How to change the world?
I’m relatively new to this blog, but it’s clear to me that the contributors are passionate, elegant of speech, and frustrated with the world. So am I. The recurrent themes are ‘free speech’, ‘freedom’, and ‘democracy’. As an American I do not share your background or experiences, but I suspect I share your goals. Like you I’m trying to change the world through the internet. But it’s hard to stay optimistic. There are billions of people on this planet and the number reading these blogs is statistically zero. The concept of a blog was a creative breakthrough for the internet, but still limited in the ability to change the world. For every person reading political blogs, there are ten million people focused on sports or hollywood. I can tell you that in my country the apathy is deafening.
So what to do? Is there some new creative approach to changing the world we have yet to discover? YouTube documentaries to shed light on human rights abuse? What about at top ten list of democracy offenders…a “hall of shame”. Google would no doubt make the list for helping China censor the internet. Or what if we created a website with one YouTube video from each country that best represented human rights abuse? Or maybe we put all our resources into getting the entire world on the internet?
What are your ideas? I ask because I’m concerned that we might even be sliding backwards. The US has made a mess out of Iraq, turning the very term ‘democracy’ into a bad word for some. China is an unapologetic dictatorship, growing in influence day by day. Russia is sliding away from democracy. The UN is a cruel joke. Are we losing this battle?
Sorry for the pessimism. Back to my original question: How can we change the world?
gary
Join the Conversation
Gary,
We can go on a binge of pointing the finger at the different countries and say “your fault, your fault”. Of course they are all guilty of something that is contradictory to our conscious. But, I personally feel that change is a process and it can’t happen all at once.
I sincerely believe that the World is changing and really through a more organic and undefinable process. No one thing can shift the course of history.
I believe that within the next 50 yrs you will see dramatic change in how the World operates and how more importantly people interact and deal with each other. I don’t know how old you are but If I take care of myself, I will see that. Then again, I am seeing things that prove my point everyday.
I say this to anyone who may be reading, open your eyes and your ears and you will hear the music of change.
The internet is pretty cool, but it isn’t a solution to all the worlds problems. Connectivity and the ability to share information, maybe. But at the end of the day, the same societies that house the worlds problems are the ones that use the internet, so the technology becomes a reflection of ourselves.
I don’t think the world is all too bad. There are lots of problems, sure, but the fact that we can identify many of them suggests that there are solutions that we can achieve. Other generations have, why can’t we?
But that question is too big; think small, changing things in our own societies, in our own communities. Focus on a single problem and dedicate yourself, if not to solve it, then to help pave the path for (positive) change. The world is too large of a place with too many problems to be thinking of a global answer to that question. I would even suggest that many of the worlds ills have arisen from people trying to problem-solve on a global scale.
an elegant post, 2 creative comments;
just wanna add a note: the very practical goal we can define for this site, may be this: “get used to dialogue”, something which may not be easily seen in real world in mideast.
as a student of a shiite seminary, also as an Iranian Muslim, I have never had the opprtunity to speak to such a wide spectrum of people in real world. yes, such web tools helped me get a good sense of others, Sunnis, Jews, Christians, even Bahais. this is… um… priceless, and if I spread such a feeling in my society or to next generations, that will make a change.
Logical Positivists used to believe that science grows in a linear cumulative manner… so does the peace; and unfortunately, so does the hatred!
for hatred and peace: who gives room to one and makes barriers to other? We. how? through such tools. When will we succeed? God knows!
You’re fed up.
You should change yourself to take criticism then go ahead and change the world!
Mohammad that was a very good response. The Mideast Youth blog, first and foremost, is here to help us learn, not for us to use as a tool to preach what’s right and wrong in this world. It’s mostly an experiment where we for the first time allow ourselves to practice free speech and to share this right with others, to see how it plays out, and to learn from the experience. For it to be used as a vehicle for real change in the region we must do what we are already doing in some of our campaigns: incorporating these thoughts into real life. There’s nothing to be pessimistic about in this regard because the internet is being more and more accessible as we discussed in our latest podcast and this makes the power and usefullness of the internet increasingly influential.
Maybe you are used to the US which is different, but here independent media is mostly via the web, and not via newspapers, TV, and radio which are state-owned. That’s why more and more people are resorting to the use of the internet in order to increase the efforts of achieving change in the region.
Omid,
But what about the negatives developments I mentioned….Russia sliding backwards, the US giving even more miltary aid to middle east dictators, China’s growing influence? I definitely agree with you that the internet is a positive agent of change, but is it enough?
Karin, is the world good enough? Are you willing to say that the genocide in Darfur is an acceptable level of “good”? Or that people starving in North Korea don’t count? Or would you conceed that more work needs to be done?
Mohammad M, I ask you the same question…are we moving forward or backward? I used to say forward based on the dialog opporunities you so elegantly described, but is it really enough?
kim, I’m open to your criticism. What is it?
Esra, the blog is certainly a positive step – the practice of free speech is definitely a valuable exercise. Myself I am spoiled as I have never NOT had the right to free speech. For all the problems of the US, our ability to speak freely is one of our greatest strengths.
I see the US as having a different problem. Our newspapers, TV and radio are heavily manipulated by corporate interests. Our dictator is capitalism. While capitalism makes for a great economic engine, it has an inherent tendancy to seek political influence when the voters are not paying attention. We in the US have not solved this problem. So even though we have very different situations, maybe educating the public is the solution in both of our cases.
——————————————-
Here’s another idea… So maybe we randomly pick one human being on the planet each week and that person talks for ten minutes about what their life is. What form of government? What do they eat? Are they free to speak? To travel? This could be a YouTube video translated into the most popular languages. Just to be clear I’m not trying to change this blog. This would be a separate effort.
