Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Photi

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Photi


  1. Bah... shades of Churchill in that statement. And we all know Churchill was a gigantic colonial doosh.

    Democracy has different meanings all the time. It seems its definition changes whenever its vanguards see fit to change it. So I don't trust it in the least bit.

    Moreover, if "power to the people" is truly what democracy embodies, then I think Iran is more democratic than the Western democracies, because the masses are much more involved in the politics of the country (through an outlet called Basij e mostazafin).

    the only thing missing for Iran is internal security. If Iran didn't have to fend off so many intelligence agencies,it would be freer to have a more open political process. As it is now, fears of foreign sabotage are well-founded necessitating tighter control over the political process.


  2. I just don't want Egypt's version of the greenies (which most certainly exists) to hop on this revolution gravy train and end up only liberalizing the country's political structure (while leaving the moribund economy and servitude to foreign powers intact). That would be blood shed in vain.

    Anyhoo... the main thing here is national self-determination. Unlike what Satyaban suggests, neither Iran, nor we unofficial spokesmen of Iran, is trying to manipulate the events in Egypt to their own desire. (This is rather what the US and Europe are doing; damage control).

    National self-determination is the important thing. If Egyptians want the same stoogish foreign policy and just a less authoritarian political atmosphere, then that's what they should have. If they want an Islamic Republic, then certainly neither Satyaban nor anyone else has the right to declare their wish as illegitimate (as many countries seem to be going in the case of Gaza).

    I agree. National self-determination is the important thing.


  3. Democracy is just a word. It shouldn't have any power over you. And you certainly shouldn't view it as this invincible, irresistible force, especially considering that the supposed vanguards of democracy only want democracy now that their dictator has been caught with his pants down.

    Democracy means power to the people. as the saying goes, democracy is the least worst way to end oppression.


  4. "Heart and soul?" Any revolution takes "heart and soul." It sure took a lot of heart and soul for Iranians to withstand getting mowed down by bullets of the Imperial Guards. But guess what? That revolution resulted in the creation of an Islamic Republic. So not everyone with heart and soul wants democracy.

    And if the internet is gonna define our politics, then I'm pretty sure a pornocracy or a dumbvideoofsomedudegettingkickedinthecrotchbyamonkey-ocracy is the wave of the future.

    Democracy is just a word. It shouldn't have any power over you. And you certainly shouldn't view it as this invincible, irresistible force, especially considering that the supposed vanguards of democracy only want democracy now that their dictator has been caught with his pants down.

    chill out dude. the egyptians themselves are calling this a pro-democracy movement. what i was trying to illustrate by linking to the girl was the future of Egypt is now in the hands of the Egyptian youth. I consider this to be a much better scenario than a future for Egypt in the hands of the US or Israel. Egypt is rising to lead the Arabs. As Muslims, we should all be very happy about this. the age of imperialism in the Middle East is coming to an end.


  5. That shows nothing.

    The same generic demands were made during the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

    Not everybody's idea of "freedom" is the same, moreover.

    It shows heart and soul. It also shows a technical savvy that will let the peoples' voices be restrained no more. In the age of the Internet 2.o, democracy is quickly becoming the only option. death to the dictators.


  6. The whole point is that Al-Jazeera is an "independent" Arab news source.

    It has long been accused of being anti-US or anti-imperialist, opposing the puppet regimes, giving voice to the Palestinian struggle, etc...

    Al-Jazeera is not an imperialist mouthpiece, and yet it is talking like one with respect to Iran.

    That makes it 1000000000000000000000000000x more contemptible than the imperialist news sources.

    It's like what thecontendedself said: aljazfitna. It's a fitnah-mongering news source which quite clearly is afraid of an Islamic awakening.

    I think you are mistaking a little bit of Arab identity chauvinism for imperialist plots. Is it that shocking that an Arab news channel takes the Arab side in a bout of Arab/Persian rivalry?


  7. I have said this before and I will say it again: I don't know what a "strawman" is.

    My point is: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    The strawman argument in this case means you are taking some of the characteristics of some of the critics of the President, and go on to wax (dis)eloquently about how messed up those characteristics are, like for instance the characteristic of some of these people being traitors. Once you get us all to agree about how messed up those traitors are, you then use that strawman to argue in favor of silencing criticism altogether. You are using a strawman to scare us into thinking all critics of President Ahmadinejad are traitors when this simply isn't true.


  8. According to you (jackson), President Ahmadinejad stands up well to criticism. Presenting an argument illustrating the President's integrity is the way to address that criticism. Trying to silence the criticism makes it look like government officials have criminal behavior to obscure or hide altogether.

    Criminal behavior within governments is the same thing as corruption. Corruption flourishes in the absence of transparency. Therefore, transparency is an important and necessary tool in the fight against corruption.

    Criticism and public scrutiny produce transparency, therefore public criticism is a necessary precondition to bring about the end of corruption and the establishment of the rule of law.


