Skip to main content

View Diary: Cairo! 'Massive' doesn't do it justice. (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Islam is very conducive to fascism (4+ / 0-)

    as it literally means "total submission" to the Islamic state.  All is secondary to such.

    No use being all PC about it.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:18:24 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We have our own Christian fundamentalists/ (11+ / 0-)

      dominionists.

      Not sure Islam has that market cornered theoretically.

    •  There is also the Christian Brotherhood, as (10+ / 0-)

      several people are calling it.

      In Islam it is total submission to God, not to a state. Yes, there are those who conflate the two but it is no more inherent in that religion than in others.

      Christ himself is said to have said "Render unto Caesar" but that never stopped those bent on theocracy. In fact the whole point of today's demonstrations and the similar affairs in Libya, Tunisia and elsewhere is precisely this.  
      __

      Simmons fan, by any chance?

      Cheers

      I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.

      by Athenian on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 05:05:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bravo. n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  You've mistaken me for a Christian. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        codairem, Noisy Democrat

        Which I am not.

        Islam does not separate church and state since all law is subordinate to the Quran.

        See the Iraqi Constitution for example.

        http://portal.unesco.org/...

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 05:54:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I did not think you were Christian (0+ / 0-)

          I was asking about your screen name : )

          Cheers

          I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.

          by Athenian on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:20:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  WRONG (2+ / 0-)
          Islam does not separate church and state
          Maybe the Isalm that YOUR imam teaches you doesn't but hey -- there are many ways to interpret Islam (ask the Shi ites, Allawites, Sunnis, Druze, Salafis, etc etc etc). There is no Muslim "pope" who commands all Muslims.
          Turkey is an Islamic nation. It has (though  now its Quoran-thumpers seem to be wanting to go all fundamental) a secular state.
          Syria is an Islamic nation -- but the government now mindlessly killing its own citizens is/was a secular state. It massacred 20,000 Muslim Brotherhood members in 1982  to prove it.
          Sharia courts and sharia law do not supercede civil courts in these countries. Neither did they in Mubarek's Egypt.
          Religion has more of stranglehold on America's politics than it has with most Muslims in other countries.

          Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

          by fourthcornerman on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You seem to know something about this (0+ / 0-)

            Can you tell me where I can find out more about mainstream interpretations of Islam that don't require the believer to do his utmost to establish a state governed by sharia? That seems to be the main bone of contention between Islamists and secularists. Where can I find a major school of Islamic jurisprudence that rules that separation of mosque and state is OK?

      •  but if you want to use Muslim (shariah) law (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noisy Democrat

        as the basis for your state as some Muslims want to try out and some regimes do already have, then by definition you would be totally submitting to the authorities. You say it is to God, but like all formal religions they have people who are religious leaders who tell them how to submit to God. It seems that a religion that is based on total submission would be more at risk to totalitarianism if the choose religious law as their basis for their law. There are other religions that do not demand total submission and in fact encourage questioning more.

    •  not being ignorant ≠ PC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angry marmot

      you clearly do not know much about islam and its theological or historical relationship b/w the religious community and the state, from your comment.

    •  Not to a state (13+ / 0-)

      Islam refers to submission to their diety, Allah, but the very word is cognative to salaam, peace.  (Semitic languages are built around three-consonant radices.)

      The notion of an Islamic state is modern.  After the original empire of Mohammed, many countries adopted Islam as their religion, but the religious side viewed government as rather impure, albeit necessary, so it stayed separate.  The "Islamic Republic" model used by Iran, and somewhat like that supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, is more of a post-colonial reaction to corrupt states.

      •  excellent comment n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.

        by Athenian on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:23:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Worthy nugget (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego, angry marmot
        The "Islamic Republic" model used by Iran, and somewhat like that supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, is more of a post-colonial reaction to corrupt states.
        I've not heard this point made before but it sure sounds on point at first hearing. This is an interesting prism. This one sentence worth of wheat justifies the all the chaff encountered today.  
        •  Islamic Republic of Iran hijacked their revolution (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, wu ming

          It was common people wanting change to fix a corrupt government that started the Iranian revolution. Then once the Shah was gone the Ayatollah muscled in promising a better Iran if everybody just let the religious leaders run the place -- and upon doing so they consolidated power and jammed "the Islamic Republic" down the throats of the population.
          Egyptians today know very well what the real story of Iran is (not America's aggrieved fable that "those ungrateful bastards kicked us out"); they see the Muslim Brotherhood trying to pull the same trick and they aren't going to stand for it.

          Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

          by fourthcornerman on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:39:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  PMinister Goatbazahdei (0+ / 0-)

            I cannot remember the spelling, sorry. But I recall there was an early PM and a few months later there was a new PM and a dead former PM. That seemed like an odd turn of events to a kid ending his teen years. (OR was he not a PM but a spokesman... been so long.)

            At any rate, these memories seem to make some sense in the context of tis description. This Mr Goatbezahdei I sort of remember, was he part of the non-Islamic Republic team that the Ayatolah muscled aside?

      •  Really important point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, hoplite9

        One could perhaps call political Islam the "anti-colonialism of fools" in the same sense that August Bebel called anti-semitism the "socialism of fools."  Political Islam filled the void left by the failure of secular anti-colonialism.  It is fascinating, for instance, to note that in the early 1960s, the Shia working class of southern Iraq formed the social base of the Iraqi Communist Party.  After Saddam crushed the CP, resistance to the regime among the Shia centered around the only remaining independent institutions-- the mosques.  

        •  Yep, the only alternative (5+ / 0-)

          This is a reply to you and to Quicklund...

          Yes, the suppression of political activity is what caused religion to get politicized.  When you're not allowed to support anything except your government (which you hate) and state-tolerated religious institutions, you'll gravitate towards the latter as the only place you can congregate.  It necessarily, by exclusion of alternatives, becomes the sole counterweight to the state.  But it's still run by religious leaders.  So when the old state falls, the religious leaders cash in their chips and take over.

          The US made it worse in Afghanistan by backing bin Laden and other religious mujaheddin against the Soviets. There might have been other possible alternatives but Carter and Reagan backed the religious ones.

          •  Hard to find holes in this (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks very much for the interesting views. This is a most effective counter to anti-Islamic bigotry that claims Muslims are inherently drawn to autocratic gov't, or some such malarkey.

      •  What about the various Caliphates throughout (0+ / 0-)

        history? How do they relate to the modern notion of an Islamic Republic? I thought the Caliphates were large states or empires governed by Islamic law; is that not correct?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site