Food for thought

[Kho'ja Nasriddin]

[URL="http://www.ng.ru/cis/2000-12-21/5_ugroza.html"]http://www.ng.ru/cis/2000-12-21/5_ugroza.html</a>

It's hard for me not to agree with much of what is said in this article.

[:(++:(]

CHTOJE DELAT'...

[Slim]

Guys,
I am scared! I thing there is a lot of truth in that article.
I will have to use anonymizer.com in order to respond fully.
I don't know, it's all messed up! Shit! I don't know what to do.

[somebody]

I've picked up this idea before I completely agree with it: NEITHER TERRORISM NOR ISLAMIC HALIFAT IS THE PROBLEM FOR UZBEKISTAN. UZBEK PEOPLE ARE DESPERATE, COUNTRY WHERE AVERAGE WAGE IS $20, WHERE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE FAMILY 6 MEMBERS, THEY JUST WANT BETTER LIFE AND IF THEY TRY TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES THEY GO TO JAIL. WE DO NOT EVEN HAVE OPPOSITION THAT WOULD KEEP THINGS IN BALANCE. IF WE HAD JEW PEOPLE COMING AND OFFERING TO BUILD JEW QALIFAT, IF ONE OF CAUSE POSSIBLE, UZBEKS WOULD SUPPORT THEM TOO. DO U KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANT CHANGE, THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT RELIGION, IT IS JUST EXCUSE. AND SCENARIO OF REVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE IF CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION WILL PERSIST. and apparently no big changes are coming.

[Batarin]

Da chtoje delat pravda.Govoryat shto daje Interpolu ne po zubam :( budem nadeyatsya na luchshee

take care all

[tosmbdy]

average wage $20 ??????????????????????

[O'zbek]

Economic situation in Uzbekistan is really hard, I admit it.
But what I can't admit is these things which have the power to scare uzbek people. Of course most people in Uzb. have no idea about what are stated in this article. But, anyway, it woud not create a good atmosphere.
I think, many of these facts are artificial, just for frightening people.As Russian interest in Central Asia is very huge, these things will certainly appear in everywhere.
Also, I believe the strength of Uzbek government and its army though I don't wish the war to happen.
Corruption and lack of opposition should be the interior affairs of Uzbekistan.

[Kroka W. Bush]

Thanks for food :) I was starving for food like that :)

[Lucky]

Uzbekistan and uzbekistanis,by Allah's will, are blessed. We can rebuild our beatiful country if the ousiders do not make conspiracy against us. I would not mind to include : Russia,Iran, China, Pakistan, USA, to be in that fold.Our nation has a strong faith and loyalty to the government. And they do believe that Uzbekistan's future is Great. Japan, Germany and recently China also made the miracle. Do Not believe them (conspirators) if they say that we are gonna have problems in the Future. Ya Umidies uzbekistanis have US and We have them, please do not be upset by those messages. We are on the right Path. Who did not face the difficulties at the start of the good Job? Remeber our grandfather Amir Temur. When he saw an ant trying hard to succeed in its matter, Amir Temur made an oath to himself no matter what he wouldn't turn back from his way. Do not you remeber guys the Nazis? Everybody, almost, thought that we (former USSR) were going to lose. But what really happened? A miracle indeed. We crushed the Nazis, the superpower of that time because our people believed in the victory and were all ready to give their hearts and bloods to the least possible drops. Who are the little, dinky here and there so called oppisition? They are the people who sell their people for the profit of their fitna. Ya Umidies our dear motherland is waiting for and have hope in you. Do not be discouraged!!! They did not sent us for Nothing!!! Everything has a cause. Just by pass the people like Mr.Zi, not everybody is like him. There are lots of kind hearted people amongst our nation.Trust your Iyman and Strength. We can change something and trust me fellow umidies we can make a change. We are on The Straight Track.
Cheers,:)

[Student]

I think the author has some prejudice towards the government of Uzbekistan. The NG publishes articles depending on their policies adopted by the board of directors of the newspaper. If you take some interest on the sponsors and bossed of the newspaper you can find some more interesting information;).

