Democracy, Allahocracy, and Indonesia

[Winstonm]

PBS broadcast its "America at the Crossroads" series of documentaries by starting with Indonesia, the country with the world's highest concentration of Muslims. A few of the points covered seem good to discuss.

 

One was an interview of Muslim Cleric Abu Baker Bashir, once in exile but returned when democracy was installed in 1998. Later imprisoned for his role in the Bali bombing but set free by a technicality. Bashir is of the fundamentlasit viewpoint. His view is that all Law comes from Allah, therefore democracy, being laws created by people, is a corruption and should be replaced by what he called Allahocracy. In other words, an Islamic nation must follow strict Islamic law as this is God's law which the people have no right to disobey.

 

The second point was that 90% of the population belong to moderate Muslim groups, quite progressive and quite different from the fundamental groups.

 

The third point was that Bashir was released from prison on a technicality, to strong criticism from the U.S. for being "soft on terrorism." I found it fascinating that is was the Indonesian leader who said, "We had to do it. We are a democracy. We are a country of laws." How odd the U.S.A. getting lessons in democracy and freedom from a fledgling democracy.

 

From my own perspective, I did gain a better insight into the fundamenalist Islamic thinking, but this show only reinforced my belief that the war on terror is an overbloated, oversimplified hoax, that fundamental Islam is far and away the vast minority of Muslims, and the "war" is an intra-religious battle over ideas among various factions. The difference in thinking is no different than that portrayed by the film "Inherit the Wind" about the Scopes Monkey Trial. The only difference is the name of the book that is ultimate law.

 

That the U.S. can have any influence whatsoever in the outcome is delusional thinking.

[kenberg]

I like to think of myself as a serious person when it comes to matters of national and international importance. Still, two hours a night, every night, for six nights was more than I could handle. My favorite segment, I believe, was the one with the creative writings of the troops. It was original, and it was interesting. Many other features were interesting as well, but just too much.

 

 

Maybe part of my inability to stick with it comes from a view I have long held: Of course there are reasons why some folks wish us ill and are even prepared to die on behalf of their God or their fellow Muslims to cause us harm. Assuming that they are all just nuts is lazy and false. In wars we have always had people that are prepared to die for the rest of us, and we honor them. But I need the people who are making the decisions to draw the correct decisions from this. For me to learn the details of bin Laden's days in the Sudan won't really help anything. Honestly, it's a bit boring.

 

I hope to finish it all, or at least most of it. Listening to Richard Pearle was itself a form of torture. But I will try. It was a monumental effort by public television and no doubt they are entitled to our attention.

 

Ken

[Winstonm]

Listening to Richard Pearle was itself a form of torture

 

No doubt - it reminded me of listening to Dick Cheney continue to espouse as valid reasons those things that have subsequently been shown to have been false.

 

Some of the most dangerous people in the world are those who believe their truths to be 100% correct while everyone else is 100% wrong. When Pearle said that we should stay in Iraq even if everyone else in the world was against it, I saw no differnce between that statement and Cleric Bashir's statement that God's laws did not need the consent of the people. When you are 100% right, you need no consent.

 

And to see Pearle use Kennedy's speech as a justification for the neo-con preemptive war agenda was when I had to turn it off. The one thing John Kennedy had was the intelligence to question whether his own decisions were right or wrong.

[kenberg]

I voted for Kennedy in 1960. Your bringing him up started me thinking. As just about everyone knows, Kennedy was a Catholic and that was an explicit issue during the campaign. I think one could say that Kennedy was elected on the basis of his talent, almost in spite of his religious beliefs and affiliations. (Yes, I know, having connections that swayed the graveyard vote in Chicago helped also.) By contrast, GWB is the first of the presidents elected during my lifetime, and I really don't know of any others in history, who was elected largely because of his expressed religious beliefs. (And yes, having an opponent who couldn't tell you how to get to the Men's room in fewer than three paragraphs helped.) Jimmy Carter was of course highly religious, but his election was largely due to Ford's inability to counter residual disgust with the Nixon presidency.

 

Although I am non-religious I don't see myself as anti-religious. But in 2008 I hope we can look at a candidate's abilities rather than at how many times he has been born. We are in desperate need of the best talent we can get, whichever church he may or may not attend.

