Democracy

I’ve always appreciated that Daniel Pipes - unlike Robert Spencer - takes the time and effort to differentiate between Islam and what is usually termed Islamism, the political ideology of groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Given that Pipes is a staunchly right-wing figure, I found this article of his refreshing in substance. I don’t agree with everything he says, and that includes his ludicrous remarks about Turkey’s Prime Minister, but I do commend his approach (although it lacks a closer focus on the trends of Islam in places like Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country).

I’ve been following the ongoing negotiations between Khartoum and the US envoy to Sudan closely. Can you blame me? Normalizing ties would be a huge positive and mutually-beneficial step.

I’m glad America has the right conditions in place.

April 14, 2008 (KHARTOUM) — The US special envoy for Sudan is expected to hold a meeting with a Sudanese delegation in Roma Italy on Wednesday to discuss the deployment of Darfur peacekeeping force and the bilateral relations.

… The US Administration wants Sudan to remove obstacles to the deployment of a U.N.-led peacekeeping force, stop violence against civilians in Darfur, and carry out the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south Sudan, including elections in 2009, The Los Angels Times reported last month.

The U.S. offered to restore full diplomatic ties, lift sanctions and remove Khartoum from Washington’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, Williamson said.

What we’re seeing here is a typical “carrots and sticks” approach which rests the decision upon Khartoum’s shoulders. I doubt that’s enough to move the Sudanese regime although with the approaching possible election of a Donkey president, they know they need to fix things fast. Like I said:

… given that it’s the Democrats who’ve been calling for a withdrawal from Iraq and a forced military intervention in Darfur, I’m not exactly ready to comfortably embrace Obama just yet. Darfur needs a political solution. Going back to Clinton’s approach is the last thing Sudan needs. Bush’s is better although it lacks sufficient pressure now because al-Bashir’s regime is heavily cooperating with the CIA again in sharing highly valuable terrorism-related intelligence. Moreover, last year the CIA convened in Khartoum at a conference attended by more than 50 African intelligence agencies.

Carrots and sticks isn’t pressure. It’s a form of seduction. I think that’s the most the Bush administration will do since it would like the valuable intelligence on terrorism to continue flowing in from Khartoum.

I hope Khartoum finds what’s on the table seducing enough.

Meanwhile, I continue to keep track of the developments involving current efforts directed at Sudan by the US administration and the US presidential race.

… and the launching of his new book “Islam and the Secular State“, one I’ve been anxiously looking forward to.

The event will take place at the first of several “Conversations with Champions of Moral Courage“, a project by Irshad Manji. It’s happening in NYU’s Graduate School of Public Service.

You can read more about Irshad’s Moral Courage Project here in this PDF document.

I haven’t read An-Na’im’s whole book yet, only the first chapter of it for free after he pointed out to me by email where I can download it. Nonetheless, from what I’ve read so far I know it will be super juicy.

These are some of the ideas Abdullahi presents in it:

* “I do believe that it is possible, indeed necessary, to reinterpret Islamic sources in order to affirm and protect freedom of religion and belief. This is my position as a Muslim, speaking from an Islamic perspective, and not simply because freedom of religion and belief is a universal human rights norm…”

* “The possibility of belief in anything logically requires choice in the matter, as one cannot believe in anything without the freedom and ability to disbelieve it.”

I don’t know about you but this certainly excites me - a book full of concrete Islamic arguments challenging the current Islamist status-quo of the Muslim world. Expect the event to be streamed by video at Irshad’s website soon.

UPDATE: Ali Eteraz attended the launch and live-blogged the session.

UPDATE II: Check out the upcoming conference which will feature An-Na’im’s work. It’s called Heretic Muslims - A Celebration of Heresy Conference: Critical Thinking for Islamic Reform. I love the whole idea behind the “heresy” theme. Very interesting and deeply though-provoking.

UPDATE III: Here are the highlights of the event as Irshad Manji tell us about what happened.