About the material of the article: The article contains a lot of correct facts. But, what interesting is how these facts are interpreted and what the aim of the article is. As you know, it's not big problem to play with facts and interpret them in desirable way. The aim of this article seems to be damage the reputation of Uzbekistan and its government among readers.

If to use such an approach, the author could dig up the problems on the future of Russia with the same success;).

P.S. Guys, it’s really good that you have the desire and faith to make our future fairer then what we have today. We Umidies will bring something good and progressive to Uzbekistan, there are a lot of smart people there too, let's study well here and learn about achievements of countries we are studying in, the study, researches, time spent will give results!

[Freestyler]

To &lt;Lucky>, otnositel'no "miracle" vo vremya WWII:

Ya mojet tebe vsyo zaporyu, no vsyo je hochu otmetit' sleduyusheye. Nikakogo "miracle" ne bilo v tom, chto Nemeckiye Nacisti v konechnom itoge proigrali voynu.
Konechno ne malovajnuyu rol' v popede soyuznikov sigrala otvaga sovetskih voysk, odnako eta pobeda vo mnogom bila dostignuta i s pomoshyu Amerikancev, kotoriye pomogli otkrit' vtoroy front i vsyacheski sponsirovali sovetskuyu armiyu cherez Angliyu (Imeyutsya daje fakti togo chto celiye divizii v sovetskoy armii bili voorujeni amerikanskimi tankami i pushkami).
Da i Yaponiya sdalas' tol'ko posle parochki yadernih vzrivov so storoni amerikancev.
Ne udivitel'no, chto sredniy amerikanec dumayet, chto imenno oni i tol'ko oni oderjali pobedu nad Fashistskoy Germaniyey.

A ves' etot apofeoz vokrug sovetskoy pobedi nad fashistami nujen bil tol'ko dlya togo chtobi otdat' dan' pogibshim i veteranam voyni.
==========================================

Teper' k teme:

Ya dumayu chto v etoy statye bol'she pravdi chem lji, i ona kak eto chasto bivayet - gor'ka. Ne nado nenavidet' nashix "vragov" za to, chto oni govoryat' tol'ko plohoye.

Eto konechno horosho, chto vse mi takiye umniye i srazu smotrim na to, kem bila napisana statya i kakuyu cel' stavil pered soboy avtor.
No chto ya nachal zamechat' tak eto to, chto etoy otmazkoy uje davno nachali zloupotreblyat' na etom boarde. Teper' uje ne vajno chto pishut tak nazivayemiye "outsideri", odin tol'ko fakt chto oni outsideri zastavlyayet mnogih dumat' chto oni ne pravi.
Pover'te mne so storoni zachastuyu vidno luchshe chem iznutri (hotya luchshe konechno kogda vidish i so storoni, i iznutri).

And as long as Uzbekistan is not only going to build a way to its great future but also gain a decent position among the leage of more developed and/or powerful countries, it will have to take into account what these countries think about Uzbekistan, their appreciation as well as critics.


Proshu tol'ko ob odnom: bud'te samokritichney.

Keep it Sober

[Alex]

Absolutno soglasen s Freestylerom i hoch dobavit' sleduushee.

Vse chto odni russkie pobedili nebtsev eto poslediniy BS. I vsy otvaga russkih BS. Konechno ti budesh otvazhnim kogda v zatilke dulo avtomata, poprobuy shagni nazad.
A naschet vooruzheniya ya polnost'u soglasen s Freestylerom, Amerikantsi pomogli vooruzheniem sil'no. Po tem istochnikam kotorie ya nashel (ne govoru shto oni na 100% verni) kogda voyna zakonchilas', russkie ne zahoteli platit' za pomosh, a reshili vse vernut' obratno. No k velikomu udivleniu amerikantsev bol'shinstvo oborudovaniya uzhe bilo v negodnosti - motori i vazhnie chati otsutstvovali (SSSR zabral ih dlya reverse engineeringa). Amerikantsi dazhe ne stali vse obratno vesti a vse eto "dobro" sbrosili v okean - zachem uhudshat' spros na trucki i oslablyat' vnutrennee proizvodstvo.
A po teme hochu dobavit' - na samom dele zachem izobretat' velosiped - po-moemu nuzhno pol'zovatsya opitom razvitih stran, i ne otritsat' kritiku i iskat' svoy unikal'niy put'

[Kho'ja+Nasriddin]

U druga glupogo podderjki ne ishi,
Vrag mudryy luchshe dlya dushi.

