Just last week a poll was released indicating that Iraqis had become increasingly optimistic about their future and that they had hope that the new government would turn things around. “Optimism” and “large voter turn out” are not words that link comfortably with the situation in Iraq. What about all the violence, the dire living conditions and the occupation? Are the effects of these being exaggerated and are the people’s lives starting to improve? This is what was going through my mind. In reality the situation in Iraq has been deteriorating (if that is in fact possible) and the large voter turn out and the polls actually tell a very different story. As for the poll suggesting that Iraqis are more optimistic about their futures, this is down to them having reached such a desperate state that they can no longer envisage it getting any worse and hence feel that surely things have to get better. I sincerely hope they do, but very much doubt they will. The reason for this is because nothing is going to change, so why should anything get better. That brings me on to the next topic, large voter turn out. Why are Iraqis voting in large numbers? This is because Iraqis want change and have been told that the ONLY way you can do this is by participating in the democratic process. Even large numbers of sunnis have taken part because they have been forced to, not because they want to. There is a big difference between the two. Muslims are being prevented from choosing their own political destiny just like in the dictatorial regimes in the rest of the Muslim world. Just because they elect their government doesn’t mean they are choosing their political destiny. They have treated it as a damage limitation exercise out of desperation. Iraqis feel that changing the government will change the country’s situation but this theory is very superficial. Iraq has had two elections already and nothing has improved. That’s because the problems are still there and democratically elected governments won’t be able to solve them.
Candidates elected based on their ethnicity can only deepen ethnic tensions. Electing a president based on how “strong” he is can only bring further violence. Participating in elections organised by your occupiers can only deepen their long term presence.
The solution would be a system that eradicates these problems and one that can unite all the people of Iraq, not further divide them along ethnic lines. Look at Britain and Ireland. Democracy failed to ease the tensions between the two with the Irish winning independence from British rule in 1916.
As far as the elections meeting global standards, well I’ve yet to see elections taking place when a country is occupied and under the strictest and tightest security measures.
All in all I would say that the Iraqis have reached the lowest state of desperation and not even the most accomplished western spin doctors are going to convince me otherwise.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:31 am
Nice post. Seen quite a fair bit of stuff on what BS the elections are about, but you’ve come across it from an angle I ain’t seen. Good stuff. Laters.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Excellent post!
The US government have been very clear that it will not allow the Iraqi people to choose their own system to live by. They want to impose Secular Democracy whether the people want it or not. Basically it’s the “US Government way or the Highway”.
The audacity of the Western Governments amazes me. They’re are using the desperation of ordinary people for their own agenda!
Just this morning I watched Bush tell the American people that withdrawing troops from Iraq means handing the State over to the Terrorists. What he really means is withdrawing troops from Iraq is handing Iraq back to the Iraqi people and the end of the occupation.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:55 pm
What do you think of French opposition to the Iraq War, which in my view was motivated by “Better Saddam than Shari’ah”, by analogy with Algeria?
December 21st, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Thanks for the comment George. I think all the western nations share the same view that everything should be done to prevent the rise of a powerful Islamic nation. This is becuase it would threaten their worldwide economic interests and also pose a serious ideological threat. I dont think France was in a position to support the war in Iraq because France has many domestic problems especially amongst its ethnic minorities which culminating in the recent riots. The hijab ban introduced a couple of years ago and the ongoing marginalisation of Muslims in France have intensified the problems. Supporting the war in Iraq would have been catastrophic for France in this respect. France also has aspirations of being the dominant force in Europe and hence opposses Britain on many policies not just the war in Iraq. If Frence was a little bit wiser they could have milked the war in Iraq but because of their previous “own goals”, their lack of participation has merely acted as mere concilation from a long list of political blunders. Expect to see the French continue to oppose British foreign policy.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:03 pm
I’m surprised the neocons didn’t draw an obvious lesson from the anti-American and anti-British attitudes of the French.
France was liberated by Anglo-Saxon arms, and still hasn’t got over it. And France is much more similar to Britain and America culturally than Iraq is, and it was liberated from a foreign dictator, not a home-grown one.
December 25th, 2005 at 11:01 am
QUOTED by you: “Why are Iraqis voting in large numbers? This is because Iraqis want change and have been told that the ONLY way you can do this is by participating in the democratic process. Even large numbers of sunnis have taken part because they have been forced to, not because they want to.”
If you have origins from Iraq, you would dearly understand how much Iraqis do not understand the process of True ‘democracy’. You can Go figure the history of democracy and proceeding of it that happened in USA itself. It took long years of desperation to stand clear from the real evil, violence without a reason.
I dont know what you seek from Iraq’s future but the first step to lose meaningLess violence is to take upon elections, that is the best way for Iraqis to voice their opinion.