Yes, believe it!

This race is getting so much more interesting with every passing minute. A new website called Republicans for Obama has popped up. And no, it’s not fake. It’s real and was even featured on Time!

On a related note Susan Eisenhower, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s grand daughter has a super interesting article in the Washington Post. She’s a self-proclaimed Elephant - a lifelong one - who’s backing Obama! Amazing!

I am watching the Obama phenomenon with great fascination. Sure, he’s vague when it comes to foreign policy but his appeal is so strong and his speeches so inspirational and uplifting that they’ve attracted the seemingly impossible. (His speeches are written by a 26 year old in case you didn’t know). The great discontent felt by some Elephant voters towards their party also made the shift easier.

Meanwhile, many conservatives are sad that Rudy quit the race and are now busy dissing McCain. (what’s so wrong with McCain that makes him deserve all this bashing?)

Also over at Digg, some are saying that Elephants who support Obama are not true Elephants. Barbara Gordon, at Republicans for Obama, responded to the accusations on the website’s blog and explained her reasons for supporting Obama. It’s one hell of a super unique perspective I must say! Her stance is summed up in these two sentences:

We didn’t leave the party behind. The party left us.

At the end of the day, it’s about what issues voters are concerned with most. We could very well be witnessing history in the making!

What? What? What?. It might actually happen! Cool. So Rudy Giuliani who is Bushier than Bush seems ready to quit the race? Phew!

My ideal candidate would be the best of a McCain-Obama combination but too bad that imaginary candidate doesn’t exist. If Obama wasn’t supportive of withdrawing from Iraq, I think I would have picked him immediately. But he wants immediate withdrawal and I believe such a haste move will bring along grave consequences for Iraq, the region and even America.

Foreign policy towards Sudan is another aspect that concerns me of course. Donkey Bill Clinton bombed al-Shifa factory (supposedly a chemical weapons manufacturing facility) and applied harsh sanctions. Long story short, he did us no favors. Bush (regardless of how much you hate him for badly screwing up the Iraq war) took a different approach and the result was the peace agreement signed between the SPLM and Khartoum. It’s the best damn thing that ever happened to Sudan in a long time. These are reasons that make me lean towards an Elephant candidate who will continue that approach.

If only that ideal centrist candidate existed. It would have been more fun if Collin Powell was in this race.

For now, it’s increasingly looking like this: Hillary or Obama Vs McCain or Romney.

Whops, I just realized I’m supposed to be silent today in order to express solidarity for Fouad Farhan, a fellow blogger who got jailed by the Saudi authorities.

Better late than never.

I never knew Fouad before the news of his arrest made it all over the media. Today for the first time I checked out some of his old blog posts. I’m already liking him. Here’s one translated by Saudi Jeans into English.

[click to continue...]

Admit it. He makes the best and most uplifting speeches. Crap, I’m almost in tears.

When it comes to the Elephants I’ve been saying for a year now that I support John McCain. As for the Donkeys, it’s either Hillary or Obama. I’m sort of undecided but I gotta say I’m leaning more towards Mr. Hope. And yeah I pretty much agree with Sandmonkey.

As for now… Go Obama!

It might seem odd to many (especially Muslims), but I am deeply intrigued by Ayn Rand. Up until recently, I only knew small bits of information about her and the views she espoused. Lately though, I find myself getting acquainted better and the more I read, the more I’m fascinated.

The woman was tough and confidently outspoken. In this video she makes a number of solid points.

Her words left me wondering though.

As a Muslim I have trouble accepting human reason purely and solely as my guiding compass. Our intellect isn’t perfect. Reducing our existence within the elaborate order of our universe to mere coincidence seems far-fetched to me. I don’t believe it’s all some random accident.

In comes revelation. In too (and along with it) come numerous questions and hence the need to use human intellect in order to attempt to answer those questions - some of which are highly troublesome. Many get answered. A few others - Free Will Vs Predestination for example - have no intellectually satisfying answers. In comes faith.