Abulqosim Firdawsi.

Esli s umnym ya v adskiy ogon' popadu,
To sumeyu, naverno, projit' i v adu.
No ne day bog v rayu s durakom okazat'sya -
Otvedi, o vsevyshniy, takuyu bedu!

Umar Khayyom.

Ne khochet videt' drug vo mne poroka,
Ot drujby toy ne budet proka.
Uvyaznu s golovoy v svoikh oshibkakh,
Druzey raspolojen'e ne prinesyot uroka.

Saadi Sherozi.

[toKhoja]

Nice........... va to'gri
:)

[justice]

guys, what some need is courage: to look at things as they are not as they ought to look.. It does not really matter if the person who wrote the article is the enemy or friend, what matters though is that it's up tp us to judge how true it is. As far as i am concerned, it provides very interesting and realistic explanation to the current issues.
You must have realised by studying abroad that one must not be afraid of the results of his thinking and conclusions, however scarfule they would be. The truth is subjective, but there are some aspects of it that we all agree upon. for example, the changes should be implemented as the freedom and liberties would be guaranteed, otherwise even so bright people like umidies would only end up by talking confinedly on the discussion board with fear of the consequences of their free thinking. So be more courageous to express yourself and more importantly- think freely, because nobody can censore your thoughts! Once you are wise and brave to think and express freely then you can go on with suggesting and implementing changes in the freedom-seeking society like ours....

[Student]

Well guys, I agree with you on the points we should be critical and admit problems as they are. Thanks a lot for words to be critical and corage, feeling free to express own ides.

Well, let’s analyse the Article in details:

1. the title of the article: УГРОЗА ВОЙНЫ В ЦЕНТРАЛЬНОЙ АЗИИ НЕ СТАНОВИТСЯ МЕНЕЕ РЕАЛЬНОЙ.
One can easily have a general idea of this article from the headline – war.

2. The author criticises the court decision on members of Islamic movement of UZB, who are believed to be responsible for blasts in 1998 in Tashkent; moreover he feels unhappy about the fact, that decision was taken in their absence : "Усамой бен Ладеном, Россия не собирается заочно судить Хаттаба. К чему подобное надо было устраивать узбекским властям?”

I think this is not really appropriate example, Juma Namangani, Tahir Yuldash were active in the last occasions in ferghana valley and uzbek-tajik boarder, they even confirmed their involvement via news agencies (BBC, internet).

3. The author cites the words of the Russian ambassador in Uzbekistan Дмитрия Рюрикова, where the ambassador warns of possibilities of the civil war as a result of confrontation between Islamic movement and official government. Unfortunately one cannot be sure, that the author is not bringing extracts of the ambassador’s words just to fit his own opinion.

The threat of a civil war is highly exaggerated, and mostly Russian media presents facts as if there was a real war, it’s hard to believe that just a small group of youth, who dropped under fundamentalists’ control will present a threat of civil war in the whole country.
Ivan talks about factors which may caused the raise of fundamentalists in the country “Вероятно, главная причина одна: из-под религиозной формы протеста проступает недовольство различных слоев населения своим социально-экономическим положением - безработицей, нищетой и социальной бесперспективностью.

His arguments about poverty, unemployment are obvious, but that is the case all countries of the former sovet union. That’s not problem of only Uzbekistan, if to look on present living standards one can see worse situaltion in Tajikistan, Kyrgistan, Gorgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and many regions of Russia. And stress that there is much poverty and unemployment in Uzbekistan is somehow disturbing.