Iraq isnt only Muslim and you would know that…
Salam
December 25th, 2005 at 11:27 am
QUOTED by you: “Why are Iraqis voting in large numbers? This is because Iraqis want change and have been told that the ONLY way you can do this is by participating in the democratic process. Even large numbers of sunnis have taken part because they have been forced to, not because they want to.”
If you have origins from Iraq, you would dearly understand how much Iraqis do not understand the process of ‘democracy’! Go figure the history of democracy and proceeding of it that happened in USA itself. It took long years of desperation to stand clear from the real evil, violence without a reason.
Elections were not particularly enforced on the Iraqis, there is a major need of re-education about the principles of democracy. Instead of the violence to make attention on election day, these criminals should have made protests or voted in the elections to help change the results or simply make it MORE controversial.
This is the best way for Iraq. If not, what else is there that you could pick out of the box? Iraq is NOT only Muslim, even if its majority is. We are not making the elections to save Muslim Iraqis only..
Salam.
December 25th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Wa ‘alaikum assalaam, Baghdad.
Thanks for your comments.
I’m in the middle of other things at the moment, but inshaAllah either I or another contributor will leave a more comprehensive reply soon.
You said: “if you have origins from Iraq, you would dearly understand how much Iraqis do not understand the process of ‘democracy’!”
A few things came to my mind as I read your comments. First, as it happens, be humble actually is Iraqi. I personally see that as being coincidental, since it is just as possible for anyone to appreciate the reality of the Iraqi people with regards to democracy. It seems quite clear that many in Iraq don’t fully understand the democratic system or its implications. No doubt Iraqi’s are not the only ones in this situation.
However, you continued to say:
“…that happened in USA itself. It took long years of desperation to stand clear from the real evil, violence without a reason.”
I disagree that the USA has separated itself from real evil and unnecessary violence. Please provide evidence for your claim. I suggest that you take a look at the CIA’s own statistics for crime in America - they stand in contrast to your statement.
Furthermore, I don’t see why we should assume that democracy would ever be a means to standing clear from evil in Iraq. A brief summary of democracy would be “government by the people or by their elected representatives”. The elected representatives are evil in a multitude of democracies. Why should we assume that Iraq would be any different in this regard?
You then said:
“Iraq is NOT only Muslim, even if its majority is. We are not making the elections to save Muslim Iraqis only..”
Iraq is not exclusively filled with those calling for democracy, either. In fact, by your own admission, many Iraqi’s don’t even know what democracy is, so they could hardly be calling for it.
Your point seems to be that since there are some Iraqis who are non-Muslim that the solution to the problems in Iraq should not be Islam. However, the Islamic solution to this problem does not require that the population be exclusively Muslim. (This last point will undoubtedly require more explanation - sorry for the brevity)
December 26th, 2005 at 12:12 am
As far as the violence goes, this continues because the people committing the violence do not have faith that democracy will solve their problems and hence they do not participate. So democracy will not solve the security issues in Iraq.
The point I was trying to make is that what ever government comes to power, they will not solve Iraq’s problems. This is because Iraq has deep rooted problems that democracy can not solve: Large ethnic divisions and occupation. Both of these cause massive security problems. We have seen in the past however, that Islam has been the only system that can overcome these issues, for example in Madinah. The two most powerful tribes, the aws and khazraj saw that Islam was the only system that could unite them and solve their deep rooted problems.
If you want the democracy of the USA then you’re very easily pleased. Corporations and the rich and powerful rule the country and oppress the poor, look at New Orleans for example. Lets not fall into the trap of desiring secular democracy because it is the “least” oppressive system in the world today, lets desire the very best which is undoubtedly Islam, which brought man out of darkness and into light and will return to Iraq inshAllah and do the same.
January 1st, 2006 at 5:27 am
Sorry for the belated reply.
be humble:
“As far as the violence goes, this continues because the people committing the violence do not have faith that democracy will solve their problems and hence they do not participate. So democracy will not solve the security issues in Iraq.”
It seems you support the violence in Iraq because of what and how you said it in the above.
“We have seen in the past however, that Islam has been the only system that can overcome these issues, for example in Madinah.”
I repeat, Iraq is not Islam nor only Muslim. Democracy is the only way, even if corrupted because corrupted theocracy can indefinitely hurt Iraqis far worse than a simple political formation of the government. remind yourself that not all Muslim Iraqis have the right concept of Islam, so if its Islamic law in Iraq you will have problems to solve too and theyd be religious, and religious wars are not that great. Religious wars are driven by passion and emotion for the faithful ones, while political wars arent. I insist to keep it just political.