  9. The current quandary the US presently finds itself in with regards to Egypt is a good example of where nationalism is preventing a nation from choosing the correct moral option.

    President Obama has a sworn responsibility to protect the national interests of the United States and so continues to prop up the dictator. However, given the criminal nature of the Mubarak regime and given that this social revolution does genuinely appear to represent the will of the people, the proper moral choice would be to openly and unequivocally stand in solidarity with the demonstrators and to denounce the Mubarak regime.

    If the US government was more concerned with the human interest instead of the national interest, the President would see how his current position of supporting both Mubarak and the People amounts to nothing more than an obstruction of justice.

    However, I do believe the revolution in Egypt is a delicate matter where non-nationals have only a limited and indirect role to play. Would Islam advocate for all Muslims to fly to Cairo and join in the demonstrations? I don't know that the demonstrators themselves would want that. How to understand this without recognizing the Egyptian national identity as something separate from an Islamic identity?

    Citizenship is important because it ascribes political power to individual people. If the definition of the 'citizen' is determined by race or religion, discrimination and intolerance is sure to follow. Pluralistic societies will suffer from such a rigid definition. However, if the definition of 'citizen' is determined by less immutable qualities--like say for instance citizenship based off loyalty to a state and/or culture--then this citizenry becomes much more inclusive and capable of harmoniously meeting the needs of a pluralistic society.

    So I guess my question is how do these two ideas resolve themselves together? In the first instance, nationalism is obstructing justice internationally. In the second instance, nationalism is helping to organize a peaceful society domestically.

    Cannot a person have a religious identity to which he is loyal and at the same time have a national identity to which he is loyal?


  10. (salam)

    The supporters of Mubarak are going out in the street now in support of him.

    The worst thing that can happen now is that the Egyptians get deceived with this false show of support for Mubarak, and stop demanding his resignation. If they back down now, come September, Mubarak may use these “false supporters” to show that he is still a viable and legitimate candidate.

    But would the Egyptians fall for such a trick?

    methinks there is unspeakable punishment ahead if they back out now. i wouldn't go so far as to say now or never for democracy in Egypt, but if not now, then when?


  11. Dude that was before 14infallibles offered me his sister.

    Also, have you ever met an Iranian woman? They are loud, they are physically stronger than a woman typically is (or should be), and they don't take too kindly to criticism or opposition. Even the soosool ones are like this, let alone a Basiji sister.

    So I'll pass on the Iranian women.

    i knew an iranian woman who was thin as a stick but ridiculously strong. i thought it was just her.


  12. Hey guys:

    I am not cool with this schedule change. It makes it so much harder for me to keep up.

    I got other stuff I want to read, and I also have school ( :sick: ) and work.

    I have been caught up with the events in Egypt. Baradar_jackson, if you are referring to the revised 4 chapters a week schedule i don't think we are following the weekly schedule i typed up. the way i understand it, the current schedule is two chapters a week (as opposed to four). i am interested in a weekly schedule because i thought that would be easier to keep track of than a four-day rolling schedule. what does everyone else think about a weekly schedule at two chapters a week? that is roughly the same pace as the 1 chapter every 4-days schedule.

    apart from that, is everyone still interested in group reading this book at the present time? i am willing to go either way. the events in egypt have taken my time over the last week


  13. The anti-capitalist mentality is nothing more than a combination of being on the wrong side of colonialism mixed with a little bit of Marxist accretionism. Incentive-based economies are entirely in line with Islam. Resisting the entire capitalist order is a recipe for extreme warfare. Baradar_Jackson, is your distaste for capitalism so extreme that you would be willing to fight a world war over it?

    I agree that extreme nationalism is shirk, but with the proper moderation, a rational nationalism does not have to contradict Islam. The 'nation-state' method of organization has proved practical for humanity and so to keep bringing false arguments against it in the name of Islam is unnecessary and probably futile anyway.


  14. Brotherhood membership may not entirely be, and is not, made of people of Salafi-Wahhabi persuasion but its founders as well as leaders subscribe to distinct Salafist jihadist philosophy. Syed Qutb was inspired by Abul 'Ala Maududi, the Pakistani Deobandi (Salafi) thinker, who was anti-democracy jihadist, and who popularised the concept of "modern jahiliya", which Syed Qutb further interpreted to legitimise violence against Muslims and non-Muslims living in a non-Islamic state. Not only this the Brotherhood leaders have strong links with quasi-governmental elements in Saudia. How could you possibly miss it?

    You need to get your facts right, brother.

    No, Hassan al-Banna is the 'father' of the brotherhood. At its foundation it is reformist and activist in nature, it was only later that the justification for violence was worked into the ideology. Nasr is to blame for the anti-democratic tendencies in Egypt. Had he not imprisoned the Brotherhood (Syed Qutb), things would never had gotten so "extreme." You cannot exclude the MB from the process. The nationalists and 'islamists' need reconciliation. Together they can honor democracy and reform.

×
×
  • Create New...