4. ” востоковед-арабист, бывший сотрудник президентского аппарата Баходир Сидиков считает, что "выдвинутый президентом Каримовым лозунг "Узбекистан - государство с великим будущим" пуст, как барабан, и служит лишь словесным прикрытием того, что при нынешней власти у подавляющего большинства населения нет никакого будущего. Как можно построить какое-либо будущее, не говоря уже о великом, на ограниченной территории (большая часть страны - пустыни и полупустыни) с чрезвычайными возможностями, находясь в постоянной конфронтации со всеми соседями, когда ни у Узбекистана, ни у окружающих его государств нет выхода к морю и, самое главное, когда из-за эгоизма правителей страна буквально "обглодана до костей"?

The motto presented by the president “Uzbekistan – country with the great future” definitely has good intentions and may bring results. There was a discussion about this issue in BBC broadcast, where an official person of the government said about psychological effects of this motto, namely – “having an objective and being persistent to achieve it”. Mr. Karimov tried to ground his mottos with arguments of the great past (Amir Temur), geopolitical position of the country, demographical picture of the population, educational basis, nature resources etc. It could be assumed that this could work, if successfully conduct economical reforms and real democratisation of the society.

My personal view on this issue: the motto has some association with the totalitarian past, the ideas of “communism”, which really inspires population for a while. The example of the state building of other countries (after war period, European countries or other nations) as far as I know hadn’t such motto, they could develop well without such mottos too.

Conclusion: the article is more emotional then analytical.

P.S. It’s really pity that mass media in Uzbekistan cannot bring any serious critical articles about realities of Uzbekistan, it’s really pity that laws don’t work, it’s really pity that old minded people and non-professionals still have much power, BUT the future is with a new generation, hopefully they studying abroad will forget bad features of post-communist society of Uzbekistan (mixture of oriental-islamic traditions with communistic way of thinking) and will acquire progressive thoughts, and lastly HOPEFULLY they will be good specialists in their fields.

regards

[Amir Temur]

I am really tired to read these desperate messages - everybody perfectly knows the situation.
I think i have read at least three times that
an average salary is 20$ and lower or that IMF would not give us 200 mln dollarov.
What we need here - is careful analysis and real-world plan, that can be implemented. Nobody will be able to change situation except us. Just to say " That is BS" or "That is true!" or "I am agree/I am not" would not help us.
Let's analyze this article.
"Ugroza grajdanskoi voini" - Yes, it is possible, then population experiences deep social problems(low income and lack of job)
Recall revolution of 1905&1917.
How we can solve it ?
We need to get working new factories and plants.
1) The easiest way to attract is &lt;b>foreign investitions &lt;/b>. To do that we need free exchangeable currency. What is the problem that we can't implement it? We afraid that it will make social level of population worse. But, can the situation be worse than now ? I think it is worst situation. First, we need to prepare people morally to reforms then implement money reform fast enough.We need reliable,consequent,knowledgeable and patriot(!) people above to do that, otherwise it will not work.
2)Second way - small enterprises. The bad thing is that it is really hard for people to make enterprise working. Officially it is easy to do but in reality - you have to pay everybody to open it.
We have to introduce simple & quick procedures with relaxable taxes.

II) About geographical position. Situation is not that good, but it is not too bad either. If we don't have exit to sea it doesn't mean that we in exitless situation. After all we leave in 21 century - we have trucks, railroads and planes.
First, we have to open rail-road ways and highways via Afganistan and Iran, China - to open old Silk Way. We have to admit Afghanistan as a business partner. Sounds as a BS ? Not at all, we can make a good money in Afghanistan by providing them energy, gas and oil, etc.
Second, we have to economically unite with Kazakstan, Turkmenistan and other CA countries and Iran to create economical zone.
About "Uzbekistan has a great future".
That is a good way to cheer up people.
People, this power, make the difference! People have to realize that they manage their future and that everybody can contribute his/her share to the development of Uzbekistan and, in its turn, themselves.
But it has to be backed by sound reforms from above.

[Mustafa]

No one of you have said about opposition huh?

[xavi]

Unfortunately I agree with above mentioned article. We shouldn’t always blame others, but look at the reality straightforward!

Personally, I don’t believe that the notion patriotism exists in our country (although I am very jonkuyar for Uzbekistan), it is just NOT the mentality of uzbek people. We can never compete with a nation as germans, who, having been cruelly defeated twice, were able to re-establish its economy within no time and become the third economy of the world! After the war period there were many of them who worked for nothing but to prosper ist motherland. But, again unfortunately this is not the case with our people.

