Staccato drill time:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Mina
Kumar
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:29 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Herman responds
>
>
>
> >From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
> >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >CC: <hermane at wharton.upenn.edu>, <lnp3 at panix.com>
> >Subject: RE: Herman responds
> >Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:11:14 -0500
>
> >
> >Islamic supermacists are, in fact, trying to take over
> Pakistan, just as
> >they have tried to take over Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They
> did take over
> >Iran
> >for a long time. This is not to defend any of those
regimes,
> but to argue
> >that to just flick off the reality of Islamic supermacist
> exapnsionism is
> >absurd.
>
>
> By Islamic supremacists, do you mean those who believe in
the
> institution of religious law?
Yes, although in the social totalitarian sense of a theocracy, thus more than church/state alliances or an official state religion. I prefer the term Islamic supremacy to Islamism which I find problematic in contrast to standard uses of terms for other religions, such as "Judaism" not meaning Jewish supremacy or theocracy.
> Would you say Islamic supremacism is always
> expansionist?
No. Nor is it fair to call every form of Islamic supremacism fascist.
> By expansionism, do you mean that these movements don't
concede the
> legitimacy of nation-states?
Not at all. They concede, at least in the short term, the legitimacy of nation-states. Specifically, the Salafist version of Ultra-Wahhabism (or for the purest the emerging fusion of those strains) calls for overthrowing the exisiting regimes and replacing them with regimes of purified and sanctified Islam. The goal ultimately, however, is re-establishing a caliphate.
Richard Hooker: "The earliest caliphs were relatives and
followers of Muhammad himself. Under these four caliphs, the
political, social, and religious institutions of Islam would
be solidified, including the definitive edition of the
Qur'an . The world of Islam would expand far beyond the
borders of the Arabian peninsula during their tenure—east
into the Persian empire, north into Byzantine territory, and
west across the face of northern Africa. "
==from http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/CALIPH.HTM
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >Saudi Arabia is an example of a repressive and
reactionary
> >orthodox Islamic theocracy, but it is not technically
> fascist. The point is
> >not to be an apologist for the Saudi regime, but to
suggest
> that theocratic
> >Islamic fundamentalist totalitarianism would be worse
than
> the already
> >repressive Saudi oligarchy.
>
>
> Above you give Iran under Khomeini as an example of a
state
> run by Islamic
> supremacists. What are the distinguishing features
between
> it and the SA
> regime? Is it the structure of gov't institutions?
Actually, I have never studied the government structures of Iran under Khomeini or the (generic) Wahhabist government of Saudi Arabia. I do not argue that either represents a form of fascism, merely a theocracy--which is, however, an element of clerical fascism.
-cb
>
____________________________________________________________
_____
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>