Re: Islamism

From: Douglas Brooker (
Date: Sun Jan 20 2002 - 10:02:16 GMT

  • Next message: Stephen Springette: "Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger"

    Received: by id KAA08911 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:26:34 GMT
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:02:16 +0000
    From: Douglas Brooker <>
    Organization: University of London
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    Subject: Re: Islamism
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Precedence: bulk

    Joe Dees wrote:

    > >> >Joe Dees wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> The constitution functions according to sharia law, which means that whatever the people or their elected representative favor is immaterial, so long as the clerics oppose it.
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> >That's constitutional. I'm not an expert here, but the key body that exercises the power you refer to is the Council of Guardians. It performs a function not unlike the President's veto or the Senate or the cumbersome process of enacting Constitutional amendment in the US. The Iranians are stuck with their constitution, the same way you guys are. Substitute 'corporations' and 'Israel' for 'clerics' and the relation between the wishes of the
    > >> >people and public policy in the two countries follows a similar pattern.
    > >> >
    > >> Wrong. The clerics in Shi'a Islam are born that way; they are descendants of Ali, Mohammed's son-in-law and the husband of Fatima. They are not elected or appointed to exercise such capacities; they are supposedly divinely licenced.
    > >
    > >Are you saying that all Iranian clerics are born as members of the Council of Guardians? What sections of the Iranian Constitution are you referring to?
    > >
    > What their constitution says does not really matter; Ayatolluh Khameini can enforce any rule he chooses by claiming that Islam demands it, and void any presidential initiative by pronouncing it opposed to Allah's will.

    If he can enforce any rule, it is because the Constitution provides for his office and its powers. So it matters.

    What section of the Constitution requires he give a reason for using his veto? Does the American constitution require the President give reasons for his veto?

    And if he can enforce any rule, has this ultimate power, how is it that there is a political struggle taking place between two opposing views of what their republic should be? It sounds similar to the cultural wars so widely written about in America between secularists and white born again Christians. Both sides using all the legal and extra-legal means available to further their position.

    > >> That is not the case for Israel, where both legislative and executive are elected by popular vote, like in the US.
    > >
    > >In the United States, the President Vice-President are elected. The rest of the executive is non-elected.
    > >
    > The people who serve in the lion's share of powerful executive positions are nominated by an executive elected official (the President), and confirmed (or not) by a body composed of elected legislative representatives (the Senate).

    but not elected.

    > >Israel follows a Parliamentary model and members of the executive must be elected members of the Knesset. I don't know much else about Israel's constitution, except that they have about 40 political parties and the ultra-Othorthox fundamentalist ones often hold the balance of power.
    > >
    > >
    > >> >> >Another Islamic democracy to consider is Bangladesh (125 million of the poorest people in the world - the live in a territory the size of Wisconsin, but by a recent UN survey the 'happiest' people in the world).
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> Happiness can be a function of the ignorance of better alternatives.
    > >> >
    > >> >So can western definitions of democracy. If democracy is about citizen participation then a good measure of democracy is the percentage of people who vote in elections. In this Iran and Bangladesh rank higher than many western countries.
    > >> >
    > >> And the fact that the Iranians who vote for change nevertheless are having it stymied by an unelected theocratic elite which can trump the popular will while remaining unaccountable to it is a source of much frustration to them.
    > >> >
    > >> >> The movement is not democratic, but theocratic, pushed mainly by the Wahhabi sect, which is more or less surreptitiously angling to rid themselves of their House of Saud patrons and control the petrolode directly. The problem that the West has with abandoning the authoritarian regimes in such places as Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others, is that what would apparently replace it would resemble Afghanistan more than it would Turkey.
    > >> >
    > >> >Well if that's what the people want, then preventing them from getting it by propping up dictators is undemocratic. And that's the source of much of the anger directed against American foreign policy. American foreign policy seems to be based on a fear of what people in others countries want. Democracy, it seems, is ok so long as its the right kind of democracy.
    > >> >
    > >> And we should have applauded the German election of Hitler, ayy? In fact, we sent him our congratulations; look what the world got for it.
    > >
    > >It's pretty basic history to associate the rise of Hitler with the reparations and humiliation imposed by the treat of Versailles. A lot of people in the West supported Hitler and still do - mostly from the closet.
    > >
    > Humiliation motivates much of Islamic fundamentalism, too. They believe that they are chosen of Allah to rule the globe according to shari'a law, reducing all others (nonbelieving infidels) to death or dhimmitude, are extremely embarassed that this is not the way that things are, and will do anything they can to reify Allah's rule on earth.
    > >> >
    > >> >The headline in today's Guardian is "Saudis tell US forces to get out".
    > >> >
    > >> >,7369,636035,00.html
    > >> >
    > >> >The theory I am preparing to foist upon an unsuspecting world is that all societies at all times have been and are democracies. It has a memetic orientation. It's based on the combination of express acts of will and acquiescence. People are sovereign. They can do whatever they want. Iran, Philippines, Eastern Europe...when the people form a will to get rid of a goes.
    > >> >
    > >> When the people are raised from birth to believe that they get into heaven by acquiescing to whatever bloodthirsty war their clerics tell them is just, they are manipulated through enforced indoctrination and ignorance. The word Islam translates into 'submission'; these folks are raised from birth to believe that submission to the will of Allah, as explained to them by their Mullahs, is their ticket to Paradise. Many of these people are raised to be like Manchurian Candidates, with the read queen already flashed, and all infidels the targets. In Islam, the world is divided into two camps; Dar-Al-Islam (the World of Submission) and Dar-Al-Harb (The World of War). The only way that peace can reign upon the globe, according to Muslim doctrine, is for Dar-Al-Islam to rule the world over, and many Muslims will not stop fighting and killing infidels for their god and his kingdom until they achieve that global totalitarian hegemonistic peace.
    > >
    > >Sounds like you've found your demons.
    > >
    > The meme is indeed bloodthirstily cannibalistic, and has verifiably turned many people into memebotic juggernauts of mass murder, just as the Thuggee kali cult did in India years before. What I am describing is directly from the Koran and from present Muslim fanatics (the Al Quaeda detainees in Cuba still maintain that it remain their holy duty to kill any Americans they can manage to murder, even now), and from former Muslims such as those found at:
    > http:/
    > I don't like their "either convert into fanatical fundie zealot potential jihad killers or be killed yourself" message,

    you are in the company of hundreds of millions of Muslims who share your view, just as most Christians don't embrace the views of the various religious orientated militias that exist all over the US.

    > but I would be a fool to ignore it when it is shouted so loudly by so many messengers, and punctuated with multiple murderous actions over many years. If a meme can be labeled demonic, certainly that would be a prime candidate.

    Well Christian eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. Would you like to be reminded of some of the more wacko Bible quotes available? If you want to understand how sincere believers circumvent archaic religious prescriptions read up on modern Jewish law. Same is true of Islamic law, except perhaps as practised in Saudi Arabia.

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 20 2002 - 10:41:10 GMT