[mike777]

I voted for Kennedy in 1960. Your bringing him up started me thinking. As just about everyone knows, Kennedy was a Catholic and that was an explicit issue during the campaign. I think one could say that Kennedy was elected on the basis of his talent, almost in spite of his religious beliefs and affiliations. (Yes, I know, having connections that swayed the graveyard vote in Chicago helped also.) By contrast, GWB is the first of the presidents elected during my lifetime, and I really don't know of any others in history, who was elected largely because of his expressed religious beliefs. (And yes, having an opponent who couldn't tell you how to get to the Men's room in fewer than three paragraphs helped.) Jimmy Carter was of course highly religious, but his election was largely due to Ford's inability to counter residual disgust with the Nixon presidency.

 

Although I am non-religious I don't see myself as anti-religious. But in 2008 I hope we can look at a candidate's abilities rather than at how many times he has been born. We are in desperate need of the best talent we can get, whichever church he may or may not attend.

Abortion is such a huge issue for so many that they use religion as a proxy on how to vote. Abortion/Choice is coded into so many issues, stem cell research, Judges, etc.

[Al_U_Card]

Maybe part of my inability to stick with it comes from a view I have long held: Of course there are reasons why some folks wish us ill and are even prepared to die on behalf of their God or their fellow Muslims to cause us harm. Assuming that they are all just nuts is lazy and false. In wars we have always had people that are prepared to die for the rest of us, and we honor them. But I need the people who are making the decisions to draw the correct decisions from this. For me to learn the details of bin Laden's days in the Sudan won't really help anything. Honestly, it's a bit boring.

Ken

You can start with the crusades or for that matter any act of ideology. People can be manipulated because they live in fear. We all do. Anyone claiming to be able to reduce a "source" (one of many) of that fear will be listened to and often followed.

 

Cheney et al know this (as did Goebbles and all the other propagandists) and are using it to their advantage. Just wait for the next "outrage" against the US to be used to further install their control and further reduce your liberty.

 

Speaking of fear....be very, very afraid.

[kenberg]

The first Ingmar Bergman film I saw (and close to the first foreign language film I saw) was the Seventh Seal. A knight is returning from the crusades, which his squire describes as "so stupid only an idealist could have thought of it". Actually there were several motives in lay other than idealism, but I take his point.

 

Here is my possibly cynical take: In the Reagan years, Iran and Iraq fought a bloody and prolonged war. We regularly deplored the situation but I always imagined Reagan thinking: Iraqis killing Iranians, Iranians killing Iraqis? Remind me why this is bad."

 

In the years of the elder Bush, we wiped out a good portion of the Iraqi army and left Saddam in charge of what was left.

 

Along comes GWB, who like a Boy Scout dragging a woman across the street against her wishes, has decided to bring democracy and freedom to people everywhere, or at least to people everywhere if they are sitting on top of an oil field. Surely they will love us for it. Surely.

[Al_U_Card]

What was the reason given for the crusades?

 

Why did they actually go?

 

Look at the lasting mess it left.

 

I suggest that americans duck and cover.

[mike777]

What was the reason given for the crusades?

 

Why did they actually go?

 

Look at the lasting mess it left.

 

I suggest that americans duck and cover.

Inevitable clash of civilizations.

Sure Europe had a bunch of vikings/slavs etc who fought each other so the Pope turned them loose on someone else but the clash was going to happen. There was alot of pressure on Byzantine empire already.

 

Why did anyone invade anyone? Humans were hardly peace loving hippies, at least back then. At least some genes got spread around that might not have.

 

As for Indonesia, it did not become 90% Muslim without the threat of violence just as with other religions. Convert or die or starve.

 

Why the heck did those English and French invade Peace Loving Canada? At least what is taught as the reason?

 

Speaking of Invasions, did not the Franks and Anglo Saxon among many others invade England and France?

[DrTodd13]

What was the reason given for the crusades?

 

Why did they actually go?

 

Look at the lasting mess it left.

 

I suggest that americans duck and cover.

My understanding is that Europe had recently switched to the inheritance mechanism where the oldest son got pretty much everything and everyone else got next to nothing. Some younger sons joined the priesthood but others now had rank but no land and thus there was a great demand for land. The only way to get new land was to conquer it. So, the Crusades may have been sparked by the authentic desire to rend control of the holy land from from Islam but the fires were flamed by nobles looking for land and using any excuse to justify war to accomplish that goal. In essence, nothing has changed. The real reason for war is almost always the desire to extend one's power but one can't exactly admit that so they invent whatever reason they think will motivate the populace to support the war.

[Al_U_Card]

And I think there was a sort of land grant associated with coming back alive, so that the returning warriors could actually get an acre or two.

[Winstonm]

As for Indonesia, it did not become 90% Muslim without the threat of violence just as with other religions. Convert or die or starve.

 

Mike, according to the PBS documentary on Indonesia this claim is wrong. Again, according to the show they specified that unlike many other Muslim nations Indonesia's conversion came about because of trade. They pointed out that there is very little association between Indonesia Muslim and the more hardline Arabic-based Muslim who indeed spread the word via the sword.

 

Abortion is such a huge issue for so many that they use religion as a proxy on how to vote. Abortion/Choice is coded into so many issues, stem cell research, Judges, etc.

 

Mike, this is the first post of yours I completely understand and completely agree with. Perhaps you should try straightforward English more often. :)

[Winstonm]

Along comes GWB, who like a Boy Scout dragging a woman across the street against her wishes, has decided to bring democracy and freedom to people everywhere, or at least to people everywhere if they are sitting on top of an oil field. Surely they will love us for it. Surely.

 

Ken, what I found by watching this show was somewhat opposite to this view and I found it not only odd but somewhat threatening. The way Indonesia has adopted democracy is truly astonishing as they have only been free to do so for 9 years, but how they embrace and utilize democracy is so pure of form as to make the U.S. look like a dictatorial-controlled empire. Indonesia realizes they have a population of hardline, fundamentalist Muslims in their midst, but instead of castigating them as evil and terrorists, they allow them freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to dissent - they only crack down on them if they violate the law. What a concept.

 

Compare that to today's U.S. where the F.B.I. and DoD monitor peace rallies by veterans and keep a database on who attends, arrest demonstrators for suspicion of being anarchists because they dress in black, and place outspoken administration opponents on the no-fly terror list, and it makes you wonder if it was democracy that Bush wanted for Iraq - or the U.S.A.

[Winstonm]

What was the reason given for the crusades?

 

Al, from my perspective what I got from this PBS show was an enlightening education about the similarities between all types of fundamentalists. It wouldn't surprise me to discover that a conflict of fundamental beliefs was the instigating force behind the crusades - both sides believing 100% in the universal rightness of their cause. As Mike said, a "inevitable clash of civilizations." I would go one step further in that assessment by adding "because of the fundamental belief nature of those civilizations." These are the types who go to war gleefully and die in glorious combat for the "cause". The more rational among us enter war with trepidation and fear, hating each moment of it and enter only because there is left no other recourse.

 

I am biased in my thinking, as we all are, and we filter what we see and hear through that bias. Watching the show, I was taken aback by the nature I saw within the fundantalist Muslim Cleric Bashir. As he described his views, it was obvious he was reciting a memorized lesson when he said, "God does not need the consent of the people for his laws." It struck me then that this man's rise to power within his religion most likely had more to do with his ability to memorize and repeat than his ability to reason and understand. It is the same type of response I have seen in Christian fundamentalist who close down any debate by quoting scripture and then shutting the door to their mind. I'm not saying this is wrong - some people must need that type of structured non-challengeable thinking to survive. All I am saying is the similarities in mode of non-thinking is quite remarkably the same.

 

When opposing groups who due to psychological pressure cannot allow themselves to challenge the validity of their beliefs and thinking clash with a similar group with a diametrically opposing view, how can there by any room for negotiation, understanding, or compromise?

 

I see this same type mentality with Pearle and Bush.

Pearle's statement that Even if the entire world is against us we should stay in Iraq seemed to me eerily similar to Bashir's statement there can be no democracy but only Allahocracy - there is only one correct way and it is my way.

