Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

  1. #1
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,050

    Default Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    In the 1960s of the last century, when the Middle Eastern countries rose up against the colonial powers, Islam was incorporated as a constitutive element of the national liberation movement in most Arab countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, which has always been closed in its absolutist world of the house Saud dynasty.

    The movement of the so-called Al Bath Arab renaissance in Syria and Iraq, the FLN in Algeria with Houari Boumediene, in Nasser's Egypt, in South Yemen are vibrant examples of societies reborn from occupation in which the role of women has assumed prominence.
    It was perfectly possible to see in the streets of Cairo, Aden, Algiers, Damascus or Baghdad young lovers and couples arm in arm, and it was very rare to find women in the urban centers with their faces covered with hijab or nicab, much less with burqa.
    In the PLO, the extraordinary role of women in the more general struggle of the Palestinian people for the right to build their free and sovereign state from Israeli occupation was visible. These countries had a conception of Islam that allowed national liberation movements to integrate it positively into that political and sociological framework.

    Starting in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia, with all its financial and economic power, invested large sums of money in all Arab and Muslim countries to spread its fundamentalist and backward concept of Islam.
    They financed the construction of mosques, sent religious and beckoned for new investments. Saudi Arabia spread throughout the Muslim world its preachers and its schools to spread Sunni Wahhabism, the most fundamentalist and backward version of Islam.

    With the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia invested untold sums of dollars with the US in supporting the self-designated mujahideen. The implosion of the USSR also contributed to a turn from Arab nationalism to a fundamentalist view that Saudi Arabia pushed for.
    The disastrous invasion of Iraq created despair and revolt throughout the Muslim world, which contributed greatly to this shift in the values of Islam, given the absence of alternative policies in Arab countries. Islam appeared to Muslims as their only identity.

    This new misogynistic and backward vision, typical of backward-minded tribal societies, was promoted by Saudi Arabia, about whom Biden said, “there is “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia, we were going to in fact make them pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are”.

    Taliban jurisprudence was drawn from the Pashtuns’ pre-Islamic tribal code and interpretations of sharia that have their origin in the Wahhabi doctrines of the madrassas’ Saudi benefactors.
    The role of women in Saudi Arabia also inspired the Taliban. It was from that country that sharia was transposed to be the fundamental law, i.e., the constitution of the country, which has no rules and results from what is said from what the Prophet said and from a few quotations from the Koran.
    In Saudi Arabia, women, in order to study, need the assent of a male relative, schools are not mixed, a woman who needs a surgical intervention must have the assent of the closest male relative and must be seen by female doctors.
    They can't walk down the street alone. In mosques where they are allowed to enter, they stand behind the men. Their testimony as witnesses is worth half that of men, and in inheritance law they get half of what male heirs get. They can now get a driver's license, but it's not easy.
    But this truth is ignored by the American right wing warmongers, allies of the Saudis, who prefer to target their hatred on the Taliban, because they are an easy target. All that matters is to unleash chaos and misery, once again, on that poor country.
    Last edited by Ludicus; September 26, 2021 at 10:17 AM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  2. #2

    Default Re: US Forces In Full Scale Retreat From Afghanistan; 20 years of War Ending In Total Military Defeat?

    "Muh secular 70s Middle East" is a Western propaganda meme.
    Yes, there was a tiny fraction of demographics that resided in urban areas, that was westernized to a degree, however the rest of the population wasn't and never was. The ironic part is that same westernized marginal minority itself became infatuated with marxist cultism, ironically setting stage for their own lifestyle's demise, as the new governments that came as a result of subsequent regime changes didn't take very kindly to them and chose to rely on non-secular non-western popular majority instead.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    In the 1960s of the last century, when the Middle Eastern countries rose up against the colonial powers, Islam was incorporated as a constitutive element of the national liberation movement in most Arab countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, which has always been closed in its absolutist world of the house Saud dynasty.

