The Arab Spring and Fundamentalist Islam?

[birdie1971]

We all cheered (?) when dictators such as Saddam Hussain and Colonel Gaddafi were disposed but did we ever stop to ask those who were doing the disposing what they wanted to stand in their stead?

[Mosaic]

The thing is, a 'democracy' like ours has taken generations to achieve and still is far from perfect. These countries emerging from dictatorship have got a dizzyingly steep learning curve - there will be backward and forward along the way, but over a period of time and with support by example they might get there. Inshallah. As we say in Lancashire.

[emmie]

I did, and so did any number of others on this site, including Brenden. Good to get rid of tyrants, as long as you don't replace them with something worse, and quite frankly those jubilant souls who said hurrah the old regimes are being blown away haven't thought this through. These Arab springs could well be a return to much more strict authoritarian regimes.

[Mosaic]

Birdie, I've just taken time to watch your clip. it's well-made and argued, but comes from a fundamental stance that all of Islam is 'wrong'.

Just thinking around the issue of advocating violence or Jihad - ever studied the words of 'Onward Christian Soldiers?'

In countries where blatantly unfair acts have been done by governmet- like land seizures in Egypt - it's not surprising that the suggestion to follow a universally-understood sharia law would be popular.

It's taken us a good 200 years to get to our developed democracy - if in 1812 an outside country had told us we was doing it all wrong - would we have listened, or closed ranks?

[emmie]

Mosaic whilst i agree it's taken a time to get our own house in order, the majority of people in Britain were Christians, and whilst that may or may not be the case today, that did not dictate how the ruling classes had sway over the people in Britain. it was largely about Class, land and money, Had we not had class ridden rulers, keep em in their place society, perhaps we wouldn't have taken so long to come to the point we are now at, even if it isn't perfect.
Many of these countries have been ruled by religious leaders, who have dictated to the masses, and if anyone thinks having sharia law, with all it's interpretations as a good thing then sorry i don't understand that. Sharia law in the way it has been portrayed and interpreted leaves many women with no voice, and stuck in situations that have caused them to have no education, married off, and ill treated.
I hope you are right, that the young get their way, and British governments shouldn't interfere

[Mosaic]

Hi Em - just a few points re. the history stuff - getting access to any kind of welfare support pre 1948 in the UK was dependent on your 'character' - even old age pensioners could lose their pensions if they were deemed to be boozing too much. Single mothers, 'adulteresses', 'the idle poor', and those people not known to a church or synagogue got scant welfare help and were literally dependent on soup kitchens. So in the sense you describe of this being a christian country, access to welfare came down to belonging to an approved religion.
Divorce was practically impossible to get - only accessible to the very rich or very determined as it did not have religious approval (still doesn't).
It was social and economic suicide to live openly with a person you weren't married to - even into the 1960s. Women in particular suffered from this.
So I think a kind of religious control did exist even up to the 1960s in Britain - don't even get me started on Eire.
I don't approve of sharia law or any rule by theocracy. But sharia law might prove a ready-made framework for a society in flux that has just got rid of a harsh and random dictatorship.
If anyone living under sharia is able to comment that would be informative - for example, are there examples we can learn from where women living under sharia feel free, equal and fairly treated?
Just thinking out loud.

[naomi24]

//did we ever stop to ask those who were doing the disposing what they wanted to stand in their stead?//

No, we didn’t – and I’ve always thought it’s something that should concern us.

Mosaic, we make a grave error when we compare our history to the progress of Islamic nations - and a western mindset to that of fundamentalist Islam.

[Brenden]

Oil and water comes to mind naomi - and they will never mix.

[jomifl]

As long as dictators are replaced by what the people want, whether or not it is fundamental islam is all that matters.

[Brenden]

The people will not get what they want, the big players will, the likes of Ahmadinejay who is preparing for the coming of the 12th imam, al Mahdi, the prophet who demands a violent path to conquer the world. It will be interesting to hear the speech in a few days time from Iran regarding their breakthrough with their nuclear programme.