Bush's surge in Iraq, his recent meeting with Democrats and his statement that the meeting was not to find a compromise but to find a way to overcome the obstacles to get the war funding he needs strikes me as the same type of unyielding belief as was behind Bashir's comment that God's laws do not need the consent of the people - the dissent of the people is irrelevant when the right course has been preordained.

 

Should we then try to reason and negotiate with these types of fundamentalist Muslims? Absolutely not. You cannot reason and negotiate with these types of closed minds - the very reason they are what they are is that their psychological makeup totally prevents a challenge to their beliefs. In their minds, they are not people but Muslims; without Islam, they have no image of self. Therefore, for them to question the validity of their own beliefs is a form of suicide. They cannot compromise and they cannot negotiate, not from lack of want but from lack of psychological ability to do so.

 

The only chance againt the unreasonable is reasoned response. They are more to be pitied than demonized; they can be changed, but only one by one after long and painful psychological suffering that reduces them to a nothing first, a point from which they can rebuild a self.

 

Hopefully, the next person we elect president will have the ability to say, "I don't know," and enough intelligence to realize that he cannot be 100% right all the time.

And enough compassion to recognize that strict fundamental beliefs are a means for those who have been severeyly psychologically damaged to gain an identify of self.

[mike777]

As for Indonesia, it did not become 90% Muslim without the threat of violence just as with other religions. Convert or die or starve.

 

Mike, according to the PBS documentary on Indonesia this claim is wrong. Again, according to the show they specified that unlike many other Muslim nations Indonesia's conversion came about because of trade. They pointed out that there is very little association between Indonesia Muslim and the more hardline Arabic-based Muslim who indeed spread the word via the sword.

 

Abortion is such a huge issue for so many that they use religion as a proxy on how to vote. Abortion/Choice is coded into so many issues, stem cell research, Judges, etc.

 

Mike, this is the first post of yours I completely understand and completely agree with. Perhaps you should try straightforward English more often. :)

 

1)No then the documentary was terrible and biased. They do not know what they are talking about. Even today there is pressure to convert or starve if you wish to do business and live there for native citizens. I said convert, trade or starve. Coerced conversion or starve as I stated clearly, Winston. :0

2) Not sure what all this absolute faith stuff has to do with much. Politics is Politics and war is an extension of that. I doubt the vikings, Franks, Celts, Saxons, Slavs,Goths, Vandals and Huns went to war and a huge impact on Europe fit into this pigeon hole of absolute faith. Sometimes it was to not starve that Rome was first sacked.

[mike777]

And I think there was a sort of land grant associated with coming back alive, so that the returning warriors could actually get an acre or two.

No, the serfs remained serfs and Knights tied to the Barons or Counts as in County rulers.. They were not land owners in the 11 th century.

[Winstonm]

1)No then the documentary was terrible and biased. They do not know what they are talking about. Even today there is pressure to convert or starve if you wish to do business and live there for native citizens. I said convert, trade or starve. Coerced conversion or starve as I stated clearly, Winston. :0

 

Sorry to disagree, Mike, but this is not all you said.

 

As for Indonesia, it did not become 90% Muslim without the threat of violence

 

Convert, trade, or starve is not the same as "threat of violence.". Mabye PBS wasn't so wrong saying that trade caused the conversion - so maybe they didn't want to mention that it was coerced conversion but that was only if you wanted to trade. After all, you didn't have to live there or trade with them. That is much different than invading another land with "convert here and now or I kill you" threats that marked the Arabic Muslims srpead of Islam by the sword.

 

Bottom line is there is a difference between the two types of Muslims, and the vast majority of Indonesian are not of the"here we come, convert or die" thinking but of the "convert if you want to live here else go back where you came from" thinking. The latter is more of a live and let live mentality, but it is non-threatening unless you are too poor to live anywhere else and want to be a good Catholic. I didn't say it was perfect, only non-threatening when compared to the Arabic-type fundamentlist thinking.

 

2) Not sure what all this absolute faith stuff has to do with much. Politics is Politics and war is an extension of that

 

I thought we were discussing situations where religion became the politics, and thus war became an extension of religion. That is what Cleric Bashir claimed, that the only correct form of government was Allahocracy, a condition of government where religion was the politics - not that they were woven together but where they were one in the same thing.