    The movement of the so-called Al Bath Arab renaissance in Syria and Iraq, the FLN in Algeria with Houari Boumediene, in Nasser's Egypt, in South Yemen are vibrant examples of societies reborn from occupation in which the role of women has assumed prominence.
    It was perfectly possible to see in the streets of Cairo, Aden, Algiers, Damascus or Baghdad young lovers and couples arm in arm, and it was very rare to find women in the urban centers with their faces covered with hijab or nicab, much less with burqa.
    Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced, and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Starting in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia, with all its financial and economic power, invested large sums of money in all Arab and Muslim countries to spread its fundamentalist and backward concept of Islam.
    They financed the construction of mosques, sent religious and beckoned for new investments. Saudi Arabia spread throughout the Muslim world its preachers and its schools to spread Sunni Wahhabism, the most fundamentalist and backward version of Islam.
    This was part of a bigger picture:

    A global wave of Islamic revivalism emerged starting from 1970s owing in large part to popular disappointment with the secular nation states and Westernized ruling elites, which had dominated the Muslim world during the preceding decades, and which were increasingly seen as authoritarian, ineffective and lacking cultural authenticity.[2] It was also a reaction against Western influences such as individualism, consumerism, commodification of women, and sexual liberty, which were seen as subverting Islamic values and identities.[2]
    The Muslim Brotherhood was actively suppressed (sometimes brutally persecuted) by the secular government of Egypt for decades, yet Egypt's first truly democratic presidential election was won by an Islamist. The Muslim Brotherhood aren't as conservative as the Wahhabis, but certainly illiberal and opposed to secularism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  4. #4

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    The ironic part is that OPs hilarious attempt to inflate the significance of Westernized minority of urban population in 70s Iran and Afghanistan was literally used for... 2000-2010s globalist neocon propaganda, that was used to rationalized attempts to "export democracy" to places where population never wanted it in the first place via military invasions.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    In the 1960s of the last century, when the Middle Eastern countries rose up against the colonial powers, Islam was incorporated as a constitutive element of the national liberation movement in most Arab countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, which has always been closed in its absolutist world of the house Saud dynasty.
    Which Middle Eastern countries rose up in the 1960s against which colonial powers?
    In the PLO, the extraordinary role of women in the more general struggle of the Palestinian people for the right to build their free and sovereign state from Israeli occupation was visible. These countries had a conception of Islam that allowed national liberation movements to integrate it positively into that political and sociological framework.
    Didn't the PLO form in 1964?

  6. #6
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,050

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    Which Middle Eastern countries rose up in the 1960s against which colonial powers?
    Argelia gained independence in 1962.Morocco officially gained independence a few years earlier- as I said before," Islam was incorporated as a constitutive element of the national liberation movement in most Arab countries".In fact,Arab Islamism and Arab Nationalism are two sides of the same coin-since a long time ago.
    (btw,I wanted to highlight was the destructive role of Saudi Arabia).

    --
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    The ironic part is that same westernized marginal minority itself became infatuated with marxist cultism
    Can I answer or is it forbidden and considered off topic? Let me debunk once and for all the far right "cultural Marxist" conspiracy theory,because I am tired of hearing this false stereotype over and over again,about everything or nothing.

    Narrator Bill Rolen introducing the Conservative Citizens’ Foundation’s Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School Story, Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School Story - the ...
    Transcript of the video
    ...observing the failure of Soviet-style Communism, they (cultural marxists) cleverly swapped a focus on economics for a focus on culture, and a focus on the working class for a focus on various oppressed groups: women, minorities, gays.Frankfurt School operatives have successfully oppressed the White Middle Class and substituted genuine liberties with enforced equality.
    According to the conspiracy theory, the Jewish Marxists of the Frankfurt School ( the "founding fathers" of cultural Marxism) implemented a slow takeover of "culture," seeking to undermine Christianity, family, and nation in favor of a new worldview and system of control, involving mass immigration, sexual liberation, and moral decline. According to the conspiracy theory, “cultural Marxists”, now control all areas of public life, including the media, schools, entertainment, the economy, and national and global systems of governance. According to the conspiracy theory,the ultimate goal of "cultural marxism" is the subversion of western civilization itself.