Moreover, we don’t have the unity of direction, our mentality is “bir birimizni ko’ra olmaslik va ko’t kovlash kasalligi” (as an example, one can cite a huge number of it, during khonliklar, during the russian conquest, during the soviet union and so on).

Amr temur(of message board), you are right, there is a positive correlation between the growth rate and foreign investment, but nevertheless we should take into account the corruption reining in our country. I know personally many projects (as construction of many hotels financed by foreign partners) that have been realised only after giving “administrative costs” (this term is used in their bookkeeping) to our government bodies some percentage of the projects. And many other projects were void ‘cause no administrative costs were not allowed, so how we can indulge foreign investment?! Moreover this projects have very high intrinsic costs (as dictating how to do the policy) ! everybody talks about foreign investment, that it is the only thing that will augment the prosperity of our country. But, hey, it is high time to realise that nobody comes from exterior to help us if we (us) don’t help ourselves!

In conclusion, high governmental bodies don’t say “HALQIM” but “HALQUM”!

for the probable question: So what should we do? I say, I have no f***ing idea!

regards,
xavi

[Freestyler]

Hi, guys! You've gotta read this.
I've run across the brochure yesterday night and read it till the end - so engaging it was. The author, Bernard Lewis, takes a holistic approach offering a historical outlook to the political situation in the Middle East and Central Asia.
It should be equally interesing to all of you who are now participating in the discussions on the topics of religion, democracy and politics on this board.
What I liked most about this article is that it offers a virtually unbiased, objecitve analysis, taking a positive view rather then a normative (i.e., showing "what it is", rather then "what it should be")
I hope you will learn and clarify as many things for yourselves as I did from the brochure.
Despite it being intolerably long, I think you will be very much rewarded for your spent time.
I also want you to make analogues whenever you come across the topic of the Middle East" with Central Asia, because the situation seems quite to be repeating itself in our region, too.
(After all the discussions on the related topics on this board and after reading the brochure I felt as we were in some kind of scientific experiment while the author was the scientist conducting the experiment and making valuable notes) So here I am trying tpo share my modest experience

Below are only the introductory part of the brochure and some extracts from the body:

================================================== ===========================
&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;The Future of the Middle East>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to a conventiosn commonly agreed among historians, the modern history of the Middle East begins at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when a French expeditionary force commanded by General Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and conquered Egypt and stayed there until it was forced to leave by a squadron of the Royal Navy commanded by Admiral Horatio Nelson. This was the first Western advance against the previously dominant power of Islam. But it was the first incursion from the West into the heartlands of the Islamic world.

This began a period during which ultimate power, and with it responsibility, for what happened in this region resided elsewhere; when the basic theme of international relations and of much else in the Middle East was shaped by the rivalries of Non-Middle Eastern states. These rivalries went through several successful phases – interference, intervention, penetration, domination and, in the final phase, reluctant departure. From time to time the actors in the drama changed and the script was modified, but the basic pattern remained the same. In the final act of this drama two external superpowers whose rivalry dominated the Middle East were the Soviet Union and the United States.

Future historians of the region may well agree on a new convention of periodization – that the era in the Middle Eastern history, which was opened by Napoleon and Nelson, was closed by Bush and Gorbachev. In the crisis of 1990-1 precipitated by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, neither of the two superpowers played the imperial role which tradition and popular expectation assigned to it; the one because it could not, the other because it would not.
Moscow, once so great a force in the Middle Eastern affairs, could neither restrain nor rescue Saddam Hussein. Washington, having freed Kuwait from occupation and Saudi Arabia from the threat of invasion, had accomplished its war aims and unilaterally declared a cease fire, leaving Saddam’s regime intact and permitting him, with only minor impediments to crush his domestic opponents and in due course resume his policies.

As long as the Soviet Union existed, and as long as the Cold War was the main theme policy, American presence in the Middle East was part of a global strategy designed to cope with a global confrontation. With the ending of that confrontation such a strategy became unnecessary. No discernible strategy has yet emerged to replace it.

