After Arab Spring - the coming of Salafist Spring?

[hellheaven1987]

An interesting BBC article...

The ultra-conservative Salafist movement has spearheaded many of the recent violent protests over the controversial anti-Muslim film which appeared on the internet. The most significant sign of support for Salafism has been in Egypt where adherents made major gains in the recent election.

To feed her family of 15, Rabiah Rahim has to bake 120 loaves every week - but with rising prices she cannot afford to pay the 20 Egyptian pounds ($3) she needs for a new bottle of gas.

As her daughter tosses the rounds of dough in flour and puts them in the blazing stove, Rabiah says no-one in government listens to the needs of the poor.

The narrow unpaved streets of al-Kom al-Ahmar bear witness to years of neglect - this farming community, an hour's drive from the Egyptian capital, Cairo, lacks the most basic amenities.

The older generation are mostly illiterate and the main form of transport is donkey and cart. Egypt's economic crisis is leading to a wave of protest on the streets of Cairo but here people look to God to provide.

And for the Rahim family, help is at hand. A group of Salafists, in plain, ankle-length robes and sandals arrive at the front door with coupons that can be exchanged for gas at a subsidised price.

They are popular members of the community, known for their charitable deeds. During holidays they kill camel, sheep and buffalo and distribute the meat to the poor.

They also pay for school books and medicines and contribute to the gift of household goods required for young brides.

Mohammed Gomah, who is in charge of social activities, explains that Salafists are following the instructions of Islam.

"We must help our people," he says, speaking to Radio 4's File on 4 programme.

"We do it for Allah but the people don't forget this for us. They respect us."

Source

As some of members who have been following the situation of Middle East and North Africa in past two years, Salafism - or Islamic "traditionalism" has a big rise of supporters in past two years. During the Egyptian Presidential election this year, it was estimated that around 20% ~ 25% of Egyptian voters were Salafists, exclude Muslim Brotherhood's supporters of course. Similarly, it saw a big rise in Tunisia and Libya too, with also some reports suggest the large presence of Salafists in current FSA now (and UN just issues a warning of increasing number of Jihadists in FSA).

What interest me, however, is that supporters of Salafism, much similar as supporters of AKP (which also consider an Islamic conservative party in Turkey) and supporters of Iranian President Ahmadinejad (who also considers the leader of religious conservatism in Iran), are mostly from lower class. It puzzles me as I don't see the reasons why lower class is more easy to attract to religious fever - which also happens in Christianity; what can lower class gain from been religious conservative? Why middle class is more immuned from religious movement?

Still, the sharp increase of Salafists in Islamic world, regardless what reason, may not be a good sign for the rest of world; and despite knowing it is more associated with lower class, the current poor global economical situation probably would just wider the gap between poor and rich, result even more poor people in the end - a great recruit ground for Salafism. In short, the number of Salafists probably would still increase in near future, with no immediate solution can be adopted to solve this problem.

[Sphere]

It puzzles me as I don't see the reasons why lower class is more easy to attract to religious fever - which also happens in Christianity; what can lower class gain from been religious conservative? Why middle class is more immuned from religious movement?

Charities throughout much of the Arab world are overwhelmingly Islamic.

[hellheaven1987]

Charities throughout much of the Arab world are overwhelmingly Islamic.

Ya, but what does that do with politics? It is not like Salafist politicians promise socialist policies or what.

[Sphere]

Ya, but what does that do with politics? It is not like Salafist politicians promise socialist policies or what.

That is exactly what they do. Hell, it is what they practice.

[hellheaven1987]

That is exactly what they do. Hell, it is what they practice.

Nope, what I mean is that those politicians did not offer policies such as social security aid for poor and jobless or public subsidization for certain goods. Doing charity works privately is very different than offering pro-socialism policies in election.

[sephodwyrm]

Charities have been the traditional means used by Islamic organizations to influence politics. It was the way they used back then, and they will continue to use this method.
I'm inclined to say it works much better than satellite guided munitions. It's always better when the sky rains beef jerky.

[Armenum]

I believe what we've seen with the Arab Spring puts a nail in the coffin of Ba'athism and secular, Arab nationalism. There's a rise of political Islam all over the region, even in the firmly secular Turkey. I'm sure Huntington would have been delighted with such developments.

[Tiberios]

I don't mind if the Arab spring puts a nail in the coffin of Ba'athism though.

[hellheaven1987]

I don't mind if the Arab spring puts a nail in the coffin of Ba'athism though.

FLN is still kicking hard in Algeria.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

I believe what we've seen with the Arab Spring puts a nail in the coffin of Ba'athism and secular, Arab nationalism. There's a rise of political Islam all over the region, even in the firmly secular Turkey. I'm sure Huntington would have been delighted with such developments.

