal status. Truly admirably, that is a problem that Islam (unlike our Hindu tradition) did avoid within its own fold.

There is a certain sense in which most people view Saudi Arabia/Arab world forming the core of the Islamic world, and places like Malaysia or Indonesia (no matter what their relative population sizes may be) its periphery. That`s the sense I was speaking of.

---

Malaysia`s developmental/disciplinary methodology is hardly different from that followed by some others in the region, singapore for example. That approach is specifically East Asian, local. Muslim countries located in other parts of the world may try to emulate that South East-Asian methodology, but the results may not be entirely satisfactory.

IMHO, Malaysia has become the great mirage for many educated Muslims worldwide looking for a viable path to modernization.

Re: # 38 faisaluno

what is your take on the NEP/Bumiputra policy of Malaysian gov. wasn`t it an affirmative action by the aggressive majority.
The Malaysian Chinese mostly accepted the NEP as a necessary evil for cessation to Malay aggression. Collectively the Indian and Orang Asli form the lowest strata of the population in terms of economic ownership. It needs to be noted here that the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia are not considered Bumiputra under the Federal Constitution despite having arrived before the Malays (see Bumiputra for further information).
In recent years, the NEP has come under attack as being an inefficient system that promotes a laid-back attitude among the Bumiputras. Several implemented policies of the NEP which give economic advantage to the Bumiputras are viewed as heavily discriminatory, such as quotas in ownership of public company stock, housing sold exclusively to Bumiputras, etc.
Some Bumiputras have spoken of reducing or eliminating the NEP; for example, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his maiden speech as United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) president to the UMNO general assembly in 2004 stated ``Let`s not use the crutches for support all the time, the knee will become weak``. Badawi went on to state that continued usage of crutches would eventually result in needing a wheelchair instead. As of October 2004, Badawi has not addressed any significant concerns about the NEP.

Not all Bumiputra political leaders shared Badawi`s views. For example, Badruddin Amiruldin, who was elected as UMNO`s Deputy Permanent Chairman, waved a book about the 13 May incident at the assembly during his speech while declaring, ``No other race has the right to question our privileges, our religion and our leader``, continuing that any such action would be akin to ``stirring up a hornet`s nest``. The following day, Dr. Pirdaus Ismail, an UMNO Youth Executive Committee member, stated, ``Badruddin did not pose the question to all Chinese in the country. Those who are with us, who hold the same understanding as we do, were not our target. In defending Malay rights, we direct our voice at those who question them.``

---

can you tell about the reaction of Mahathir Mohd after the financial crash of late 90`s. Friedman says that he accused the jews and Soros for it.

Also, his vitrolic against democracy, as a tool invented by jews didn`t really impress the world.

Re: Faisaluno #37

Really? ALL Muslims are equal? Do you know that there are (were) separate graveyards in Zanzibar? One for Arab muslims (the slavers) and one for black muslims (the enslaved)? Even in death there wasn`t equality. And the less said about Sudan, the better?The Koran may preach about equality, as does the Bible, but the reality is quite different.

kaalchakra, malay political leadership deserves full credit for the economic development in malaysia because malay leadership has complete control over malaysian institutions and thus over policy formulation and implementation. its safe to say that malaysia would not have progressed if malay leadership had adapted the same policies as that adapted by the govt of w.bengal or bangladesh or bihar or even indian government. for example try and bribe a malaysian police officer or take a piss in the middle of street and see the reaction.

ferozk,

this discussion has been enjoyable for me. thanks for your time. also thanks for the civil manner in which you have dealt with some of my provocative remarks. i will once again respond to some of the points you have raised tomorrow.

kaalchakra. there is no such thing as periphary in islam. all muslims who recite the kalma are equal no matter what part of the world they reside in.

re: faisaluno and Romair

Faisaluno, I see that you did not answer my questions, but expect me to answer your questions. I will have to read all my previous posts first, to determine if I am actually making the allegations, which you claim I am, or you are simply putting words in my mouth.

Romair, I will answer your questions, but can you wait till have I have answered failsaluno?

Ciao

Faisaluno

Malaysia`s Muslims have precious little to do with the country`s economic progress. And in few other countries what Malaysia has would be called either secular or democratic.

In general, why are Islamic world`s model nations (such as they are) always at its cultural periphery, nations whose links with Islam are at best tenuous, or deeply controvertible?

re: my last post had a big fat typo

in point #3 please read ``mullahs were influenced by clerics`` as ``mullahs were influenced by europeans``.

btw this is what a u.s. state dept study has to say about the 1907 consitution revolution in iran:

http://www.country-studies.com/iran/the-constitutional-revolution.html

The shah`s failure to respond to protests by the religious establishment, the merchants, and other classes led the merchants and clerical leaders in January 1906 to take sanctuary from probable arrest in mosques in Tehran and outside the capital....In August the shah was forced to issue a decree promising a constitution. In October an elected assembly convened and drew up a constitution that provided for strict limitations on royal power, an elected parliament, or Majlis, with wide powers to represent the people, and a government with a cabinet subject to confirmation by the Majlis. The shah signed the constitution on December 30, 1906. He died five days later. The Supplementary Fundamental Laws approved in 1907 provided, within limits, for freedom of press, speech, and association, and for security of life and property. ..``

also coincidently, an article on malaysia in today`s daily star - a ``secular`` lebanese newspaper. article completely contradicts ferozk`s contention that muslim progress has been bought by ignoring islam

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=18209

Islam has reconciled Malays with economic development

By Ooi Kee Beng
Commentary by
Monday, September 05, 2005


A big worry in Iraq and the wider Middle East is that Islam and modernization are enemies. But Malaysian history over the past three decades shows that this belief is mistaken. In fact, Islamization has proved to be an effective political means of reconciling the majority of Malays to the country`s rapid economic development.

In the early 1970s, when it was still an overwhelmingly agrarian country and Islamization was just gaining momentum, Malaysia embarked on its so-called ``New Economic Policy,`` designed to help the majority Malays gain a bigger share of the country`s wealth. After three decades of spectacular economic growth, many Malays have become prosperous and content not only through secular capitalism, but through the country`s renewed sense of Islamic identity, one which - for the most part - embraced modernization. (Of course, paradoxes appear every now and then, such as when globalization is advocated alongside demands for stronger censorship.)