    Joan Braune (2019) explains that Cultural Marxism in the sense referred to by the conspiracy theorists never existed, and does not correspond to any historical school of thought, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? “Cultural Marxism” as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory
    Read the full article.Excerpts,
    It was Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Breivik, who killed over seventy people in a car bombing and mass shooting of children in 2011, who first brought the term “Cultural Marxism” to the world’s attention in his thousand-some paged statement of belief, which focused almost entirely on the concept. In fact, the theory of “Cultural Marxism” appears to have inspired a number of other white supremacist terrorists since then, including the alleged shooter in the attack on a synagogue in Poway, California in spring of 2019, who killed one and injured three others.
    According to the theory of “Cultural Marxism,” a group of Jewish Marxists called the Frankfurt School have profoundly reshaped society and public opinion; deciding to abandon the original Marxist goal of an international working-class revolution, they sought to implement socialism through a slow, creeping takeover of “culture.” Under such names as “political correctness” and “multiculturalism,” so the theory goes, “Cultural Marxists” indoctrinated and shamed “the West” into abandoning Christianity, family, and nation in favor of a new worldview and system of control, involving mass immigration, sexual liberation, and moral and aesthetic decline. According to this theory, Cultural Marxism has won, and its opponents are hardscrabble, disinherited outsiders struggling to reclaim their Western, Christian heritage. The Cultural Marxists, they believe, now control all areas of public life, including the media, schools, entertainment, the economy, and national and global systems of government.

    In actuality, the Frankfurt School was a relatively small group of mostly ethnically Jewish Marxist scholars who advanced an interdisciplinary critique to capitalism... Among the names associated with the Frankfurt School are Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin, Leo Lowenthal, Franz Neumann, and Otto Kirchheimer. When the Nazis came to power, the Frankfurt School left Germany for the United States and reestablished itself in New York at Columbia University. Frankfurt School’s “Institute for Social Research” exists to this day (now located again in Germany), the broader intellectual movement they founded is known as “Critical Theory.”

    Although some members of the Frankfurt School had cultural influence—in particular, some books by Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse were influential on some activists on the New Left in the 1960s— “Cultural Marxism” conspiracy theories greatly exaggerate the Frankfurt School’s influence and power. Furthermore, there is no academic field known as “Cultural Marxism.”

    Although not all versions of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory overtly stress the Jewishness of the Frankfurt School... The Cultural Marxism theory resembles some past antisemitic conspiracy theories that continue to have influence today. This includes the theory of “Judeo-Bolshevism,” according to which the Russian (Bolshevik) revolution was a conspiracy by Jewish bankers, and the forged document, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, according to which the Jews, together with the Masons, were involved in a conspiracy to “enslave Christian civilization under a new world order.

    In this article, I will show that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is antisemitic by drawing from three of the main writers who advocate for the theory in the U.S. context today. Cultural Marxism is not just a conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School as such, but a conspiracy theory that trades on the Frankfurt School’s perceived Jewishness and amplifies antisemitic tropes, including theories of Jewish conspiratorial control of education, entertainment, finance, and the media, and portrayals of a Jewish influence on culture as promoting a regression in moral and aesthetic mores. Rather than trace all the increasing uses of the term on the right, I will focus on three of the main proponents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory: Kevin MacDonald, William S. Lind, and Paul Gottfried. The first (MacDonald) is a straightforward white nationalist; the second (Lind) would prefer to be called a “paleoconservative,” but also indulges in antisemitism; and the third (Gottfried) is a fascist-leaning intellectual who is confusingly ethnically Jewish with certain antisemitic sides, and sees himself as an inheritor of Critical Theory who now must fight against it.

    ... As seen in the uptake of the concept of Cultural Marxism by MacDonald, Lind, and Gottfried, Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory that links a small group of leftist German Jewish intellectuals to an implausible exercise in global control of culture, from a takeover of all school curriculum to the control of public discourse, sexual morality, entertainment, the economy, and social and political movements. The conspiracy theory not only misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s intellectual project—it also perpetuates centuries-old stereotypes that dehumanize Jews, seeing a controlling hive-mind in the place of individual persons.
    For those already predisposed to antisemitism, Cultural Marxism provides a facile defense of the view that, with the Soviet Union now long gone, a nefarious “Judeo-Bolshevism” secretly holds the reins of global power. Proponents of this theory, whether they quietly write books or livestream themselves conducting mass shootings, are perpetuating untruths that make the world more dangerous and less humane.
    Jay Martin writes, in “Essays on the Frankfurt School”,
    It might be thought that the horrific Breivik massacre would make exponents of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory think again about the veracity of their accusation and the baleful effects it might engender in the real world.
    In fact, the original source of the fantasy, the Lyndon LaRouche acolyte named Michael Minnicino, did come to see the error of his ways.Having left the LaRouch cult, he was now appaled bt the results of his essay and put out a statement of regret:
    “...I do not stand by what I wrote, and I find it unfortunate that it is still remembered. I might also note that over the years of my published writings on culture have been cited...Breivik is the lastest tragic edition
    Last edited by Ludicus; September 28, 2021 at 07:34 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  7. #7

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    The conspiracy is that cultural Marxism is a Jewish plot to destabilize western civilization which originated in, and was orchestrated by, the Frankfurt School.