Im not proud of the democracy in USA, but no matter what the US administration does, Americans are still able to dispute and insult their own government. Maybe not now due to the new laws of security and safety in USA. But can that ever happen in our Islamic Laws in the middle east? Is it a sin to question our governments and discuss its mistakes? Because in Saudi for example, it is a sin.
of course the powerful rule the country, this is so much the same to the powerful ruling in the middle eastern countries, or rather powerful ‘locals’. Its only that poverty is simply MORE obvious in the Middle East, can you tell me why? hehe
“lets desire the very best which is undoubtedly Islam, which brought man out of darkness and into light and will return to Iraq inshAllah and do the same.”
Islam is perfect from the start. The Islam we have today with all the attempted changes and personal explanations from scholars is not perfect but the faithful person can see truth of Islam from Lies. Islam being ruled by human Muslims will NOT be perfect
I fear how Muslims will use Islam in the wrong way as already done. So keep Islam to yourself and stop making it community wise. It is for the sake of Islam to not be self destructed by the mis-handling of it.
January 1st, 2006 at 7:35 am
JazakAllah khair for the comment.
You said:
“It seems you support the violence in Iraq because of what and how you said it in the above.”
You’ve confused an explanation with justification; there is a difference. be humble has given a reason for the violence, and stated his opinion on the ability of democracy to provide security to Iraq. Never - not once - has he said that violence is the solution to these problems.
You said: “I repeat, Iraq is not Islam nor only Muslim.”
I addressed this point when you made it before. I encourage you to read my previous comment and respond accordingly. If you’d like me to elaborate, I’d be willing, inshaAllah.
You said: “remind yourself that not all Muslim Iraqis have the right concept of Islam”
Many Muslims do not fully/correctly understand Islam. That is no reason to assume that they cannot live in an Islamic system. By your own admission many Iraqis do not understand democracy, and yet you seem to see that as little or no barrier to them adopting it as a system of government.
I’d like to point out that none of us are suggesting a theocracy in Iraq. Your example of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (unsurprisingly) is a Kingdom, not a theocracy. It could be argued that Iran is a theocratic state. We’re not in support of that style of government in Iraq either. There is a profound difference between either of these un-Islamic systems and that being proposed by the contributors to this blog.
You said: “so if its Islamic law in Iraq you will have problems to solve too and they’d be religious, and religious wars are not that great. Religious wars are driven by passion and emotion for the faithful ones, while political wars arent.”
Even if the Islamic system was established in Iraq, there would be problems, I’m sure. However, your point seems to be that political wars are better because the people aren’t passionate and emotional about their cause.
There are two points that come to mind:
(1) Are you suggesting that it is better for people not to be passionate about their cause? Are you not passionate about democracy?
(2) While that could be true for some wars, I really doubt you could prove your point to be true in all cases. Even if we refer to your original example of the formation of American democracy, I’m quite sure there were plenty of people who were passionate and emotional about their cause. If you believe otherwise, I’d love to know why?
You say that political wars are not driven by emotion and passion. As I understand it, the American coalition went to war in Iraq because of politics. Over 30,000 people have died in Iraq since the start of the war. Please explain why you think the people involved in this war are not emotional and passionate?
You said: “Im not proud of the democracy in USA, but no matter what the US administration does, Americans are still able to dispute and insult their own government. Maybe not now due to the new laws of security and safety in USA.”
OK, so you’ve refuted your own point?
You said: “Is it a sin to question our governments and discuss its mistakes? Because in Saudi for example, it is a sin.”
I’ve already stated that Saudi is a Kingdom. The Saudi royal family are not Allah, or his beloved Messenger (saws). They have no right to make anything a sin.
As for the Islamic system, it definitely contains the provision for accounting the government. Indeed there is a whole structure that is designed purely for that purpose. In fact it is a fard for the citizens to account the leadership in the Islamic system, i.e. they would be sinful for NOT accounting the government.
You said: “Islam is perfect from the start. The Islam we have today with all the attempted changes and personal explanations from scholars is not perfect but the faithful person can see truth of Islam from Lies.”
Here we can agree to some extent. Many people have attempted to pervert the message of Islam. The obvious solution is to clarify our understanding of Islam, not to reject it.
You said: “Islam being ruled by human Muslims will NOT be perfect :)”
I assume you mean an Islamic system run by people. We’re not suggesting an automatic utopia. It will face problems, but at least - as you stated - it would be perfect in origin. Democracy is not perfect in origin or in practice.
You said “So keep Islam to yourself and stop making it community wise.”
Please give me even a single ayat or hadith that supports your proposition to “keep Islam to yourself”. If you want, I’m quite happy to provide a plethora of evidences that would show your suggestion to be haram.