The Question is, on which do we rely more, faith or reason? By default the answer to me is most definitely reason but that may change sometimes depending on what exactly we’re discussing. I however certainly prefer to rely on reason more than faith. One thing is for sure though, I don’t exclusively subscribe to either one or the other and I’m definitely not in favor of faith being the dominant factor in matters of the state.

Let’s do this and that because God said so? Hmm… No thanks. I prefer a strict system of Shura in place resulting in a representative democracy. Of course it would be completely useless if the majority relied excessively on faith anyway and there were no constitutional limits to protect peoples’ rights.

The aforementioned is related to ideas of mine written in a previous post:

What constitutes knowledge and what doesn’t to a particular society? In the West there is a higher emphasis on empiricism rather than revelation. In the Muslim world, the emphasis is instead generally on revelation.

Epistemology (let alone Islamic Epistemology) can be both fun and a headache.

I don’t believe I’ll ever reach a satisfying answer to the Free Will Vs Predestination issue. Philosophers have wondered about it and debated it for thousands of years to no true avail. I don’t expect to have better luck (ah, don’t even get me started about the idea of luck).

I have two choices. Give up. Or have faith.

I choose a third option. To have faith while I simultaneously delve deeper in hopeful pursuit of satisfying answers and “aha” moments.

And for now… Some Ayn Rand.

I’ll call it “photo of the day”. I found it at Miss Egyptiana’s blog. It displays a very comfortable coexistence between the secular and religious. There is the big umbrella of freedom under which exists mini-”freedoms”. Think about it.

You’ll find other pieces of art bearing strong similarities here, here and here.

Yup, it’s true. I’ve written about the hijab here and here. Even our beloved Danish friend, the one and only Halalhippie has. Now it might actually become a reality in the Danish parliament.

And you know what’s funny? It isn’t in the Turkish one. Ironic isn’t it?

Discovered via Iraq.DailyVoices.com:

Long live Iraq’s true freedom fighters!!

UPDATE:

I wrote this six months ago in a post that pissed off some people:

If, I repeat if, order and security is back and if Iraqis start seeing peace, prosperity and justice in the coming years, then I believe Bush will go down in history as a liberator. If that doesn’t happen, then he will forever be remembered as an evil warmonger and will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in modern times.

Now read what the BBC has to say. Yes, the BBC! Me is happy and cautiously hopeful.

This cracked me up so badly!

… it occurred to me that Democrats really don’t need to do anything. All liberals need to do is sit back and watch while the whole Republican government resigns after it’s discovered that they’re all actually gay.

That makes at least three this year. Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Richard Curtis. Am I missing someone?

Am I the only one finding this hilarious?

Yeth yeth, of courth. The Egyptian government hath alwayth thupported free thpeech. Praith be to Hothni Mubarak, the greatetht prethident ever.

There were some tensions over U.S. criticism of human rights in Egypt. Rice told their press conference that in her talks with Mubarak and Aboul Gheit she brought up the issue of the detentions of four independent newspaper editors given prison sentences or put on trial for criticizing Mubarak.

“When we touch on issues we considered sensitive and internal, I listen. But my response is always that it is due process,” Aboul Gheit retorted. “This government does not interfere in Egyptian legal procedures.”

Buahahahahahahahahaha!

Sadiq al-Mahid is the former Prime Minister of Sudan. I regard him as an appealing figure in Sudanese politics worthy of respect. Sudan Tribune conducted an excellent interview with him:

Mr. Al Mahdi is one of the few Sudanese political leaders who truly believes in a liberal democracy and ruling by consensus in a country that is traumatized by polarization and extreme positions. No doubt his political ideas and thoughts are well worth revisiting. The articulate, courteous veteran politician doesn’t mince his words when it comes to describing dictatorship and totalitarianism. Al Mahdi seems like a man burdened by the weight of history – his great grandfather miraculously succeeded in uniting the hopelessly divided Sudanese tribes of the 19th Century in ousting the Turkey-Egyptian rule in 1885, and now Sudan once again faces its greatest calamity (using his own word) since independence. Maybe at this historical juncture of our his words might bring some hope to our increasingly bleak-looking future.

The following are some excerpts from the interview:

How do you assess the current political situation in Sudan?

Al-Mahdi: The political situation in Sudan now is very sad, there are three peace agreements which were signed in 2005 and 2006 and they are not working properly. The idea was that the Sudan, through the Naivasha agreement, would make four main achievements: number one, comprehensive peace; number two, inclusive government; number three, to make unity attractive; and number four, to implement a program of democratization and democratic transformation. These aims are not being fulfilled – there is no comprehensive peace, there is no inclusive government, democratization is stalled and there is no democratic transformation to speak of to make unity attractive. In reality all the factors are pointing in the other direction.

Very sad? Make that extremely tragic and super depressing.

Many reports now describe this country as potentially a failing state – what, in your opinion, went wrong? Who do we have to blame if this country disintegrates?

Al-Mahdi: Of course, the main trouble that befell Sudan is that a coup led by a minority party tried to implement a partisan Islamist program in a country which is so full of diversity, a country that has got several religions and several cultures, different regional forces, different political orientations. To try to force a partisan Islamist program in this type of country was the main cause of polarization, both inside Sudan, and between Sudan and its neighbors and the international community. I think this set the ball rolling in the wrong direction.

The second main reason for Sudan’s present calamity is the fact that the National Congress Party tried to change the socio-political map of Darfur in a way which has created four new problems they were not there before. Firstly, politicization of ethnicity; secondly, the insurrection against the central government; thirdly, a major humanitarian tragedy in the IDP camps and their villages; and fourthly, the internationalization of the problem of Darfur. So Darfur now suffers from four new problems. The National Congress Party is responsible for creating these problems and now they are using sedatives, public relations exercises and superficial acts to try to solve problems that need a different approach. I think the coup of June 1989 and the ideology they tried to apply in Sudan, and the way the National Congress Party mis-administered Darfur is responsible for our current state of affairs.

If there’s one Sudanese politician I passionately despise then it’s none other than Hassan al-Turabi. It was he who envisioned the Islamization and Arabization of Sudan. Moreover he was the spiritual guide of the National Congress Party (previously known as the National Islamic Front) when it took over after the coup. People used to call al-Turabi the puppeteer and Omar al-Bashir the puppet.

Do you think the NCP is genuine on the issue of democratic transformation? To put it another way, do you think NCP is capable of transforming its current totalitarian tendency, and embrace true democracy?

Al-Mahdi: I think the NCP itself leans on the state institution and it will evaporate if the state collapses. It’s not a party, it is a group of people holding together because of certain posts and financial interests. They have no ideology and all their ideological sacred cows have been slaughtered. They can’t speak of any kind of achievement and oil production, for instance, is a case where they did not use any oil revenue for the benefit of the people, but only for oppression, not progression. Sudan, since the time of colonialism had enjoyed a kind of welfare state. We consistently supported education, health and provided essential consumer items. There was a welfare state in Sudan and they liquidated it and did not use the resources saved from this to promote development or popular programs, they used it for the intensification of administrative and security institutions and the Army as an institution of oppression. Therefore I think it is clear the NCP has failed.

The slaughtered ideological cow Sadiq al-Mahdi is referring to is Hassan al-Turabi. Omar al-Bashir kicked him out of government and put him on house arrest after suspecting he was up to a dirty game to completely seize power. It’s one of the very few actions carried out by Omar al-Bashir which I fully support.

Read the whole interview if you have time. It’s pretty damn good and I agree with everything he says.

On a related note, I wish countries like Egypt will learn from our lesson. Egyptians are surely going to live the Muslim Brotherhood.