    This is separate from the observation that neo-Marxists (often referred to as cultural Marxists) are keen advocates of mass migration, so-called sexual liberation, minority identitarianism and the deconstruction of traditional institutions/customs (including marriage and the nuclear family).

    The most obvious and extreme historical example of cultural Marxism in practice was the “Cultural Revolution”, a Marxist-Leninist culture war perpetrated by the Communist Party of China, intended to destroy traditional Chinese society.



  8. #8
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,050

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    .Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced, and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
    Hehe
    Fine. Let me rephrase " After Team America showed up, ranked the happiest country in the world. For first time in their lives, they had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced, and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles"
    ---
    Sorry, I can't avoid,
    2019- How foreign intervention can save US democracy - Financial Times.
    Washington used to advocate a set schedule for countries in conflict. Maybe it could use the outside help

    How to stop a civil war” says the cover of the latest Atlantic magazine. I can suggest a fix: the international community should intervene in the US. Of course Americans have a right to self-determination but the priority now is saving democracy.

    It’s hard to assess the risk of political violence, given the US tradition of everyday gunslinging: the rival candidates for state elections in Montana, who each made ads showing themselves firing rifles at television screens, looked like actors playing Afghan warlords. Still, the recent ethnopolitical terror attacks in El Paso, Pittsburgh and elsewhere were shocking even by US standards.
    Washington used to advocate a set schedule for countries in conflict. A binary election only worsens polarisation... the first step is power sharing: a transitional government that includes all conflicting sides.
    Next comes an Afghan-style loya jirga, or grand assembly, to kick off a national dialogue.
    Yemen’s brought together political parties, but also youth, women, civil society, southern secessionists and northern Houthi rebels. A US dialogue could look remarkably similar.

    Given the death of truth, a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission wouldn’t work in the US.

    The loya jirga writes a new constitution. This would be for the US, a much-needed update of its antiquated 1787 document. Japanese jurists could help draft it as a thank you to Americans for writing Japan’s excellent 1947 constitution.

    The new text would dispense with vagaries such as “high crimes and misdemeanours”, define presidential corruption and end political control of the judiciary. If it’s undemocratic for the Polish or Hungarian governments to appoint judges, why can the US president do it?


    The new constitution must cantonise the US, going way beyond “states’ rights” to neighbourhood rights. The smaller the units of power, the less important becomes the national political conflict. The US’s second republic will also need a new electoral system that favours coalitions instead of winner-takes-all rule.

    The new constitution must also tackle foreign election-meddling. Ideally, a non-partisan institution would be put in charge of handling this, but the only one now somewhat trusted across the American divide is the military, and you generally don’t want soldiers in post-conflict transitions.

    Once the new constitution is signed, it’s time for closely scrutinised elections. Even before the US elections of 2000, the journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote: “The United States loves nothing better than to certify other countries’ ballots as ‘free and fair’, so there can hardly be any principled objection to a delegation of monitors from democratic nations taking up position, pens in hand, as America makes its ‘choice.’”
    If only he’d been listened to. The problem is worse today: given gerrymandering and voter suppression, states such as North Carolina and Georgia are no longer full democracies.

    But let’s not get over-optimistic. At best, intervention will freeze the US’s overlapping ethnic, economic and regional conflicts. The question for the international community then becomes: how much blood and treasure is it willing to expend on a country that may not be ready for democracy?
    Are you ready? (j/k)
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  9. #9

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Argelia gained independence in 1962.Morocco officially gained independence a few years earlier-
    Morocco independence 1956. 1956 does not = 1960s.
    So, all of these "Middle Eastern countries" that "rose up against the colonial powers" in the 1960s are just one country, Algeria, (that is loosely considered Middle Eastern but properly North African), and the 'uorising' actually started in 54.
    as I said before...
    I didn't ask.

    What I did ask:
    Didn't the PLO form in 1964?
    The answer is yes. When the PLO formed "to build their free and sovereign state from Israeli occupation" the 'Palestinian territories' were 'occupied' by Egypt and Jordan, and the "free and sovereign state" the PLO wanted to form was by killing all the Jews and taking Israel (which considering your glowing characterization, I presume is something that would meet your approval).

