When the dust settles in the Arab world, do you think things will be fundamentally different?

I hope so, but despots love a vacuum. I hope that it is not a case of changing masters.

I also hope so. My fear is that this will be a chance for some fundamental Islamic governments, based on sharia law, to take root. A leap from revolution straight to democracy is probably far too unlikely.

Nope. The middle east has been like that for the last 4000 or so years.

No. The culture has a couple of flaws that will not go away soon.
Among them, but not all inclusive, are:
A belief that the political state and the mystical church should be the same thing-any civilization steeped in mysticism is ripe for dictatorship or capricious theocracy.
Diminished role of women in the civil society-this means that half the team is on the bench all the time.
A belief that Islam is the final statement from God, and thus any information from the previously established God centered faiths is useless if not blasphemous, hence a disdain for anything Western including science and commerce.
Little infrastructure to allow social and economic development since most of the oil money has been used to pay for lavish lives of kings and despots.
Etc.

Seeing the total lack of change for such a long time, I doubt things will be any different.

But this seems to be different, since it has grown from a widespread movement of the people, not from a top-down attempt to enforce change.

“Seeing the total lack of change for such a long time, I doubt things will be any different.”

Just because it hasn’t rained for a long time doesn’t mean it won’t ever rain. And when it rains, it pours.

@Hobbes the current government of Iran came about from a widespread movement of the people

@RareDenver

True, though it got out of their hands pretty quickly.

@Lightlyseared Incorrect.

For most of the last 100 years (since the end of the first World War at least) the middle east has been controlled by western/Russian backed monarchies, or “largely” western/Russian backed dictatorships.

Prior to that the middle east was almost entirely controlled under the Ottoman Empire since around the end of the middle ages. During that time it was run very similar to many of the current monarchies, but without any major western or Russian influence (the Ottoman Empire was on the same field as them for most of its existence).

Prior to that during the middle ages, the middle east was in a continuous change of leadership between Muslims, Christians, Mongols, and whoever else.

Each of those eras alone is wildly different than the other two (warring factions with constantly changing leadership, hundreds of years of stability and even being a world power, “stability” under rulers who have vastly different ideals and are dictators).

Going even further back you get into the Persian and Roman Empires, the Roman Republic, ancient egypt, etc…. pre-dating Christianity, Islam, and even Judaism in part of that if I’m not mistaken.

Now I would agree that its not exactly the place I’d have wanted to live for most of the last 4000 years.

@Hobbes Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979, and to approve a new theocratic constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979. The people voted to have it taken from their hands so to speak.

These things are different (although that’s not saying things will necessarily change):

1. People have access to information. Blame the internet.

2. People are engaged in businesses with international ties. It is impossible to isolate a population and succeed economically.

3. It is no longer enough to keep people from congregating to share ideas. They can share them electronically, and it’s not feasible for most of these governments to do anything about it. So action can spring up suddenly as it did in Egypt to bring down a government, no matter how much that government is willing to do to prevent it.

4. The alignment of the Arab League with Western powers to oppose Kadafi is new. No leader can substantiate a claim that it’s “Us against the USA,” which has been a rallying cry for extremists – including Iran. Gaining power by leading the fight against the greater evil is an old tactic. Has it lost credibility?

5. There are large numbers of devout Muslims who accept an increasing role for women. Most people in Pakistan would fit this description. Educated people tend to be more supportive of equality and educated people are the ones accumulating the bucks.

6. The growing presence of the Chinese in Africa has to impede the cause of theocracies.

@6rant6

“Educated people tend to be more supportive of equality and educated people are the ones accumulating the bucks.”

I’ve been doing some research on the topic of women and Islam lately (mostly sparked by the writings of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.) I was wondering if you have any reports or data on the claim that educated Muslims are more likely to support equality? It makes intrinsic sense if the education is secular but not if the education itself is religiously-based. I can’t find any data on this specific issue, just some on the existing gap between Muslim countries and Western ones on women’s rights issues.

@crisw Well religious based education just by its nature will be less based on facts and more based on religion (customs/culture/religion/etc). I don’t have a study to cite for you but it would stand to reason that people educated at any religious based school (regardless of creed) would be less open to “new” or “radical” ideas of equality or other things that someone taught in a school with no religious foundation would.

But imo the gap between treatment of women in many parts of the islamic world has a ton more to do with them being third world countries that haven’t really breached that barrier yet, as opposed to it being a religious barrier. Remember even Christianity once taught women were less than men, and women in the US have had voting rights for less than 100 years.

@tedd

My point was that, as far as I know, most schools in Islamic countries are not secular, and thus may not necessarily favor gender equality.

As far as your second paragraph, have you read any of Hirsi Ali’s work? I just finished Infidel, which is a real eye-opener. She places much (although not all) of the responsibility for the position of women in Muslim countries squarely on the spread of fundamentalist Islamic thought. She details, for example, how in her Kenyan neighborhood, veiling was rare and women could go out alone without a hassle- until charismatic preachers of the Muslim Brotherhood came to town, established a following- and soon, fundamentalist ideas became the norm.

Fundamentally different no, but changed nonetheless. I read a book on American history once entitled America The Unfinished Nation. I believe human societies will evolve but rather very slowly.