Good post, br0.

It's amazing, isn't it? Most of the people who started these revolutions or mass uprisings didn't have anything to do with political Islam. If anything, they wanted moderately Islamic democracies or they were indifferent about the role of religion in their government. But the already organized Islamic parties in Egypt and elsewhere, funded by petrodollars, won at the ballot box.

Even secular Tunisia is now governed by a moderate Islamic party.

[athanaric]

It's amazing, isn't it? Most of the people who started these revolutions or mass uprisings didn't have anything to do with political Islam. If anything, they wanted moderately Islamic democracies or they were indifferent about the role of religion in their government. But the already organized Islamic parties in Egypt and elsewhere, funded by petrodollars, won at the ballot box.

Even secular Tunisia is now governed by a moderate Islamic party.

That's because the ordinary dudes made the same mistake as the 1979 protesters in Iran: they didn't (or couldn't) organize themselves and look ahead further than the fall of the dictatorship. You need a plan, a political programme, and connections to succeed. I mean there are plenty of examples in history of revolutions going south with extremist parties or religious fanatics seizing power, because the moderates screwed up.

[Sarissofoi]

That's because the ordinary dudes made the same mistake as the 1979 protesters in Iran: they didn't (or couldn't) organize themselves and look ahead further than the fall of the dictatorship. You need a plan, a political programme, and connections to succeed. I mean there are plenty of examples in history of revolutions going south with extremist parties or religious fanatics seizing power, because the moderates screwed up.

So true.
Look at two biggest revolutions in Europe:
French and Russian.
In both moderates make monarchy fail and then fail to extremist with plan.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

That's because the ordinary dudes made the same mistake as the 1979 protesters in Iran: they didn't (or couldn't) organize themselves and look ahead further than the fall of the dictatorship. You need a plan, a political programme, and connections to succeed. I mean there are plenty of examples in history of revolutions going south with extremist parties or religious fanatics seizing power, because the moderates screwed up.

Iran wasn't a dictatorship, it was a puppet Kingdom who's last ruler legitimately ascended through heredity after his father was disposed of.

I'd rather have moderate Islamist's in control of the Middle East than dictators who rule under the false pretense's of democracy(Mubarak) or socialism(Gaddhafi). If there not enforcing the "Sharia" of Saudi Arabia or Iran, nor using Islam as some pretense for war,like Hussein's "defender of the faith" role he took in the Persian Gulf War,I'm fine. I prefer secularism at root but I'm fine if it's moderate non-Sharia Islamic parties that gain control.

Personally I miss Gaddhafi, he was an ideas man, took on many projects like the largest irrigation system in the world and sponsoring Africa's first satellite. He wanted al-Qaida listed as a terrorist organisation before it was cool, and he set a standard for human rights (By that I mean, there was a piece prize named after him). He made his country the most prosperous per capita of North Africa. Don't forget he overthrew the colonialist italian regime that came before him.
Gaddafi was a blessing for Africa. If Scotland obtains independence, I hope it becomes a Jamahiriya. Not because I think that system of government should be more common, but because I can't really see how it would work for any other country in Europe to have that style of government.

I've been against the Arab Spring since April of last year. So I get a bit of a smug feeling whenever I see people realise that "Maybe these revoltists aren't who we thought they were", but I don't tend to show that side of me that often because I haven't been using this section of the forum for that long. So it means that me saying that I've been on a particular side of an issue for a length of time is about as credible as telling you stories of the "fish that got away".

[motiv-8]

Iran wasn't a dictatorship, it was a puppet Kingdom who's last ruler legitimately ascended through heredity after his father was disposed of.

I'm not sure what you mean here, are you asserting that the exchange of power from father to son doesn't make a country a dictatorship even if both father and son assume dictatorial powers?

In any case, Iran under the Shah was by all possible definitions of the word a dictatorship, enforced through violence. Also, the Shah left Iran in 1953 after the failure of the first coup attempt against Mossadegh, and wholly owed his continued existence on the thrown after that to foreign interference.

Personally I miss Gaddhafi, he was an ideas man, took on many projects like the largest irrigation system in the world and sponsoring Africa's first satellite. He wanted al-Qaida listed as a terrorist organisation before it was cool, and he set a standard for human rights (By that I mean, there was a piece prize named after him). He made his country the most prosperous per capita of North Africa. Don't forget he overthrew the colonialist italian regime that came before him.