    Can I answer or is it forbidden and considered off topic? Let me debunk once and for all the far right "cultural Marxist" conspiracy theory,because I am tired of hearing this false stereotype over and over again,about everything or nothing.
    While addressed to HH, you should probably notice that he wrote "cultist", not "cultural". You know, some who belongs to a cult. The sort of people who think Che and Castro and Cuba and Mao and the PRC and Lenin and Stalin and the USSR are all great wonderful and heroic. I'm sure you are intimately familiar with the sort...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The most obvious and extreme historical example of cultural Marxism in practice was the “Cultural Revolution”, a Marxist-Leninist culture war perpetrated by the Communist Party of China, intended to destroy traditional Chinese society.
    The marxist cultist may 'occult' his (or her) actual position, but in the end the marxist cultist finds that sort of thing perfectly acceptable...
    Last edited by Infidel144; September 28, 2021 at 09:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,050

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    So, all of these "Middle Eastern countries" that "rose up against the colonial powers" in the 1960s...
    I wrote, and I know I'm right,
    In the 1960s of the last century, when the Middle Eastern countries rose up against the colonial powers, Islam was incorporated as a constitutive element of the national liberation movement in most Arab countries...It was perfectly possible to see in the streets of Cairo, Aden, Algiers, Damascus or Baghdad young lovers and couples arm in arm, and it was very rare to find women in the urban centers with their faces covered with hijab or nicab, much less with burqa.
    What I said before should be look at in more detail: in “Rethinking Islamism and Secularism”, J.Esposito, Prof. of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University writes,

    By the mid-twentieth century
    , most of the Muslim world had achieved political independence. In the Muslim world, from North Africa to Southeast Asia, independence movements employed Islamic symbols, slogans, to legitimate their struggle and mobilize popular support.
    For example, in North Africa, the Algerian 'ulama calls for jihad and Islamic publications played a prominent role in denouncing French rule and reaffirming Algeria's Arab-Islamic heritage.

    The post-independence period witnessed the emergence of modern Muslim states whose pattern of development was heavily influenced by and indebted to Western secular paradigms. Few questioned the accepted wisdom that modernization meant the progressive Westernization and secularization of society. Modernization was imposed from above by governments and Westernized elites. European languages remained the second, and among modern elites, often the preferred language.

    Saudi Arabia and Turkey reflected two polar positions reflecting the relationship of religion and secularism to the state. Saudi Arabia was established as a self-proclaimed Islamic state based upon the Quran as its constitution. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Ataturk (Mustafa Kamel) created a secular Turkish republic. The vestiges of the Ottoman Empire the caliph/sultan, the Sharia, Islamic institutions and schools — were replaced by European-inspired political, legal, and educational systems.

    The majority of Muslim countries chose a middle ground in nation building, borrowing heavily from the West and relying on foreign advisers and Western-educated elites. They ranged from the more secular oriented Tunisia and Iran to the Islamic republic of Pakistan. Parliamentary governments, political parties, capitalist and socialist economies and modern (European and American) curricula were the norm. While the separation of religion and politics was not total (as it is not in fact in many secular countries in the West), the role of Islam in state and society as a source to legitimate rulers, states, and government institutions was greatly curtailed.

    Most governments retained a modest Islamic facade, incorporating some reference to Islam in their constitutions such as that the ruler must be a Muslim or that the Sharia was a source of law, even when it was not. The central government also attempted to bring Islamic institutions (mosques, religiously endowed properties or awqaf, religious courts etc.) under state control.
    More, Rethinking Islam and Secularism
    But What Do Muslims Really Think and Want?

    In what ways are the issues and diverse views in the current debate among Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders representative of the world’s Muslims as a whole?

    While Muslim rulers and clergy have often cast themselves as spokespersons for Islam, a modern educated but Islamically oriented elite and heads of Islamic movements, both mainstream and militant, attempt to speak for Islam. What do Muslims believe, what do they want, and what do they really think?

    The politicization of political leaders, scholars, experts and media commentators post 9/11 has created a minefield for policymakers, scholars and the general public, faced with contending and contradictory opinions to key questions about Muslim attitudes towards the West, democracy, Sharia, and human rights.

    The data from recent (2001-2007) Gallup polls, in particular the Gallup World Poll of 2007, of residents from more than thirty- five Muslim majority countries enables us to more definitively access global representative responses. Altogether, the survey sample includes “more than 90% of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, making this the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done.

