Submit your comments on this article | |
Home Front: WoT | |
Ledeen: The Light and Dark Sides of the War on Terrorism | |
2005-10-20 | |
In a formal cabinet meeting chaired by Iran's new president’s first deputy, the ministers printed and ratified an agreement with the Shiites' 12th Imam. In his opening remarks, Parviz Davoudi, Ahmadinejad' first deputy suggested that the cabinet ministers should sign an agreement with 12th Imam, the same way they signed a pact with the new president. The ministers collectively agreed and so there is now an agreement between the two! The ministers then questioned how the 12th hidden Imam will sign the agreement!We are talking about some of the highest-ranking officials in the Islamic republic. So far as I know, this is not political satire, it’s reportage. And the point is obvious, isn’t it? We are not dealing with people like us (although a couple of the more hyper columnists at, say, the New York Times might well suspect that there are lots of evangelicals who secretly aspire to this sort of behavior). The Iranian people are suffering enormously at the hands of this regime, whose president "was not in power to build roads" and owes its legitimacy to a vanished religious figure at the bottom of a well in one of the most beautiful cities in the world. And for those who thought that Iranian "elections" somehow gave a form of democratic legitimacy to the president and his cabinet, read it again. It’s the 12th imam, not the people of Iran, who bestows power. There are two groups of people who ought to be made to read this account several times: those European pseudo-diplomats who think that you can reach a rational modus vivendi with the mullahs; and the innumerable failed diplomats and elected officials (I am thinking, as I so often do, of Senator Richard Lugar and his buddies on the Foreign Relations Committee, who do not deign to take testimony from critics of the Iranian regime) in this country who keep on calling for normalization with Iran. We’re talking about real fanatics here. Fun reading, yes, but they kill a lot.
| |
Posted by:tipper |
#5 Louis XIV got away with it, mainly because of his wardrobe, I think, I would argue that it was because he threw fabulous parties, but otherwise Heah, heah! |
Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-20 23:11 |
#4 be a cold f*cking day in hell before I bow to any islamist punk imam. |
Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-20 15:48 |
#3 From my simpleton point of view, the problem with Islam is the "I'm right, you're wrong, (and hence in most cases you must die)" attitude. If they only got over that hurdle, the rest would fall into place, including the democracy thingie and personal liberty. Humility is the key. |
Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-20 14:53 |
#2 There were a LOT more checks and balances in the Louis XIV regime than people (specially non-French) know and also much more than in your average Muslim sultanacy (1). (1) Hint: When a minister was suspected of stealing from public treasure or when people tried to poison him, he couldn't just have all suspects and their relatives to the third generation be impaled and do away with it like it would have happenned in Turkey. He had to have them tried and some were released. Many of teh actions perpetrated openly by your average sultan (or Arab dictator) would have cased Louis XIV to be declared demented or unfit to rule and deposed. |
Posted by: JFM 2005-10-20 11:05 |
#1 Unless it goes through a number of contortions, Islam — of virtually any flavor — is incompatible with democracy due to its insistence that rights not only derive from God (a belief we share) but that only holy men are qualified to interpret God's will That actually ain't the problem. The problem is the core belief in Islam that humanity is not capable of governing itself. I'm not talking about morality and religious ritual -- Judaism and Christianity both have their own codes for those, but also recognize that people have the ability to agree upon a set of rules outside of those from the divine and that those rules -- unless unjust in very specific and limited ways -- are as morally binding as the core requirements of the religion. The Islamic theory is that man-made laws are meaningless; the only meaningful law is sharia. *THAT* is incompatible with democracy. Following that's the "inshallah" attitude at its philosophical core. The Judaic and Christian tradition is that God made the physical laws and, excepting very limited examples of miracles, He also obeys them. The Islamic tradition is that everything happens because Allah wills it so; if the same thing happens every time you try X it's because Allah made the same decision every time. |
Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-20 08:04 |