The break-up of the Soviet Union brought another important consequence – the emergence of eight new sovereign independent states in Transcaucasia and Central Asia. Two of these, Georgia and Armenia, are Christian; the rest Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, are predominantly Muslim. All these countries are part of the historic Middle East, linked to it by a thousand ties of culture, language and history. The Tajik language is a form of Persian; the other five Muslim states use languages related to Turkish. The Turks, Persian and Afghans show increasing interest in their newly liberated kinsfolk across the former Soviet frontier. They are also interested in those other Muslim peoples – Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Circassians and others, who remain within the Russian federation. The same interest will in time extend to the Muslims of Chinese Central Asia.

The emergence of a world of Turkic states, like Arab world that emerged from the break-up of the British and French empires, will be increasingly important in the decades to come, and will have a significant effect on the Middle East to which they are now returning. But there are differences between the two cases. With a few exceptions - Algeria, Aden – British and French rule in the Arab world was indirect and of brief duration, The Transcaucasian and Central Asian territories were annexed by the tsars and retained by the Soviets under a thin veneer of federalism. Their experience of imperial rule was in many ways profoundly different from that of the Arabs. Their efforts to disentangle themselves from their former masters offer some similarities to the early stages of Arab independence. But they will be dealing with Moscow, not with London or Paris; with land-based power, not with a maritime and commercial ascendancy. The course and perhaps the outcome of their struggle for the true independence will surely reflect these differences.

For the time being however, Russia is out of the game and likely to remain so for some years to come; America is reluctant to return. This means that in many significant respects the situation reverts to what it was before. Outside powers have interests in the region, both strategic and economic; they may from time to time interfere in the Middle Eastern affairs, or even influence their course. But their role will no longer be one of domination or decision.

Many in the Middle East are having difficulty in adjusting themselves to the new situation created by the departure of the imperial powers. For the first time in almost 200 years, the rulers and peoples of the Middle East are having to accept the final responsibility for their own affairs, to make their own mistakes and to accept the consequences. This is difficult to internalise, even to perceive, after so long a period. For the entire lifetimes of those who formulate and conduct policy at the present time and their predecessors for many generations, vital decisions were made elsewhere, ultimate control lay elsewhere, and the principal task of statesmanship and diplomacy was as far as possible to avoid or reduce the dangers of this situation and to exploit such opportunities as it might from time to time offer. It is very difficult to forsake the habits not just of a lifetime but of a whole era of history. The difficulty is much greater when alien cultural, social and economic pre-eminence continues and even increases, despite the ending of alien political and military domination.

Military and to a growing extent political intervention by the West has indeed ended, but the impact of its science and culture, its technology, amenities and institutions remains and even increases. As in other parts of non-Western world, this impact has been and will be enormous.

<font color="0000BB">In these circumstances, it is natural that the Middle Easterners continue to assume – and proceed on the assumption – that the real responsibility and decision still lie elsewhere. In its crudest form, this belief leads to wild and strange conspiracy theories directed against those whom they regard as their enemies – Israel, and more generally the Jews, The United States, and more generally the West.</font> No theory is too absurd to be asserted or too preposterous to be widely and instantly believed. Even among more responsible statesmen and analysts, a similar belief in an alien power, albeit in a less crude form, often seems to guide both analysis and policy. Some even go so far as to invite outside intervention, presumably in the belief that only outside powers have the capacity to make and enforce decisions. A case in point is the constant appeal to the United States to involve itself in the Arab-Israel conflict, oddly coupled with the repeated accusation of “American Imperialism”.

This state of mind is likely to continue for some time, with appeals for support or even intervention to the United States, to Russia and even to the European Union. In time, no doubt, Middle Eastern governments and peoples will learn how to use this window of opportunity to the best advantage – that is, of course, if the window remains open long enough.

Those who accuse the West and more particularly the United States of “imperialist designs” on the Middle East are tilting against shadows from the past. There is however another charge with more substance – that of cultural penetration.

