20 comments

• Comment Link Tuesday, 30 April 2013 20:12 posted by Gato

  Actually, this comes down to a fundamental question about democracy: should a nation have a right to institutionalize internal inequality by vote?

• Comment Link Tuesday, 30 April 2013 20:02 posted by Gato

  The debate is really a lessor of two evils question: Are secular dictators in the Middle East better than religious dictators in the long term? The question then becomes: which dictatorship, if any, would engender a more liberalized society enough to break the orbit of dictatorship *in a stable way* first? Then the question becomes: if one choice is ultimately more stable in the long term, but has to go through a period of 'worse before better,' how much 'worse' are we willing to accept in the short term to get there?
  
  The second question leads us to consider what liberalizing forces are at play in each context. Reactance psychology is important to consider here (what Scott Atran calls "sacred values"; these are not necessarily religious values, but unassailable ones) and so is the influence of technology as a force for combating xenophobia through social education, creating international in-groups, while enabling more autonomy. There are, of course, other factors, but of these two main ones, which dictatorship would allow for more technology, yet prevent 'sacred value' reactance? I think that these would be really good avenues of empirical and historical research to start to build a case.

• Comment Link Friday, 22 March 2013 00:01 posted by Cathy

  Pardon me, but I think this debate was extremely badly handled. The debate was not "Are Islamists better than liberal democracies?" but "Are they better than dictatorships?" Mr. Pipes and Jasser kept harping on that Islamists are the worst and that there's a "Third Way" – that of liberals. Well, yes, we all support the liberals (in other countries) but by putting up liberals as the alternative to Islamists, they're twisting the terms of the debate, and Mr. Donovan NEVER POINTED THIS OUT. When the audience voted for Pipes and Jasser, they were voting for liberals, not for dictatorships.
  
  Historically, if you look at Theocracies, they tend to wither after a while. NONE of the the theocracies in the world today are more than forty years old. Even Saudi Arabia is less than a hundred years old, and they're a dictatorship, not a true theocracy. Dictatorships, on the other hand, do not wither, they found dynasties and go on for centuries.
  
  One person pointed out that Islamist groups have tended to rise because of reactions against dictators (who we've supported) and against foreign influence. However, this point wasn't taken up, maybe because Messrs. Pipes and Jasser didn't want to admit we helped cause the Islamists' rise.
  
  A lot of the audience, and a lot of the people commenting on this website, seem to think:
  1. All Muslims hate America (they don't)
  2. Sharia law is automatically rigid and oppressive (in fact, it's flexible and often tailored to the social customs of the countries it's in)
  3. That Muslims and "those countries" are inherently violent and want to kill everyone else. Having lived in the Middle East for twelve and a half years, I observed that people there are mainly interested in living a peaceful, productive life.
  
  Lastly, I have to ask, why did you have Daniel Pipes on the show? He's long been known to be both anti-Islamic and a rabid anti-Iranist, and from having read some of his previous stuff I suspect he's more interested in putting down Iran than in upholding the facts. He supports the MEK (a terrorist group which wants to overthrow the Tehran government and install themselves), he has smeared the National Iranian American Council because they want negotiations instead of war with Iran, and he is all for letting Israel bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
  He tried to tell us that the Oklahoma City bombings were the work of Islamists and announced in 1995 that Islamists have declared war on the USA. I think he lives for that theory; he's certainly made a lucrative career of it. After 9/11, he tried to tell us that Iran was behind the Twin Towers attack. He was a strong supporter of the Iraq war.
  He has suggested that American Muslims in the military might be "security risks" and that the "enfranchisement of American Muslims... will present true dangers to American Jews."
  On the surface Pipes may have a lot of credentials, but for anybody who has researched Middle Eastern affairs, having Pipes on the program detracts from your credibility.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 19 March 2013 13:06 posted by Jacob