[jomifl]

I'm not sure what game the Iranians are playing, If they make the mistake that Sadam Hussein made and convince the world that they have WMDs when they haven't then the future looks fairly sticky for them. The Amercans via their surrogate Israel will knock out all their nuclear plants, peaceful or otherwise in the space of 10 minutes. Fait accompli!

[sandyRoe]

Perhaps they've bought nuclear weapons from somewhere like North Korea. The theory of MAD, mutually assured destruction, that kept us all safe during the Cold War is as valid for an Iranian as it is for anyone else.

[jno]

I don't know who "we all" is, but yes, it was a constant topic of discussion in western media while it was happening. In Egypt, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood was long established as a sort of alternative government, which had been providing social services the government could not; it is hardly surprising if people thought highly of them and felt they'd make better rulers.

The tyrants haven't generally been fundamentalists, even though in many cases their citizens are. Saddam and Assad are linked to particular sects rather than to Islam in general. Gadaffi tried to export revolution, not religion.

Ahmadinejad was elected in semi-democratic polls - he's not a hardliner at all and the mullahs loathe him because of it. Nuke him and you can be reasonably sure a fundamentalist will replace him.

[Brenden]

Not a hard liner jno,are you kidding me, Ahmadinejay's spiritual mentor is Ayatollah mohammad Yazdi, a hardliner Iranian Twelver Shi'i cleric.

[Mosaic]

"we make a grave error when we compare our history to the progress of Islamic nations - and a western mindset to that of fundamentalist Islam" (Naomi)

Why?

[jno]

Ahmadinejad is a populist, not an imam. He once outraged the clerics by having his old schoolteacher appear on a platform with him - an elderly lady in a chador - and kissing her hand.

I'm not saying he's a liberal or pro-western or a nice man. I'm just saying the alternative will be as birdie suggests, a much greater fundamentalist.

[naomi24]

Mosaic, //Why?//

Because fundamentalist Islam is neither culturally nor socially progressive. Its philosophy is firmly entrenched in the tenets of a 1500 year old book, and that’s where it will remain because that’s where its adherents are determined it will remain.

[birdie1971]

Mosaic - “... [the clip] comes from a fundamental stance that all of Islam is 'wrong'... Just thinking around the issue of advocating violence or Jihad - ever studied the words of 'Onward Christian Soldiers?'”

Indeed I have and that is why I have no time for the preachings of Islam or Christianity. They are simply different faces of the same coin.

[birdie1971]

Jno - “... it [the goal of the rebels] was a constant topic of discussion in western media while it was happening...”

Was it? I must admit that this discussion has passed me by. I don't purchase newspapers but I do watch the news – mainly the BBC and Channel 4 - but I can't ever recall watching a news item that asked the question I am asking. Many an interview was conducted between western reporter and 'rebel' and the questions and answers were simplistic and superficial:

Reporter: What do you want?
Rebel: To get rid of [insert dictator here]!
Reporter: Why?
Rebel: He's a tyrant and a monster!
Reporter: What do you want to see in the future?
Rebel: A free country!

… and typically, that's where the interview ended. No exposition was forthcoming and no questioning of the rebels' motives was broadcast.

[jno]

I don't think questions were asked during the inital Tunisian uprising but the debate grew as the Egyptian regime came under threat. The reports at the time indicated that the rebels generally were seeking democracy but indicated that hardliners might see an opportunity to seize power, given the lack of regular opposition parties (because they'd been suppressed). The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at first said they didn't want to; they may have changed their mind.

I've had a look for some links, but a year on they're impossible to track down, but I would have thought if you were able to reread newspapers from 12 months back you'd find western governments expressing concern.

[birdie1971]

“... The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at first said they didn't want to; they may have changed their mind...”

Indeed they have. Hardly surprising considering that Islam is not just a spiritual belief system – it is also a system of government.