American culture differs from all its predecessors in two important respects. First, it is independent of political control and extends far beyond the areas of American political dominance or even influence, as for example in Islamic Iran or communist China. Second, it is in profound sense popular. Previous cultural expansions were limited to political and intellectual elites. American popular culture appeals to every element of the population and especially to the young. It also brings a special message to elements disempowered in the traditional order, notably women. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is seen as a mortal threat by both the defenders of tradition and the exponents of fundamentalist ideologies. How that threat is perceived is clear from Khomeini’s repeated characterisation of the United States as the “Great Satan”. No intelligence service is needed to interpret this epithet – just a copy of the Qur’an. The last verses, the best known along with the first, talk about Satan, describing him as “the insidious tempter who whispers in the heart of men”. Satan is neither a conqueror nor an exploiter. He is a seducer, most dangerous when he smiles.

The challenge of the Western culture has been a major theme in Middle Eastern debate for almost two centuries. American popular culture presents this challenge in its most recent and also its most pervasive form. Middle Eastern rulers, leaders and thinkers have offered and will no doubt continue to offer various responses to this challenge – imitate, adopt, adapt, absorb, or complain, denounce, reject.


FAITH OR FREEDOM

When General Bonaparte arrived in 1978 there were only two sovereign states in the Middle East: Turkey and Iran. Today, these are resuming their inescapable roles as the major powers of the region. The regimes in both, in their present form, were founded by revolution – the secular republic of Turkey and the Islamic republic of Iran. Both are inspired by revolutionary ideologies, which might be named after their founders as Kemalism and Khomeinism. And both ideologies, albeit in very different ways, are under attack at home.

Today, increasing numbers of Middle Easterners, disillusioned with the past ideals and – in many countries – alienated from their present rulers, are turning their thoughts of their loyalties to one or other of these two ideologies – liberal democracy and Islamic fundamentalism. Each offers e reasoned diagnosis of the ills of the region, and a prescription for its cure.

In this struggle, fundamentalism disposes of several advantages. It uses language that is similar and intelligible, appealing to the vast mass of the population in a Muslim country. At a time of economic deprivation and political oppression, many are ready to believe that these evils are a result of alien and infidel machinations, and that the remedy is a return to the original, authentic way of Islam. The fundamentalists also have an immense advantage over other opposition groups in that the mosques and their personnel provide them with a network for meeting and communication, which even the most tyrannical of governments cannot suppress or entirely control. Indeed, tyrannical regimes help their fundamentalist opponents by eliminating competing oppositions.

The exponents of democracy in contrast offer a programme and a language that are unfamiliar and, for many, unintelligible. They have further disadvantage that the name of democracy and those of the parties and parliaments through which it operates have been tarnished in the eyes of many Muslims by the corrupt and inept regimes that used these names in the recent past. In contrast, appeals in the name of God and the Prophet to cleanse society by restoring his holy law have a force and immediacy unattainable by democrats whose arguments and examples, indeed, whose vocabulary is recognisably alien. An Arabic loanword like "dimuqratiyya" lacks the resonance of "shari’a".
...
The strength of the democrats, and the corresponding weaknesses of the fundamentalist, is that the former have a programme of development and betterment, while the latter offer only a return to a mythologized past.
...The problem is that the weaknesses of the democrats are immediate and obvious; their strength are long-term, and therefore for many, obscure.
...
(To be continued)
P.S. All the bold, italics, underline formats are my job and might probably reflect my bias, if some of you will sens one.

Keep it ...

[xavi]

The article tells the truth about the current “impotence” of the Muslim countries but very discreetly (even too descreeltly). Suppose in order not to show bias.

From ist style, one could conclude that he is from “ikhwanul muslimin”. (maybe I am mistaken?!)

Regards

xavi

[Lucky]

Totallly BS... and Totally Biased and crooked information and done for some interst groups.This is not reality...

[Kho'ja+Nasriddin]

The above article by B. Lewis, as most of his recent publications on the Middle East, is, of course, crap (sorry), such opinion is also shared by a more reliable scholar, John Esposito, whose Islamic threat: myth or reality (http://msanews.mynet.net/books/threat/), (subchapter 'The Islamic threat today'), has its own version of critique of a similar article by B. Lewis.