Arab Spring

[GRH]

Randolph, you're showing your own ignorance of Judeo-Christian history here. Muslims consider Abraham to be their father, and Mohammed their prophet. It goes back to the promise that God made to Abraham that he would have a child, through which his heirs would be as numerous as the stars in the sky. At the time, Abraham was roughly 90 - 100 years old, and his wife was equally as old. Not trusting God to bring child through his wife Sarah, Abraham took their maidservant and conceived Ishmael through her. His wife Sarah later ended up conceiving and giving birth to Isaac. Jews trace their lineage through Isaac to Abraham. Muslims trace their heritage through Ishmael to Abraham.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by GRH

Randolph, you're showing your own ignorance of Judeo-Christian history here. Muslims consider Abraham to be their father, and Mohammed their prophet. It goes back to the promise that God made to Abraham that he would have a child, through which his heirs would be as numerous as the stars in the sky. At the time, Abraham was roughly 90 - 100 years old, and his wife was equally as old. Not trusting God to bring child through his wife Sarah, Abraham took their maidservant and conceived Ishmael through her. His wife Sarah later ended up conceiving and giving birth to Isaac. Jews trace their lineage through Isaac to Abraham. Muslims trace their heritage through Ishmael to Abraham.

And what a fucked up world we have had ever since Abraham couldn't keep it in his pants.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

And what a fucked up world we have had ever since Abraham couldn't keep it in his pants.

Yep, people who believe in one God sure like to make war on their neighbors, the poor Pagans didn't have a chance.

[Elonar]

Wherever any religious group claims exclusivity, follows that its followers reject and condemn out of hand anybody who is not of their religious persuasion or approved by them. The most extreme form results in religious-cleansing. This may be prompted as much by political imperatives as religious ones. A typical example is the fate of the Cathars, but the Middle East promises unfortunately to provide more.

Exclusivity is divisive and socially polarising, and per se must be the enemy of any democratic system.

I would like to get back to a renewed discussion of the ' Arab Spring ' and its significance to the balance of power in the Middle East. Any offers ?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Elonar

Wherever any religious group claims exclusivity, follows that its followers reject and condemn out of hand anybody who is not of their religious persuasion or approved by them. The most extreme form results in religious-cleansing. This may be prompted as much by political imperatives as religious ones. A typical example is the fate of the Cathars, but the Middle East promises unfortunately to provide more.

Exclusivity is divisive and socially polarising, and per se must be the enemy of any democratic system.

I would like to get back to a renewed discussion of the ' Arab Spring ' and its significance to the balance of power in the Middle East. Any offers ?

Yes, I agree, perhaps we should have a religious thread.

The Arab Spring is the momentous event in recent history. The politicizing of religion in both the east and west is going to have a major bearing on whether the middle eastern countries can achieve a truly democratic state.

[randolph]

My thoughts

When Bush was getting ready to invade Iraq, an adviser was talking to him about Sunnis and Shias. Supposedly Bush said “I thought they were all Muslims”.

The schism within the Muslim religion between the Sunni and the Shia is the source of much of the discord in the Middle East. The origin of this split occurred after the death of Mohammed. Who was to carry on his work? One group wanted Mohammed’s family members to continue his legacy, they became the Shia. The other side believed the leaders of the Muslim movement at the time of Mohammed’s death should continue his legacy. This split was originally political but over time it also became religious.

In the absence of Western influence, particularly the US, these two Muslim groups within Islam would likely be fighting each other anyway. A lot of it has to do with political power. In Iraq before our invasion, the Sunni’s ruled Iraq even though they were a minority. We imposed a Shia government and the Sunni regularly bomb Shia sites.

The most financially powerful Middle Eastern country, Saudi Arabia, is Sunni and enforces Sharia law and no other religions are legal. Iran also has Sharia law but it’s not as extreme as in Saudi Arabia. With the exception of Iran, the Sunni’s have more economic and political power in the Middle East. Historically, the two sides of Islam have been kept from each other’s throats by a secular strongman, ie, Saddam (Iraq), Kaddafi (Libya), Mubarak (Egypt), Assad (Syria), etc.

With the demise of the autocratic rulers, a power vacuum is created and all the various politically orientated groups rush in to gain power. Of course, we would like a secular democratic government that respects human rights, be established in these countries. In Libya there is some optimism in this respect. In the other Arab Spring countries, democracy and human rights may be a long way off. The emergence of a powerful military backed leader that imposes a secular lid on religious infighting is a likely alternative. So then, we are back where we started.

[randolph]

Although many of us would like to see the US get out of foreign countries and mind our own business, many political scientists don't agree with this.

For example the Harvard Political scientist, Dr. Samuel P. Huntington asserts:
"A world without US primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth that a world where the United States continues to have more influence than any other country in shaping global affairs. The sustained international primacy of the United Stated is central to the welfare and security of Americans and to the future of freedom, democracy and open economies and international order in the world."

So, in a sense, our actions around the world are somewhat similar to the local strongman. We, with our enormous military power and financial influence help maintain some degree of stability in the world.
With the emergence of radical Islam, our hegemony in the Middle East is threatened. Again political scientists, including Zbigniew Brzezinski believe if we lose influence in the Middle East our influence thruout Eurasia would diminish leaving this critical area open to other aggressive powers such as Iran and China.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

And what a fucked up world we have had ever since Abraham couldn't keep it in his pants.

Don't blame Abraham. Blame organized religion.