Thought for the day . . . . TFTD.ws

State of denial

TFTD: There is a general consensus amongst Arab nationalists and Islamists that Israel is an illegitimate entity and hence unworthy of recognition.

This is sometimes seen as a form of delusionary denial unique to the Arab mindset; a refusal to face the reality of their political impotence.

Q: What is it about Israel that makes it any LESS worthy of recognition than any other state in the region, such as, say, Lebanon? (Rummani)

4 W's of gradualism

TFTD: The secret of good governance isn't WHO's law is implemented, rather it's HOW and WHEN to transform ideas into policy, and HOW, WHEN, with WHO's support and with WHAT resources, to implement these policies on the ground.

Getting these 4 W's right or wrong marks the difference between a successful statesman and a failed politician.

However, balancing the 4 W's is just another description of gradualism, something that is often described as contrary to Islam.

Q: (How) can the two views be reconciled?

Political Islam?

TFTD: There are those who claim that 'political Islam' means campaigning to promote issues of interest to Muslims and to secure Muslim rights. To others, 'political Islam' simply means behaving Islamically while engaging in normal politics. Others believe political Islam requires holding conferences, marches and petitions about global issues. There is also a growing minority who believe political Islam involves such actions as blowing up commuter trains.

Q: Given the diversity of opinion, each claiming to have been derived from the Islamic texts, is it any wonder there is growing scepticism about whether there is such a thing as political Islam?

Apologists?

TFTD: It is widely perceived that the War on Terror is in fact a war on Islam and the Muslims.

Q: (How) Is it possible to stand up for Islam and the Muslims without defending terrorism and the terrorists?

Idiots guide to torture

TFTD: The coinciding of yesterday's revelations about the torture of top Al-Qaeda suspects, with the unravelling CIA "videogate" inquiry, has re-ignited the debate about whether or not torture can ever be justified.

The fashionable view is that torture is never justified, being an affront to human dignity and a violation of basic human rights. There is also a view that maintains that safeguarding human life is paramount, and causing discomfort, pain or anxiety can sometimes be justified in the interest of saving lives.

There is also a view claiming the debate is irrelevant, as all such matters are subject to a pre-determined divine ruling that can be arrived at via a process of Ijtihaad.

Q: If this is the case, what is the divine ruling on torture?

Wall of silence

TFTD: Another week, another capital, another scene of carnage and bloodshed. Although the casualties are almost all Muslims, the finger is quickly pointed at the Islamists. After the initial chorus of condemnation, questions are again being asked:

"What do those Islamists want?"
"What does killing Muslim bystanders have to do with establishing an Islamic state?"
"Isn't Islam supposed to promote peaceful coexistence of people?"
"Why aren't the Islamic groups doing more to combat this terrorism carried out in the name of Islam?"

Q: Considering the dangers such activities pose to society, why aren't those groups who consider themselves the vanguards of public opinion more vocal in their condemnation of such groups? 

Slice of the cake

TFTD: One proven way to avoid political unrest is to obtain the support of the main political stakeholders for the constitution by giving a sense of ownership of the political process.

This can be achieved by giving them a slice of what they would otherwise be fighting over, i.e. power. The parties are kept continually engaged by regularly re-apportioning the slices according to the level of popular support they each demonstrate.

While far from being perfect, such a mechanism at least has demosurated success at shifting the struggle from via battlefields to the polling booths.

Q: Isn't that what democracy is really about, rather than "legislation by man"?

Could this be the problem?

TFTD: Part of the obligation to maintain political unity by preventing armed conflict, is to study the REASONS for the failure of previous such attempts.

The methods mentioned recently (by ruling clans, claims of divine ordination, ruthless dictators and xenophobic fanatics) are all similar in their attempts to keep people out of effective politics, rather than encouraging them to engage in non-militant political activity.

Q: Could this be the problem?

Mouthful of adjectives

TFTD: And if the demise of the "dictatorship in a republic's clothing" isn't bad enough, there's at least one alternative being suggested that's seems even more likely to fail (that is, fail in the task of engaging and uniting political factions in the interest of unity and stability).

And yes, we've tried this one before too.

Its the autocratic self-righteous governance of the Islamist political literalists (how about that for a mouthful of adjectives!)

Their failure to bring about political consensus is a direct result of the bi-polar "zero-tolerance""attitude of ideological partisanship and is part of the nature of the beast, and hence cannot be avoided even with the best of intentions.

Q: So where does that leave us, in our quest for political consensus/harmony?

Don't you dare...

TFTD: Another tool used to maintain state unity and prevent the outbreak of politically-motivated conflict is fear.

We've tried that one too.

Experience has shown that populations are unlikely to engage in any form of political activity if they are  lead to believe that this will result in serious repercussions such as imprisonment, persecution or loss of livelihood.

Most dictatorships know that fact only too well. Indeed, finding ways to perpetuate this belief has been the secret of the continued existence of such regimes.

But as was the case with other techniques, it couldn't go on for ever.

Q: Tribal dynasties, divinely-ordained monarchs, repressive dictators... what next?