Different Day Different Despot

@crisw Yah agreed, but that imo is because in a third world country people are more susceptible and likely to follow crazy religious nuts. If the US were a third world country I’ve little doubt the cult crazies and the KKK would have a much bigger following. When you’re angry with the hand life has dealt you, its easy to let someone evil take control.

Yes. Almost like when all of Eastern Europe gave up communism.

@tedd

That kind of gets us back to the subject of the question, as most Arab countries would probably be considered third-world.

And I think the crazies would hold sway in the US if it weren’t for legislation.

@crisw

The crazies do hold sway in the US. Where have you been?

@Hobbes Agreed Hobbes. But they’re not nearly as crazy or holding as much control as the ones in sayyyyyy Iran.

Well, I would argue that here, the violence and the other effects of the crazy just get exported. We don’t see it because it’s not happening to us, it’s happening to people in this country who have been marginalized, to people in other countries we never have to see or acknowledge, and to parts of the world we’ve never been to and which we think don’t affect us.

@Hobbes

You do have a very good point. The actions of US evangelicals in places like Uganda is indeed very similar to the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Africa and the Middle East.

Well, by “the crazies” I was talking more about the heads of large multinational corporations, but that’s true too.

@crisw – The Muslim Brotherhood is a breeding ground for Islamist extremism supporting physical violence while even the most radical US evangelicals are not (with the exception of the few criminals who killed abortion doctors or who launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater because it was showing ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’).

The Danish Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons triggered worldwide demonstrations also organized by the Muslim Brotherhood triggering physical violence. Radical Muslims kill because of obscene pictures, radical Christians don’t (they did in the past).

Violence in Northern Ireland for example was done in the name of nationalism not religion. Violence in Stalin’s Soviet Union was done in the name of communism, not atheism. Violence in Libya is done in the name of obtaining freedom or defending dictatorship, not religion. But Islamist terrorism like for 911 was done in the name of religion.

I am horrified by what the US evangelicals do, but we need to keep things in perspective. Most evangelicals support the US constitution endorsing freedom of speech and laws created by elected representatives. Most members of the Muslim Brotherhood fight for the implementation of political Islam which means the Quran and the Sharia is the constitution.

@mattbrowne You had me until you wrote, ”[US evangelicals] support the US constitution endorsing freedom of speech and laws created by elected representatives”

That would be freedom of speech except where it differs with their religious views. Excluded items would include, sexual orientation, anti-captialist sentiment, atheism, hedonism, porn, etc. They may SAY they support the constitution. But they don’t have a glimmer of what free speech means.

@6rant6 – Like followers of the Muslim Brotherhood not all US evangelicals hold very extreme views. I’m no fan of G.W. Bush, but I’m pretty sure he’s in favor of the US consitution. You are right that many evangelicals are very intolerant, but again, we need to be careful comparing them to supporters of political Islam like many in the MB.

You see, when some religious zealot kills a homosexual in the US, he is breaking the law. When some religious zealot in a country run by political Islam kills a homosexual he is enforcing the law.

That’s quite a difference. And that’s my point.

@mattbrowne

It’s the laws in the US that restrain the religious fundamentalists, not themselves. As I mentioned above, Uganda was an example of what they would like to do in the US but cannot, because of our laws.

Many US fundamentalists do not support the Constitution, especially that pesky Second Amendment. To them, the only “true” law is “God’s law.”

@crisw – Yes, to some of the US fundamentalists the only “true” law is “God’s law”, but they still don’t resort to killing people. If some Muslim were to burn a Bible they would be in a violent temper when interviewed by Fox. Yet they would not storm the 760 United Nations Plaza building in New York, NY and murder several people.

This is why I wrote that while US Christian fundamentialism is bad and dangerous, Islamist fundamentialism is much worse and extremely dangerous. That’s all. We need to keep things in perspective. I’m puzzled by the attitude of anti-religious Americans. They seem to be very biased when it comes to Christianity versus Islam. Therefore their criticism is not very credible.

@mattbrowne

I do think that Islamic fundamentalism is far, far worse in terms of its present effect on the world. And I disagree that other American atheists find the actions of fundamentalist Christians more offensive than those of fundamentalist Muslims. The truth is that, in our society, its the Christian fundamentalists that have the most impact on our daily lives, thus we focus more on them. It may thus then seem that we find them more offensive.

@tedd Well religious based education just by its nature will be less based on facts and more based on religion (customs/culture/religion/etc). I don’t have a study to cite for you but it would stand to reason that people educated at any religious based school (regardless of creed) would be less open to “new” or “radical” ideas of equality or other things that someone taught in a school with no religious foundation would

Would it be ok to just point out that these statements are so broad and so biased as to be meaningless? It “stands to reason”? No kidding!!

But imo the gap between treatment of women in many parts of the islamic world has a ton more to do with them being third world countries that haven’t really breached that barrier yet, as opposed to it being a religious barrier

You really think so? It couldn’t be that Islam actually teaches that women are worthless pieces of property?

Remember even Christianity once taught women were less than men, and women in the US have had voting rights for less than 100 years.

No, @tedd that was taught Before Christ. Christ actually taught that women were equal with men and throughout his ministry on earth demonstrated that belief over and over. Just one example was his conversation with a woman at the well in a time when men would not even talk to a woman in public. Such was not always the case in the ebb and flow of Christianity over the centuries, but the equality of men and woman was certainly taught by the person that gave birth to Christianity.