Gaddhafi funded terrorists and raised an entire unit of Sunni Islamist militants to fight in the Lebanese civil war for the express purpose of targeting Christian units and areas. The only standard he set for human rights was violating them through extrajudicial detainment and executions, and the stripping of basic civic rights from his people. He put bounties on the heads of dissidents abroad and had people who publicly criticized him executed on television. Ghaddafi also did not overthrow the Italian regime, King Idris al-Senussi did. Idris brought Cyrenaica over to the Allies and fought alongside the British against Rommel, and then established a government in Benhazi, founding the Emirate of Cyrenaica in 1949. He then oversaw the establishment of a constitution, which was later trashed by Ghaddafi, in 1951 and the establishment of a unified Libya. Ghaddafi was only 9 years old when this happened. Yes, the economy of Libya did not develop substantially under the kingdom, and did for the first half of the Republic, but then crushing corruption, a fundamental lack of liberalism, and the long-term failure of providing a suddenly hugely literate and educated populace with employment and freedoms demonstrated that throwing trinkets at people is no amends for crushing them.

Gaddafi was a blessing for Africa.

And a curse to his people. There's a good reason why the flag is now the flag of the Kingdom of Libya again.

If Scotland obtains independence, I hope it becomes a Jamahiriya. Not because I think that system of government should be more common, but because I can't really see how it would work for any other country in Europe to have that style of government.

Why, is Scotland controlled by a dictator faking a system of direct democracy that is in reality controlled by his sons and close confidants? If so, a Jamahiriya system would be excellent.

I've been against the Arab Spring since April of last year. So I get a bit of a smug feeling whenever I see people realise that "Maybe these revoltists aren't who we thought they were",

Well, who are they? Are they the Libyans, who overthrew a dictator and then established a secular democracy? Or somebody else?

[Diglytron]

An intresting article. And pretty much what I expected. Thanks for the share.

It puzzles me as I don't see the reasons why lower class is more easy to attract to religious fever - which also happens in Christianity; what can lower class gain from been religious conservative? Why middle class is more immuned from religious movement?

I think this issn't that suprising. In every religion we see that its expecially rises in lower class families. They need something to look up to. They have so less that they hope and desire for heaven. Thats the point. Middle and upper class familiesis trh care much more for their -earth live. They have more here on earth so much more to care for. Aswell they are probatly more well educated. Which is in my opinion one of the ways to encounter faith.

[Armenum]

I don't mind if the Arab spring puts a nail in the coffin of Ba'athism though.

Yeah I'm not crazy for it either. Of course, it's hard to say if I'd prefer a secular, Ba'ath regime or a moderately Islamic one.

Good post, br0.

It's amazing, isn't it? Most of the people who started these revolutions or mass uprisings didn't have anything to do with political Islam. If anything, they wanted moderately Islamic democracies or they were indifferent about the role of religion in their government. But the already organized Islamic parties in Egypt and elsewhere, funded by petrodollars, won at the ballot box.

Even secular Tunisia is now governed by a moderate Islamic party.

Yeah it seems they are following the path of the Turkish AP party. Of course they will draw the fundamentalists as well, but they have to sell themselves as moderate Islamists to the world in order to have legitimacy and keep contacts open with the West. Political Islam is growing and it's very interesting to follow the growth of political Islam with organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. I wonder if we will ever see the growth of Christian democracy within Europe....

[Col. Tartleton]

Islam is most dangerous when you suppress it. Let them practice their rituals. They'll be less likely to attack us.

The Turkish model was screwy. "Lets be really secular by crushing religion beneath the boot of government." That's not even what secular is.

[Armenum]

Islam is most dangerous when you suppress it. Let them practice their rituals. They'll be less likely to attack us.

The Turkish model was screwy. "Lets be really secular by crushing religion beneath the boot of government." That's not even what secular is.

Yeah you generally get a heavy backlash when you pursue "aggressive secularism". I don't think anything is inherently wrong with political Islam, as long as it's in a moderate form. In the end, such political Islam can be compared with the ideology of Christian Democracy in Europe. In the end, political/economic pragmatism takes precedence over all.

[Enzo]

Islam is most dangerous when you suppress it. Let them practice their rituals. They'll be less likely to attack us.

The Turkish model was screwy. "Lets be really secular by crushing religion beneath the boot of government." That's not even what secular is.

It's not so easy to secularise Islam as when adhered to it will effect everything you do in life right down to the foot you should enter first into a building. It also contains a complete system of government, society and law.

[Heathen Hammer]

Islam, in its radical form, is used by the rich capitalist elites to rule and brainwash the poor uneducated masses. It is the tool of oppression of Middle Eastern working class.
Overall, I'm looking forward the positive effects of Salafist failure in Middle East.