    The Gallup World Poll brings to light how majorities of contemporary Muslims view religion and its relationship to secularism and democracy.

    Large majorities of Muslims say religion is an important part of their daily lives and that having a rich spiritual life is essential. The usual response to what Muslims admire most about themselves is “faithfulness to their religious beliefs.” The statement they most closely associate with Arab/Muslim nations is “attachment to their spiritual and moral values is critical to their progress.” Holding on to their Islamic spiritual and moral values is regarded as a top priority, something that is critical to their progress. Asked about their attitudes towards democracy, the response from Muslims was overwhelmingly positive.

    Many respondents said that political freedoms and liberties are qualities that they admire most about the West.lxiv Similarly, democracy is among the most frequent responses given as a key to a more just society and to progress.Cutting across diverse Muslim countries, social classes and gender differences, overwhelming majorities in all nations surveyed (94 percent in Egypt, 93 percent in Iran, 90 percent in Indonesia) said that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech, defined as “allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social and economic issues of the day.

    But when asked whether they believe that the U.S. will allow people in the region to fashion their own political future as they see fit without direct U.S. influence, the majority in most Muslim countries disagreed

    A majority in Jordan (65.8 percent), Iran (65.6 percent), Pakistan (54.5 percent), Morocco (67.7 percent) and Lebanon (67.7 percent) believes that the U.S. will not allow people in the region to shape their own political future without U.S. interference. Similarly, the vast majority of Muslims believe the U.S. lacks credibility in its campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East. A majority in Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, and Lebanon said they do not believe the U.S. is serious about spreading democracy in their region of the world.

    Yet, although Muslims do not believe the U.S. is serious about self-determination and democracy in their region, many say political freedom/liberty and freedom of speech is what they admire most about the West.

    Large percentages also associate a “fair judicial system” and “citizens enjoying many liberties” with Western. societies. At the same time, Muslims critique their own societies, indicating that lack of political freedom is what they least admire about the Islamic/Arab world.
    It is interesting to note that in spite of the importance that most Muslims give to political and civil liberties and freedom of speech, those surveyed do not favor wholesale adoption of Western models of democracy and secularism

    So what, then, is the alternative? Poll data indicate that a majority of the world’s Muslims would like to see a religious form of democracy in their countries, at least in the sense that they want Sharia to be “a” source of legislation though not the only the source.

    Like the majority (55 percent) of Americans who believe America is a Christian nation and want the Bible as a source of law, Muslims who want to see Sharia as a source of law in constitutions can have very different understandings.

    Some, a minority, expect full implementation of classical or medieval Islamic law; the majority want a more restricted approach, like requiring the head of state to be a Muslim, or creating Sharia courts to hear cases involving Muslim family law (marriage, divorce and inheritance), or prohibiting alcohol. Still others simply want to ensure that no law is against the principles and values of Islam, as found in the Quran.

    The considerable amount of support amongst Muslims for Sharia does not translate into a demand for theocratic government. On the contrary, significant majorities in many countries say religious leaders should play no direct role in drafting a country’s constitution, writing national legislation, drafting new laws, determining foreign policy and international relations, or deciding how women dress in public or what is televised or published in newspapers

    Citizens in countries in which Muslims are a majority report that, if they had their way, they would opt for greater political participation, freedoms, rule of law but not for a totally secular state. Although Muslim perceptions of what the Sharia represents and the degree to which it is possible to implement its rulings in society varies enormously, most believers desire a system of government in which religious principles and democratic values coexist. In other words, most Muslims do not view religious authority and political authority as mutually exclusive and see a role for religious principles in the formulation of state legislation.

    While secular reformers ignore or wish to dismiss the relationship of religion to the state in arguing that today a Muslim country can also be secular, many others while admiring and desiring many of the principles and institutions associated with Western secular democracies do not want a Western secular nor an Islamic/theocratic state. Instead they opt for a state that reflects the importance and force of Islamic principles and values as they proceed to engage in wide ranging reformist thinking.
    To sum up:those who believe in an incompatibility of Islam and secular order, base their arguments on a limited understanding of secularism and Islam.
    Last edited by Ludicus; September 29, 2021 at 01:09 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  11. #11

    Default Re: Secularism in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    I wrote, and I know I'm right,
    I quoted you. I know what you wrote. "countries" is a plural. You named one (one is a singular), and it did not 'rise up against colonial powers in the 60s'. It began in the 50s.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •