You were making a good point up until you started talking about the caliphate. You have fallen into the exact same trap that you criticise, assuming that the involvement of Muslims in politics will inevitable follow Islamist lines.

This is every bit as wrong-headed and patronising as the attitudes you criticise. Have a look at countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Iraqi Kurdistan. In none of these places has democracy in the ‘Muslim world’ led to the creation of a Caliphate, however democratic.

As can be seen in Egypt, the vast majority of citizens of Muslim-majority countries do not want an Islamist government nor do they want Islamist goals like the recreation of the Caliphate. Instead, they want a say in the running of their own country, human rights and civil liberties.

I understand your good intentions with what you were trying to say about the Caliphate, but unfortunately you appear to have swallowed Islamist propaganda wholesale about what Muslims want and demand, undermining the whole point of your article because you are committing the exact same error that you criticise.

It is a shame, because you were making an important point. Unfortunately, your own assumptions about what Muslims want turned it into a hypocritical case study of the mistakes all too often made by people on the left when handling issues related to Islam: those criticising negative assumptions about Muslims make their own assumptions about the same people but, because they have good intentions, believe that they are doing nothing wrong. Sorry, you are.

Why not just avoid making assumptions about a vast and diverse group of people and let them speak for themselves, rather than imposing your own assumptions about Muslims and caliphates?

@1 Whoosh! Over Frank’s head.

Some fair points, but I’m inclined to agree with Frank. Irrespective of the original calipate, in practice it has been far from democratic in practice. As for these protesters being secular – there simply isn’t the evidence for this. The scenes of news reporters having their interviews drowned out with chants of allahu akbar at least suggests that some of those shouting do not have a secular state as a priority. I think with Egypt it is simply too early to say.

The other thing I think you have missed is the prejudice against the middle east that has come from many left leaning people. I’ve lost track of the number of times where I’ve heard discussion from otherwise well meaning people – from pubs to political science classes saying things along the lines of “the middle east has no history of democracy/democracy won’t work in the middle east/why are we trying to be a catalyst for a western construct in another culture/etc/etc”.

@3

The notion that the Egyptian uprising was religiously fundamentalist in nature was propoganda put out by the pro-Mubarack establishment in Egypt and elsewhere. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood commands a significant amount of support but it is a minority – around 20%, IIRC. The majority of protesters were/are secular in outlook and want one thing in common – democracy and freedom. That includes religious freedom (witness the Muslims who protected a Church over the Xmas period by circling it as a human shield from attacks from idiots).

@3 again

as for your second paragraph, I’ve heard things like that said before but only from the right-wing of the political spectrum. Funny, that.

4+5: I have heard it from right wingers as well – but I find it hard to believe you’ve never heard a left winger acting as apologist for some anti-western regime or against western interference using the same reasoning.

I’m not saying that the uprising was fundamentalist in nature – it was clearly a popular uprising composing a wide range of consituencies – but this doesn’t automatically make it secular one.

I’m very happy to see people achieve their objective. I just hope that whatever eventually arises is not a regime worse than Mubarak.

@6

OK, I’m as wary as you are of cheering on whatever replaces Mubarak but with that caveat I don’t think we should automatically assume the Islamists are going to run the show from now on.

It hasn’t been our cultural prejudices that have held back democracy, it’s been our supply of military and financial support to dictatorships.

It wasn’t a prejudice against Islam that has led us – historically speaking – to back dictatorships in latin america and africa.

Also I think the past few weeks have shown the value of having Obama rather than a neo-con in the white house. The public statements of neo-cons have been very much about “mubarak is our ally” and expressing support for him whilst trying to drum up fears that this has been an islamist led revolution. On the other hand, Obama initially kept quiet (exactly what you need to do initially if you don’t want the regime to claim it’s the result of outside forces), then his administration publically called for peaceful resolution that recognised the aspirations of the people. This was at a time when Mubarak and the military were no doubt seeing whether they had the tacit support of the US to crush the protests. If the US had been putting the protests as the result of islamists then we would have had a bloodbath. They weren’t, and thus I suspect the military started to wonder whether in the event of a bloodbath they would end up in front of the ICC. This – combined with the non violent nature of the protests (who failed to be provoked a couple of days ago by the initial refusal of mubarak to go) – probably meant a few thousand people are still alive today.

Caliphate? Isn’t that a set-up where non-Muslims have fewer rights than Muslims? Come to think of it, can Master Potter show me a Muslim democracy where a Christian has the same freedoms as a Muslim? Is a country where one section of the community has fewer rights than another, simply on account of their religion, be regarded as a true democracy?

Personally I hope their military stays in charge for at least 10 years, much safer in my humble opinion !

Personally I hope that the country becomes a democracy. Much safer for all us than backing another military junta.

George is right on the money in drawing attention to the age of the population. I take the view that demographics drive economics, culture and political priorities in a nation. The age structure of the population pyramid is the first thing one should look at when forming an opinion on any society. Therefore, it should be no surprise what is happening across the Middle East. Moreover, the same young demographics apply in all the other ME states and the same forces for change will topple all the tyrants, including Iran.

I find it hilarious that Western intelligence chiefs have been caught unaware what was brewing beneath the surface. Lots of finance and economic analysts have been pointing to the youth bulge that was coming in the Middle East for the last fifteen years. Poverty, poorly performing economies, autocratic leadership leads to a toxic brew for a dictator if one adds lots of youth to the mix. Especially if that same youthful population can see the rest of the world through satellite tv and the internet, which only serves to draw attention to their own stagnation.

A few years ago the spread of democracy to the ME was supposed to be a good thing. Now John McCain tells us it is ‘ dangerous and a virus ‘. The Neoconservative never believed in democracy unless it was someone who pleased them. So scare stories about Islamic theocracies is just NeoCon fearmongering.Let the Egyptians choose who ever they want.

Spot on Richard.

Currently there are protests occurring, or planned to be occurring, in Algeria, Libya, Gaza, Syria and perhaps even Saudi Arabia. If the leaderships of these states start to think that the west is fearful of these protests then they will use this as an excuse to label the protests as islamist backed (ironic considering the Gaza ones specifically say “fuck Hamas and Fatah” in their facebook pages) and crackdown on them.

There is a small chance of a berlin wall style sequence of events going on here, but it will be pissed away if we let fear of islamic revolutions and fear of democracy prevent us from doing the right thing. Furthermore it will simply prove Bin Laden’s view of US foreign policy to be correct.

@7 – I think we are on the same page here, it’s guess that I’m not writing it off as valid concern.

Planeshift: You seem to be ignoring practical realities in your assessment of the West’s involvment with democracy. Our military support of dictators has not always been a significant barriar to democracies. You are assuming that the choice was between US supported dictatorship vs democracy rather than just another form of dictatorship. In some circumstances you might be right, but in others you are wrong. It just strikes me as a lazy point you are trying to score against the West. Agree on the Whitehouse FP pronouncements.

@12 – Who are all these intelligence chiefs that have been caught unawares? I think you are spot on with your reasoning as to why this was an inevitable result btw. As for the neocons, it is clearly a judgement call – the regime that may arise out of democracy depends on a lot of factors. My limited knowledge leads me to believe it is worth the chance right now.

@3 Geoffff: “The scenes of news reporters having their interviews drowned out with chants of allahu akbar at least suggests that some of those shouting do not have a secular state as a priority.”

If we viewed from afar a typical left wing demo in the UK, we might believe that the Socialist Workers Party are a significant movement here. However, the commentary would inform us that there was a reason for the demo and discuss objectives. But perhaps news reporters need to label parasites for what they are.

What will be interesting is the new regime’s attitude to Israel. Correct me if I’m wrong but even young and educated Egyptians allegedly passionately dislike the country (alas I can’t recall my source for this but I accept it could be inaccurate).

“Come to think of it, can Master Potter show me a Muslim democracy where a Christian has the same freedoms as a Muslim?”

Indonesia?

@12 Richard W: “Especially if that same youthful population can see the rest of the world through satellite tv and the internet…”

I follow your argument about population age, and would go further to stress language ability. But I have to question the communications angle.

The cost of a PC is defined in US dollars, plus a local markup. If there is no local markup, a PC running a Linux flavour and monitor can be purchased for $300. That will get the owner on the internet, more or less, depending on local ISP infrastructure.

GDP divided by population is $5,400 for Egypt. So the people who own a PC will be middle class. Middle class people have fewer children.

It is logical to conclude that most protestors do not own satellite TV or PCs. They are out there protesting without some sort of special knowledge or mechanism of acquisition. The only tech angle is ownership of mobile phones.

“Sadly, the same cannot be said for the US and Europe where governments were hesitant in the first place when it came to the protests… Why did western governments ignore reports of police using live ammunition against protesters in the New Valley area of Egypt?”

I’m genuinely curious, what did you expect them to do? Threaten UN sanctions? Or “Regime change” like Iraq/Afghanistan?

It’s all very well appearing on television and saying that you don’t approve of shooting at protesters and you don’t think the Egyptian police should do it, but that doesn’t actually achieve anything. It’s just public relations, surely?

The population of Egypt grows by 1.3 million every year. Given that, the idea of assuaging poverty is pure pie in the sky, particularly bearing in mind that the future is one of competing for diminishing resources.

@19 Trofim: “The population of Egypt grows by 1.3 million every year.”

And according to some idealists, they will all own an internet shop selling sand.

Reality tells us that they will be scurrying around making stuff and providing the stuff that we need.

1.3M population increase by birth per annum? Even if that is true today, per annum rate will fall. Egypt is not dependent on a mass of agricultural serfs.

Whenever I hear people telling me what the Egyptians think I wonder, “Just how many of the guys are you acquainted with?”

It has got nothing to do with cultural prejudices, it all about money, oil, and power.

The US/UK does not care what system of govt a country has just as long as it allows western corporations to come and steal their resources, and do business with them So a communist country like Cuba is cut off, while communist China is held up as a great place to do business.

As for the Middle East , democracy would not be a problem as long as the west has a guarantee that the oil tap will be turned on. It is the fear that new govt’s could turn the oil tap off that has meant that the US /UK has propped up many of the despots and military dictatorships across the region. Plus in the middle East you have the extra problem of Israel.

Oh,, and An America politician ( can’t remember her name) is saying that Egypt should be allowed democracy as long as all the candidates recognise Israel.

@23: “Oh,, and An America politician ( can’t remember her name) is saying that Egypt should be allowed democracy as long as all the candidates recognise Israel.”

Which provides an insight as to why it took so long for America and Europe to find the authoritarian and despotic aspects of Mubarak’s dictatorship objectionable.

Sally, of course the Middle East is all about oil. However, Egypt hardly has any oil and most oil tankers do not go through the Suez Canal nowadays. It is a bit simplistic to throw in ‘ steal their resources, and do business with them ‘. Which is it? Of course, the US refusing to do business with Cuba is mental. Although, I can’t see how that jumps to liking doing business with China. The reason Western firms like doing business with China is because their government gets things done. As long as you obey their rules they leave firms alone. They do not suddenly change the rules or start expropriating assets like Venezuela. Compare and contrast Chine with Russia and Western firms will choose China every time. They know where they stand with the Chinese government and definitely do not trust the Russian government.

@ Sally …..NB failure to recognise Israel only invites further bloodshed.

They (Egypt) have a superb opportunity to break the mould of violance – will they take it ? I think not. Why not you ask ? They all want to copy Iran. Be afraid is my watchword so lets hope I’m proved completely wrong.

22, 23:
You are, sally, absolutely free to boycott on principle, all products which have been produced and/or transported to you by means of oil. That is, more or less, everything which keeps you alive.

I did not say it was it all about oil, if you bother to read……. “it all about money, oil, and power.” That is 3 things.

The US will allow any govt around the world to function as long as it allows American corporations to do business there, with little interference. ( which means steal their resources) Which is why the US has been running right wing terrorists in South America for the last 80 years. Constantly defying the will of many of the peoples of that region. American food companies are much more important than democracy for the people.

27 Shorter troll ……… “I am a fascist”

Sally, actually your right. American food companies are more important than democracy. Democracy is just one of those highly refined cons – someone is always in charge and couldn’t give a monkeys about the next guy unless he’s armed and dangerous. Over educated muppets with all their ‘evidence’ only provide a form of entertainment to those with real power. Step 1 is always get the military machine on your side and sod the rest ’till a later date’

Well I am certainly not going to defend how US corporations always do business. Moreover, I agree that the US government often bullies to get its own way. I’ve seen them doing it in Central and South America. Do you really think anytime a firm is operating in an overseas market the trade is stealing? Can it never be mutually beneficial? If all trade was like that they must have done the right thing not trading with Cuba, as it would have been stealing resources. How are ideas, inventions, innovations and technology ever going to spread from their origin unless we trade with each other?

@ 31. Richard W…thanks for that, some of this lot still live in a world of ideological and academic bullshit. Note, better to be in with a ‘big-hitter’ when things turn rough. And …..I assure you they will.

How come it took so long for America and Europe to recognise these regular features of the Mubarak regime?

Rough justice: Egyptian plainclothes police officers arresting a demonstrator in Cairo. Hundreds of opponents of President Hosni Mubarak have been detained, protesters say.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/09/egypt-torture-machine-mubarak-security

Egypt’s army ‘involved in detentions and torture’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/09/egypt-army-detentions-torture-accused

I am so glad that Ted likes the military, despot model for the middle east.

I take it Saudi is a good example of the kind of regime he supports?

Of course the only slight problem is that Bin Laden is from Saudi, and 19 of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, (not that you would know since the Bush/ Blair decided to go after Iraq.) and the Saudi govt has been backing Islamic fundies all over the world. But hey, they keep the oil tap turned on so the west turns a blind eye.

That’s an outstanding article about cultural prejudice in contrast with democracy.

Richard 16

>> “Come to think of it, can Master Potter show me a Muslim democracy where a Christian has the same freedoms as a Muslim?”

> Indonesia?

You sure Indonesia is a good place to be a Christian?

BBC from last week:

More than 1,000 Muslim protesters have stormed a courthouse and burned two churches in central Java, Indonesia.

The attacks in Temanggung happened after a Christian man was sentenced to five years in jail for distributing leaflets deemed insulting to Islam.

Indonesian police said the crowd considered the sentence too lenient and were demanding the death penalty.

:

As others have already said, Guest seems to be making assumptions off the cuff:

> Unfortunately, the answer is a cultural prejudice against the muslim world. There remains in most quarters a deep set belief that the Middle East isn’t ready for democracy, that Muslims will only vote for extremist organisations

Time to read up on Anthropology 101:

i) not every person you meet is the same as you
ii) not every group culture is the same your own – as witness by what those cultures do and what they say about why they do it
iii) the french cuture is different to swedish to afghani etc
iv) there are common cultural themes across the Muslim world – as evidenced by what they do and what they say about why they do.

v) Those common themes are for example the believe that apostates an adulters get the death penalty.
Or that if 61 Muslim countries all agree the Cairo convention that explicitly excludes equality for women and non-Muslims – then that is a cultural norm

vi) given (v) – it is clear that the ground is less fertile for democracy: which is linked to the idea that everyone equally deserves a say.

Sorry – I failed to spot that ‘guest’ was George W Potter.

Looking at the tone overall of his piece – it follows a sad anti-west pattern that I see when I pop up the local Uni for their open lectures.

Why the need to blame ourselves so readily – it’s a form of self-loathing and I’m sure mental health guys would have something to say about it!

It’s patronsing, to infantalise the Egyptians that way.

Again, if you take an anthropoligy angle, it is true that some cultures respect the ‘strong leader’ – and are willing to overlook all kinds of evil by the leader, so long as they are seen as strong.

Small example, I heard a well educated, succesful Malaysian business tell me (mst have been 2001 or 2002) that he was quite happy about the trumped up charges of homesexuality ( a crime there) against the vice president: the main thing is that the president is showing he’s a strong leader, and ‘the country needs a strong leader’.

That culture hinders democracy big time.

Just visiting @ 37,

You could be right. But anthropology is the science of what a society was, not what it might become.

We, currently, have no idea what is going to happen next. It seems to me that, if an anthropologist doesn’t understand change, then they’d have a bit of a struggle with re-scoping Eastern Europe now and back then.

Change happens, but whether it will stop at a military dictatorship of really move forward is a bit moot.

“Why is it that those who were so supportive of the revolutions against communism in eastern Europe in the 80s are now so lukewarm in support of secular, pro-democracy protests in Egypt?”

Because there is no reason to think they are secular or pro-democracy. But it is nice to see you praising George W. Bush who has, at least, been consistent.

“Unfortunately, the answer is a cultural prejudice against the muslim world. There remains in most quarters a deep set belief that the Middle East isn’t ready for democracy, that Muslims will only vote for extremist organisations such as Hamas and that the best thing for the west is that right wing dictators remain in power to keep the perceived threat of Al Qaeda at bay.”

On the left as well as on the right. After all many people opposed the liberation of Iraq on the grounds that the Muslim world was not ready for democracy.

“The majority of the population in the Middle East is under 30. The young people leading these protests don’t want theocratic states, they don’t want to exchange a secular dictatorship for a religious one. They don’t want to oppress women, or homosexuals, they just want to be able to run their own countries without external interference.”

You have no idea if this is true. Indeed you are making it up as Egypt is run the way Mubarak wants to without external interference.

“People in this country tend to make the assumption that Islam and democracy are incompatible when in fact a basic tenet of the original Islamic Caliphate was that the Caliph only held power with the consent of the Shura or the community/will of the people – in short, exactly what the same basic premise of democracy is.”

Except that is nonsense. You made that up as well. The Caliph was an absolute ruler. In theology and in law. He was supposed to be appointed in consultation with the Shurah – not the community but selected representatives of the community (essentially the tribal elders). But in the end this came down to one or two members of his own family in law and practice. But after that he was in power for life. The parallel is with the Pope. The fact that he is appointed by a council does not make the Vatican democratic.

“The people of Egypt have the right to self-determination.”

Which they are fully exercising.

“In contrast, whenever we have backed “safe” and “friendly” dictators, it has always back-fired on us. Look at Iraq prior to the First Gulf War when the US supported it in its attempts to eradicate the Iranian government. Look at the Shah of Persia who had an army better equipped with British made tanks than the British army itself.”

What about Iraq where the US neither supported it nor did it try to eradicate the Iranian government? Could you be more wrong in one sentence. As for the Shah, our support for him made Iran the most intellectually developed and advanced country in the region bar Israel.

@40: “But it is nice to see you praising George W. Bush who has, at least, been consistent.”

Quite. But then GW Bush saw nothing wrong with extraordinary rendition or a bit of waterboarding now and then to facilitate interrogation.

Douglas

> We, currently, have no idea what is going to happen next.

That’s not really true – what you really mean I guess is ‘we can’t be certain’.

We DO know that cultural norms do not change over night.

That even the truth is not enough to swing cultural norms (many Russians speak highly of Stalin…)

So based on what do know, things are not rosy for a liberal, democratic outcome in Egypt.

i) their own culture – historical poor treatment of non-Muslims etc – history of the Muslim Brotherhood
ii) impact of their Islamic neighbours – Iran and others making public statements seeing this as increasing the scope of Islam in the region… wonder what people and money right now those countries are sending to Egypt to promote their views?

Just Visiting @ 42,

Second attempt at a reply.

You say:

We DO know that cultural norms do not change over night.

No we don’t. We know that throughout history that that in a completely untenable position. You could argue that the build up to a tipping point has been undereported, you could argue that it took more than a day, but you really can’t argue that the ‘revolution’ can’t be identified to a change in cultural norms. Viz, Eastern Europe. Each event in the breakdown had it’s own momentum, but each siezes a specific day as the one that matters.

I have no idea why you think I think it’s all going to be a sea of roses.

I said this:

Change happens, but whether it will stop at a military dictatorship of really move forward is a bit moot.

When someone, anyone starts a revolution, no-one knows where it will end.

I know where I’d like it to end, but that would just be wishful thinking.

41. Bob B – “Quite. But then GW Bush saw nothing wrong with extraordinary rendition or a bit of waterboarding now and then to facilitate interrogation.”

I am sure that Bush saw nothing wrong with teaching Evolution either. Even if he was wrong on one issue, that does not mean he was wrong on all of them.

Although I think he was wrong on democracy in the Middle East except in the long run. A pity.

Still, it is absurd for the Left to be criticising Bush for his views on water boarding. The Right can do so. But there is virtually no one admired on the Left that has not tortured (or is torturing) more than Bush. Nelson Mandela’s ANC for instance. That is without even mentioning Cuba.

Still, it is absurd for the Left to be criticising Bush for his views on water boarding. The Right can do so. But there is virtually no one admired on the Left that has not tortured (or is torturing) more than Bush. Nelson Mandela’s ANC for instance. That is without even mentioning Cuba.

Also, how can Robert Fisk (of the left) complain about the Iraq war when Tony Blair (also of the left), helped start the war in the first place?! Madness innit!

@44 Did you read this blogpost and take it to heart?:
http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/12/17/lefty-baiting-an-idiots-guide/

45. Cylux – “Also, how can Robert Fisk (of the left) complain about the Iraq war when Tony Blair (also of the left), helped start the war in the first place?! Madness innit!”

It is arguable whether Blair or Fisk are on the Left. Well Blair isn’t. And Fisk is actually a complex person. However it is irrelevant. For one thing, you claim they are both on the same side. So surely they can criticise each other? For another, Fisk may well be consistently opposed to war. Anyone who condemns Bush and praises Mandela is not being consistent. Anyone who admires Cuba but condemns Guantanamo is a hypocrite. And that is the issue.

But still, if you know anyone on the Left who consistently condemned the ANC for their terrorism, their murder of civilians and the torture of their own, I would be happy to hear about them.

just visiting @ 36:

Indonesian examples. Yes, even the most so-called “liberal” Muslim majority countries contain an inbuilt bias against non-Muslims, to put it mildly. In cuddly Malaysia, with its relaxed atmosphere, it is illegal for an ethnic Malay to convert from Islam, as it is illegal to persuade anyone to convert. See Article 153 of the Malaysian constitution, which is inherently racist.

Islam is inherently discriminatory, which is one of the reasons, I think, that European Muslims feel so aggrieved that they are treated just like anyone else.

Having read through most of these postings, it’s becoming clearer by the minute why dreadful organisations like EDL, BNP etc…. exist.

I suggest we invite other cultures to just accept our oh-so-awful prejudicial shortcomings or bugger off and live somewhere else. In other words they are free to take their own prejudices back home where they’ll fit quite naturally and easily. We have quite enough of our own prejudices to deal with.

# 47: ‘But still, if you know anyone on the Left who consistently condemned the ANC for their terrorism, their murder of civilians and the torture of their own, I would be happy to hear about them.’

My late friend Baruch Hirson did a lot to expose the Stalinist mentality and activities of the ANC, and the way that this organisation was bound to make sour the victory over apartheid. A life-long Marxist from South Africa, jailed for nine years by the apartheid regime, he opposed oppression from wherever it came, from US-backed regimes, Stalinists or theocracies.

@45: “Also, how can Robert Fisk (of the left) complain about the Iraq war when Tony Blair (also of the left), helped start the war in the first place?! Madness innit!”

For those with learning difficulties:

- The labels “left-wing” and “right-wing” are meaningless twaddle

- Many don’t take Fisk seriously even if we bother to read him

- Blair was following his own agenda: “In highly critical testimony to the Iraq inquiry, Lord Turnbull, the former head of the civil service, contradicted Mr Blair and said the cabinet never ‘knew the score’ in 2002 on the likelihood of military action against Iraq.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc2058f8-28b6-11e0-aa18-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Dq7ElGqr

Parliament only had the opportunity to vote approval for the war a couple of days before the invasion was launched on 20 March 2003. Blair had carried through the preparations for the war using the royal prerogatives.

@47 “But still, if you know anyone on the Left who consistently condemned the ANC for their terrorism, their murder of civilians and the torture of their own, I would be happy to hear about them.”

50 – you’re friend sounds like he had the right idea. Group A and Group B may both have characteristics that are unjust – but support of one of those groups may produce a better result for the people they wish to govern and for the people in the wider world. In the real world, where 1000s and potentially millions of lives (should war arise) could be at risk – leaders are obliged to lend their support to the group most likely to produce a positive outocome. This doesn’t prohibit them from complaining about aspects of the group they are supporting and it is only sensible fo them to switch their allegance to the cause most likely to produce a positive outcome if such a group emerges or times to change to make that group the ‘best choice’.

@51 You do realise I was taking the piss, right?

Just to point out, my reference to the caliphate was just to show that, contrary to popular opinion, islamic government need not be incompatible with democracy. This is not the same as saying that most muslims want a caliphate.

Secondly, it is also worth pointing out that just because the qu’ran says something, that does not automatically mean that all muslims agree with it – in the same way that not all christians agree with Leviticus that all homosexuals must be stoned to death.

Thirdly, since some people seem to have missed this, I am not writing from a left wing or, indeed, a right wing perspective. Nowhere do I insinuate that the right is more guilty of being prejudiced than the left. I wrote this from a George W. Potter perspective and your shade of political opinion makes no difference to what I meant to say. By the number of people embroiled in left vs right arguments on here, you seem to have missed that.

Finally, this is an edited version of a piece I wrote on thursday – I’d urge you to go and read the whole thing on my blog so that you can get the full sense of what I intended to say.

Douglas 43

sorry but you answer is either full of typos, or written in a state of confusion.

> We know that throughout history that that in a completely untenable position.

No idea what that means.

> I have no idea why you think I think it’s all going to be a sea of roses.

I don’t – I said the exact opposite.

George w potter 54

> Just to point out, my reference to the caliphate was just to show that, contrary to popular opinion, islamic government need not be incompatible with democracy.

But others pointed out that the Caliphate was undemocratic – so you have still to point out an example of an islamic government that is democratic (in the western liberal sense that LC folk would recognise)

> Secondly, it is also worth pointing out that just because the qu’ran says something, that does not automatically mean that all muslims agree with it – in the same way that not all christians agree with Leviticus that all homosexuals must be stoned to death.

Not this is NOT worth pointing out – because it has been said so many times on LC and it is illogical.

Read my lips – criticism of the ideology of Islam does not mean that all Muslims support that ideology 100%.

But if across the world we see in many countries a common theme (eg death for apostates and adulterers) – then it is fair to say that such culture is mainstream islam.

Try googling to see how many homosexuals have been killed in the name of christianity worldwide this week.

Then try googling for people killed or punished for being adulterers, apostates or ‘heretics’.

It is the huge difference in numbers, that prove your analogy wrong.

54. George W. Potter – “Just to point out, my reference to the caliphate was just to show that, contrary to popular opinion, islamic government need not be incompatible with democracy. This is not the same as saying that most muslims want a caliphate.”

Except it is false. There is no reason to claim the Caliphate proves Muslims can take to democracy – they may, of course, but for other reasons. As the Caliphate was not in theory or in practice democratic. Indeed Marshall Hodgson’s The Venture of Islam shows how the theory of the caliphate ended up as simple military dictatorship. In fact it is remarkable how much of the world he describes seems to exist today. However most people would have no problems saying that it is hard to reconcile Catholicism and democracy – most of the south of Europe did not take to democracy until they stopped being Catholics in any meaningful sense. Latin America still struggles. Why is it unreasonable to suggest the Muslim world shows the same problems?

“Secondly, it is also worth pointing out that just because the qu’ran says something, that does not automatically mean that all muslims agree with it – in the same way that not all christians agree with Leviticus that all homosexuals must be stoned to death.”

I don’t see why as it is an utter cliche. The problem simply becomes one of how many Muslims believe whatever the Quran is supposed to say in any given case. Leviticus may well say that homosexuals should be stoned – even though no Christians I know of have ever thought so. The number that do today is below trivially insignificant. The number of Muslims in Britain who think so is not trivial. And there’s the problem. So let’s agree not all believe hateful things, but worryingly large numbers do, or at least are willing to say to to pollsters.

@57: “Leviticus may well say that homosexuals should be stoned”

What I’d like to know is when is the next damsel stoning scheduled for?

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 22:20-21

As for adulterers:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu022.htm

Although one can point out that Islamic societies have not developed flourishing democracies as a ,means to beat them over the proverbial head. It is equally valid to ask in how many Islamic societies has it been tried?

I would not expect a democracy in an Islamic society to be immediately the same as a liberal democracy. The forces of social conservatism run deep and defeating them is an incremental long-term project. No conservative religion is compatible with a liberal democracy. However, where democracy flourishes results in defeat after defeat for social conservatives. They are always on the defensive fighting a rearguard battle which always results in defeat. Just look at social history over the last century or so in the UK. Not many if any advances for social conservatives but a history of defeat after defeat. Maybe the Islamic world will be different, I don’t know for sure either way. Who knows maybe Muslims have a genome that prevents them living in a democracy or being liberal. The only way we will know is if it is tried.

59. Richard W – “Although one can point out that Islamic societies have not developed flourishing democracies as a ,means to beat them over the proverbial head. It is equally valid to ask in how many Islamic societies has it been tried?”

Virtually all of them. The colonial powers of most of the Muslim world left democratic institutions. The former Soviet Union apart. They even pushed for democratic reform where they did not have a formal Empire as British did in 1908 in Iran for instance. They have pretty much all failed, except for Malaysia which is failing.

“I would not expect a democracy in an Islamic society to be immediately the same as a liberal democracy.”

Why not? Catholic societies eventually accepted democracy. Is Spain’s democracy somehow different from the Netherland’s? In a meaningful way.

“No conservative religion is compatible with a liberal democracy.”

Except in America.

“Who knows maybe Muslims have a genome that prevents them living in a democracy or being liberal. The only way we will know is if it is tried.”

It is unlikely to be a genetic problem as the non-Muslim Christians of Lebanon had no problems with democracy even though genetically there is likely to be no difference. Nor do Jews of Arab origin in Israel. But we have tried this. It has failed. No doubt we can try it again. Peter Mansfield once said that the West’s efforts at introducing democracy failed because they were the West’s efforts and came from the outside. An interesting apologist for Islam and the Muslim world. But of course that is the problem too – as long as the Arab world in particular would rather have local dictatorship and oppression than anything offered by the West, they are unlikely to become democratic. Nor are we likely to be safe.

@ So Much For Subtlety

I don’t know enough about the colonial history in the region to know how democratic the institutions were. I am thinking more along the lines of Islamic societies who are ruled autocratically then adopt democracy and that fails so they again become autocratic.

“I would not expect a democracy in an Islamic society to be immediately the same as a liberal democracy.”

Why not? Catholic societies eventually accepted democracy. Is Spain’s democracy somehow different from the Netherland’s? In a meaningful way. ”

What I mean is a society could become democratic without being very liberal. For example, in the 1950s the UK was democratic but not very liberal in comparison with 2011. Our blasphemy and obscenity scandals of the recent past seem quite absurd to contemporary eyes.

“No conservative religion is compatible with a liberal democracy.”

Except in America.”

Is religious social conservatism in the US compatible with liberal democracy? All I read in the US are campaigns by religious social conservatives to reverse defeats. If I was a religious social conservative I would doubt my religion was compatible with liberal democracy. As liberal democracy exalts the rule of humanity and relegates the rule of god to an irrelevance.

61. Richard W – “I don’t know enough about the colonial history in the region to know how democratic the institutions were. I am thinking more along the lines of Islamic societies who are ruled autocratically then adopt democracy and that fails so they again become autocratic.”

That would be pretty much all of them outside the Gulf. Britain imposed democratic-ish systems on Egypt and Sudan for instance. They did not take. This is not the first chance the Egyptians have had for democracy, it is about their third. And the evidence seems to be they don’t want it now either.

“What I mean is a society could become democratic without being very liberal. For example, in the 1950s the UK was democratic but not very liberal in comparison with 2011. Our blasphemy and obscenity scandals of the recent past seem quite absurd to contemporary eyes.”

I disagree. The Britain of the 1950s might have been an unliberal place, but a Britain of the 1930s or even the 1900s was vastly more liberal. A nation that has recently had The Satanic Verses scandal – and every single major newspaper refuse to publish the Danish cartoons – has issues with blasphemy. It is just that the State Protected religion has changed. We have advanced in the area of cow-on-girl action in films. But in terms of free speech we have gone backwards almost everywhere else. I can no longer use a whole range of racially offensive terms that I could have in 1900. Indeed it is a criminal act. I can no longer say what I like about Islam either. Much of older literature lives in a grey zone where they are not quite illegal but not quite legal either. Kipling has become demi monde. I can no longer talk about or even in the presence of women as men used to. We have gained some small rights, but we have lost everywhere else.

“Is religious social conservatism in the US compatible with liberal democracy?”

Over 200 years and going strong.

“All I read in the US are campaigns by religious social conservatives to reverse defeats. If I was a religious social conservative I would doubt my religion was compatible with liberal democracy. As liberal democracy exalts the rule of humanity and relegates the rule of god to an irrelevance.”

But you are not. There is nothing inherent in liberal democracy that does either. However it is quite likely that neither liberalism or democracy can survive the inevitable collapse of Protestant Christianity. But we will see.

You sure Indonesia is a good place to be a Christian? BBC from last week: “More than 1,000 Muslim protesters have stormed a courthouse and burned two churches in central Java, Indonesia.”

…and the suspects behind that case have now been arrested, because Indonesia has the rule of law and protects people of all religions.

In cuddly Malaysia, with its relaxed atmosphere, it is illegal for an ethnic Malay to convert from Islam, as it is illegal to persuade anyone to convert. See Article 153 of the Malaysian constitution, which is inherently racist.

Hmm. You’re conflating two very separate points there. It’s not against federal law for a Malay to convert from Islam, although it’s illegal in a minority of states; I agree that it would be better if federal law banned states from punishing converts.

But Article 153 says nothing whatsoever about religion: it’s an affirmative action clause equivalent to the ones in the South African constitution, reflecting the fact that levels of income, wealth and education are much lower among ethnic Malays than among other ethnic groups in the country.

A nation that has recently had The Satanic Verses scandal – and every single major newspaper refuse to publish the Danish cartoons – has issues with blasphemy

Erm, the Satanic Verses scandal consisted of a man publishing a book, a mad foreign dictator saying the man should be killed, and the UK government rightly spending millions on ensuring that the mad foreign dictator failed to get his way. That’s more or less the complete opposite of “not protecting free speech”.

On the Danish cartoons, the reason newspapers didn’t publish them wasn’t because blasphemy against Islam is forbidden (hence why all the people who published them on their blogs and small-circulation magazines weren’t punished), it’s because they were rather bigoted and not very funny.

That’s like saying “all the major publishers rejected my book about how aliens disguised as the British Royal Family control the world, therefore there must be a conspiracy”.

I can no longer use a whole range of racially offensive terms that I could have in 1900. Indeed it is a criminal act. I can no longer say what I like about Islam either. Much of older literature lives in a grey zone where they are not quite illegal but not quite legal either. Kipling has become demi monde. I can no longer talk about or even in the presence of women as men used to.

This is complete made-up nonsense. You can use whatever racially offensive terms you like *as long as you’re not using them to incite racial hatred*. In practice, that means that unless you’re either standing in Brixton High Street with a loudhailer, or addressing a meeting of brownshirts, you’re not breaking the law. Similarly, you can say absolutely whatever you like about Islam. “It’s a backwards religion that mandates medieval values, founded by a megalomaniac paedophile”, for example, is completely fine.

And your point about old literature is just *surreal*. Nobody has ever claimed that old literature is anything other than 100% legal. That’s why you can buy a copy of *Mein Kampf* in Waterstones, never mind Kipling or Thackeray…

It’s fair to say that if you talk about minorities, Islam or women in certain ways that were acceptable in polite society 100 years ago, then people might well think that you’re an arsehole. But that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech, and rather a lot to do with other people’s freedom to make up their own minds about what you have to say.

“On the Danish cartoons, the reason newspapers didn’t publish them wasn’t because blasphemy against Islam is forbidden (hence why all the people who published them on their blogs and small-circulation magazines weren’t punished), it’s because they were rather bigoted and not very funny.”

I can’t let this one slip. To quote you ‘this is complete made up nonsense’. As it happens they weren’t very funny, but it wasn’t this lack of comedic value that stopped them being published – it was because there were crazed people attacking media offices, embassies and individuals that were involved in the production of them or not compliant in condemning them. The reason was fear.

You should try and look up ‘Danish Cartoons’ from the BBC’s Why Democracy series which gives a good potted history of the event. And in the mean time, confriming the fact – direct from a CNN anchor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7aS7m3odqI (6mins 30secs in)

“It’s fair to say that if you talk about minorities, Islam or women in certain ways that were acceptable in polite society 100 years ago, then people might well think that you’re an arsehole. But that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech, and rather a lot to do with other people’s freedom to make up their own minds about what you have to say.”

This a million times. It is astonishing how many people talking about “free speech” essentially mean “freedom from being judged for nasty speech”.

“I disagree. The Britain of the 1950s might have been an unliberal place, but a Britain of the 1930s or even the 1900s was vastly more liberal.”

Give me a fucking break. Tell that to Alan Turing/a million other blindingly obvious examples from various oppressed groups. Blasphemy cases were brought and people imprisoned up to the 1920s. Homosexuals hounded and imprisoned, or forced to undergo unneeded psychological interventions.

Britain of the 1900s did not allow any women to vote (some women could vote from 1918, women and men had full equality of voting rights after 1928), so it not only wasn’t liberal but wasn’t even a democracy.

‘On the Danish cartoons, the reason newspapers didn’t publish them wasn’t because blasphemy against Islam is forbidden (hence why all the people who published them on their blogs and small-circulation magazines weren’t punished), it’s because they were rather bigoted and not very funny.’

If that were true most of our own political cartoonists would be out of a job.