Let's read that again. "We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries...It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam."
This is from the Obama White House, and I believe the Kool-ade is being served in mass quantities. The disconnect between these words and the reality of Islam is not just stunning, it is egregious in the extreme. The administration believes that, on the one hand Islam in politics is nothing to be afraid of, and in the other Islam will not be used as a measure of how those politics assert themselves.
By separating Islam as a religion from Islam as a political body we only fool ourselves, as Muslims themselves tell us there is no separation between mosque and state. How the WH manages to keep a straight face when they say this is quite the feat.
First we wanted democracy and secular ideals because we believed the protesters were invoking the ghost of Jefferson. Now we want to make sure we identify the more Islamic elements, and deal with them accordingly.
...any way the wind blows...
From The Washington Post March 4 by Scott Wilson
The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics.
What took so long for the light to come on, Barak?
The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.
A crock of crap. There is no difference between any Islamist government as the central tenets are based in the same ideology. This is parsing hairs to find someone we believe we can work with. The result will be chaos for us, and another setback for understanding the dynamics between Islam and the West.
"We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal policy deliberations. "It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam."
Islamist governments span a range of ideologies and ambitions, from the primitive brutality of the Taliban in Afghanistan to Turkey's Justice and Development Party, a movement with Islamist roots that heads a largely secular political system.
The secularism of Kamal Attaturk's vision is almost gone, thanks to it's current Islamist president, Erdogan.
None of the revolutions over the past several weeks has been overtly Islamist, but there are signs that the uprisings could give way to more religious forces. An influential Yemeni cleric called this week for the U.S.-backed administration of President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be replaced with Islamist rule, and in Egypt, an Islamist theoretician has a leading role in drafting constitutional changes after President Hosni Mubarak's fall from power last month.
A number of other Islamist parties are deciding now how big a role to play in protests or post-revolution reforms.
Since taking office, President Obama has argued for a "new beginning" with Islam, suggesting that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible. But in doing so, he has alarmed some foreign-policy pragmatists and allies such as Israel, who fear that governments based on religious law will inevitably undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.
Which Islamic beliefs upheld as right and correct by recognized clerics, imams, sheikhs, Ayatollahs or Mullahs are compatible with democratic principles, Mr. Obama? Care to tell us?
Read it all
This is from the Obama White House, and I believe the Kool-ade is being served in mass quantities. The disconnect between these words and the reality of Islam is not just stunning, it is egregious in the extreme. The administration believes that, on the one hand Islam in politics is nothing to be afraid of, and in the other Islam will not be used as a measure of how those politics assert themselves.
By separating Islam as a religion from Islam as a political body we only fool ourselves, as Muslims themselves tell us there is no separation between mosque and state. How the WH manages to keep a straight face when they say this is quite the feat.
First we wanted democracy and secular ideals because we believed the protesters were invoking the ghost of Jefferson. Now we want to make sure we identify the more Islamic elements, and deal with them accordingly.
...any way the wind blows...
From The Washington Post March 4 by Scott Wilson
Obama administration prepares for possibility of new post-revolt Islamist regimes
What took so long for the light to come on, Barak?
The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.
A crock of crap. There is no difference between any Islamist government as the central tenets are based in the same ideology. This is parsing hairs to find someone we believe we can work with. The result will be chaos for us, and another setback for understanding the dynamics between Islam and the West.
"We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal policy deliberations. "It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam."
Islamist governments span a range of ideologies and ambitions, from the primitive brutality of the Taliban in Afghanistan to Turkey's Justice and Development Party, a movement with Islamist roots that heads a largely secular political system.
The secularism of Kamal Attaturk's vision is almost gone, thanks to it's current Islamist president, Erdogan.
None of the revolutions over the past several weeks has been overtly Islamist, but there are signs that the uprisings could give way to more religious forces. An influential Yemeni cleric called this week for the U.S.-backed administration of President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be replaced with Islamist rule, and in Egypt, an Islamist theoretician has a leading role in drafting constitutional changes after President Hosni Mubarak's fall from power last month.
A number of other Islamist parties are deciding now how big a role to play in protests or post-revolution reforms.
Since taking office, President Obama has argued for a "new beginning" with Islam, suggesting that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible. But in doing so, he has alarmed some foreign-policy pragmatists and allies such as Israel, who fear that governments based on religious law will inevitably undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.
Which Islamic beliefs upheld as right and correct by recognized clerics, imams, sheikhs, Ayatollahs or Mullahs are compatible with democratic principles, Mr. Obama? Care to tell us?
Read it all
No comments:
Post a Comment