  Laine: With very few infidels having been conquered by Muslims and lived to tell their tale to the infidel world, there IS one fine point that you missed.Although Muslims allow conquered dhimmis to initially possess the option of conversion - the option eventually becomes a mandate in ALL truly Sharia states. If you look at the Sharia state of Saudi Arabia, you see that Saudi Arabia is all but 100% Muslim. If you look at Egypt which is about to become a Sharia state via the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jews are already nonexistent and Christian Copts are about to encounter the full Sharia mandate to become Muslim - or die violently.But, it is important to note that dhimmi conversion does NOT confer new Muslims in conquered countries with either equal rights or equal status to native born Muslims or Arab Muslims.Indeed, where at all possible, Muslims treat converted conquered dhimmis as slaves for centuries after their conversion to Islam.Islam is an ARAB supremacist religion where the Arab Muslims claim superiority over all other Muslims - injuring the pride of conquered Iranians and Turks whose Muslim leaders constantly vie for supremacy despite the fact that 1) Mohammed was an Arab, 2) the Koran was written and is memorized and recited in Arabic, and 3) Medina and Mecca exist in Saudi Arabia - giving the Arabs all of the best theological trump cards.Tellingly, Arab Muslims still call black Muslims by the Arab insult word and which means both black and slave.

• Comment Link Saturday, 09 March 2013 22:54 posted by Rob Winters

  An important point absent from this debate is the inherent potential for change due to the democratic process. We vote parties in and out on a regular basis.
  
  Even the illusion of democracy cultivates discussion and participation.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:47 posted by mark

  First of all Islam WILL NOT CHANGE! perhaps for short and perhaps by extreme force. But after the elections its going to go back to its heritage. Suppression especially towards women, Violent towards other religions and most of all liberalism. once its roots digs deeper through its new president. Egypt as I remember it will be more Palastine than individual Egypt. Repressed and many regimes.

• Comment Link Friday, 08 February 2013 19:10 posted by John Wood

  Just watched this and was noting the term "Liberal Muslim" was very popular. On the other hand, "Conservative Muslim" wasn't mentioned at all. I presume one must assume that there are only two kinds of Muslims, "Liberal" Muslims and the other Muslims.
  
  Doing some historic math I see that Democracy doesn't happen fast where a political vacuum existed. If history is to be a lesson, the Middle East will roil in violence for a few hundred years before settling on some form of dysfunctional government. The crescent of Arab nations are far too close their old colonial masters in both geography and history.
  
  Beyond the lack of defining what is an "Islamist", my problem with the debate is that ultimately the pro-Islamist were defending what they hoped their side would turn into. The pro-dicators had it easy. "Hey, this is what these guys do..."

• Comment Link Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:15 posted by Myron

  The first principal of a debate is to define terms. The con side used the term Islamists but never defined it. The idea that there is no difference between the ruling party in Turkey & the Muslim brotherhood & Hamas is absurd. A radical Muslim fundamentist like those who took power in Mali, Iran or the Taliban are not in favor of democracy & elections. They are religious fascists. To paint the Ruling Turkish party, the ruling Tunisian party or even the Muslim brotherhood with the same brush is absurd. Religious Muslims vary widely in their politics & beliefs just like religious Christians.

• Comment Link Monday, 17 December 2012 18:31 posted by Mohammed

  I do not entirely disagree with the sentiment that moderate Muslims should be more vocal in denouncing the radical factions. But here's the problem with what King is doing. There are moderate Muslims who feel that Americans hate them for no other reason than their religion. They truly cannot understand how so many supposedly educated and intelligent Americans can be so completely intolerant and ignorant as to be unable to distinguish between terrorists and peaceful Muslims. Displays such as today's hearings reinforce that negative impression of us. Moderates who may indeed have denounced the extremists see less and less reason to support us. This is truly why I believe the King and his intolerant ilk are a greater threat to the long-term safety of the United States than the actual terrorists. Look, the extremists are crazy, desperate, or both. There will be no winning their hearts and minds. But the majority of the Muslim world is peaceful, and we should not risk alienating their hearts and minds. I'm not coming from a liberal or even a political perspective, it's simply common sense that there is nothing to be gained by pissing off billions of people based on fear and prejudice.

• Comment Link Saturday, 01 December 2012 16:57 posted by Betul Cam

  I am for the motion (even though the team for the motion was not well prepared and did not articulate their thoughts well).
  
  I accept a fair and open election results to dictatorship any day!
  As a muslim liberal, it is my responsibility to be active in my community and promote liberal values to gain support and educate my people. It might take decades but at least i know i can change things (assuming elections will be clean).
  
  Any leader who stays in power via shady elections is no different than a dictator, indeed he/she is one!