I heard a surprising level of optimism within all your replies. I hope your right, but I worry that it’s not enough.
gary
Mohammed:
just wanna add a note: the very practical goal we can define for this site, may be this: “get used to dialogue”, something which may not be easily seen in real world in mideast.
as a student of a shiite seminary, also as an Iranian Muslim, I have never had the opprtunity to speak to such a wide spectrum of people in real world. yes, such web tools helped me get a good sense of others, Sunnis, Jews, Christians, even Bahais. this is… um… priceless, and if I spread such a feeling in my society or to next generations, that will make a change.
I agree with Esra’a. A very good comment.
After getting used to the dialogue, it’s useful to get to know patterns of debate, and how these patterns emerge in argumentation. On the surface, many of these are ideologically/religiously defined, and easily recognizable.
What’s more interesting is to understand the less recognizable patterns, especially as to how well a mind receives and treats contrapuntal arguments. These kinds of trends are the ones that open doors to new developments and, ironically, most of these trends need to be outside the purview of state, religion, and media.
Mohammed, I have no idea what you just said.
gary
Gary, can you point to a time in history where we haven’t had problems like these? I could easily add to that list. But there’s a hell of a lot thats good about this world, so no I don’t think its all bad.
Karim,
I cannot point to a time in history where we haven’t had problems like these. But what’s your point? Why would that make you complacent? I’ll ask you again…is the world good enough? Of course not. We can do MUCH better. And from what I understand of our environmental situation (global warming, loss of habitat, loss of species, pollution) we better get past all these man-made crisis (middle east, Darfur, Iraq, North Korea) really fast so we can concentrate on the more difficult problems facing us.
gary
To change a world, we must be consciously pragmatic. The rest will dialectically occur when dogmatic theories are reduced to effective zero.
Omid, did you write that? Beautifully put. All we have to do now is get off our collective butts and make world peace happen. First design it (rule by democracy IMO), then implement it (UDN being an engine of change).
gary
I did not. You can read the entirety of the statement here.
As a ‘European’ who has his land dominated by another race of Europeans for over 900years, and who has embraced Islam over 4 years ago, I see alot of the posts here being very naive. As if adopting what we term ‘modernity’ i.e domination by our former Colonialists and their ‘would bes’ and following their pattern, which is based on a false notion of freedom of speech, then how can we progress?
Freedom, free speech democracy = Hiroshima & Nagasaki
Freedom, free speech democracy =legalisation of immorality such as Homosexuality and Pornography
It looks like we got people who want to be under the thumb of the New Romans and are willing to strive for such sunjugation
And I suppose Muhammad the Roman, your version of freedom is being practiced in Iran?
Muhammad the Roman
I don’t really understand your point of view. I don’t agree with your specific examples, but even as a generalization what you say doesn’t make sense. Surely you wouldn’t negate an entire system based on individual negatives, would you? If that’s the test, all systems would fail.
So are you arguing against free speech? That’s an even harder position to understand. If so, how do you decide what speech is permissable?
gary
The Iranian Leadership and their Mullahs are clearly not Muslims, they attribute attributes of Allaah to their Imams and slander most of the Sahaabah of the Messanger AS. They are from a cult of Kuffaar known as arRaafidhah. This is to say the least.
However, The Raafidhah Gov. of Iran, to be unbiased, at least has not fell to the level of promoting open prostitution, open homosexuality, civil marriages between the same sex and the like, unlike these modern and open societies that cherish these freedoms. Do you Omid?
Gary I dont believe in freedom of speech. There is limits, even in the societies that advocate it.
Islam decrees that we are not free, but are slaves/servants of God/Allaah. He created us to obey Him and worship Him alone, and if under the guise of freedom of speech or anything else, we can not disobey him.
I am against tyranny and oppression, as this is what Islam set about to destroy, but Islam dictates to us that the greatest oppression is to invent a lie about the Creator Allah, and also stressed that oppression of people is worst than killing.
However, looking at Democracy and its elastic nature, it either partakes in direct oppression e.g as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or indirectly condones it.
Frankly no. There must be a line drawn somewhere. But it seems that you are simply repeating what someone has told you or what you read in a Wahabi book. Your conclusions against the Shi’a are premature. I write off anyone who writes off a whole country and culture.
You equate freedom with nuclear bombs. What kind of logic is that?
Omid, did you notice that i never wrote off Iran, however I stated:
he Iranian Leadership and their Mullahs are clearly not Muslims
I clearly targetted to those in power. There is many in Iran who dont hold these views, and theres many outside of the lands of the Persians who do such as Shaykh Nasrallah of Hizballah whomm I hold in the same esteem as Khomeini and the current government and its Mullahs.
And Omid, what is our judge in morality? Revelation from Allah or what the thinktanks and the media outlets flush at us?
Muhammad the Roman,
Help me understand your point of view. You stated clearly and unambiguously that you do not believe in freedom of speech. If I was to accept your belief, how would I know what can be said and what can’t? My belief is easy to describe….you can say anything. Yours has me totally confused.
gary
Islam forbids I jest about God, or any Prophet or the religion of Islam?
Islam forbids us from even mocking the idols of Pagans.
Islam forbids lewdness in speach and even in spreading bedroom ‘secrets’.
Islam forbids speaking ill of another Muslim whilst in his presence and in his absence.
Islam forbids me to slander, lie.
Does Freedom of Speech go permit the above?
Freedom of Speech is rhetorical. It has its limits under the various laws of various regimes. There is no such thing as absoloute freedom of speech. It is an abstract idea.
Muhammad I can understand your point of view. Everything within moderation. I too believe it is inadvisable and inconducive to blaspheme and backbite, but when someone wants to speak his mind in an intellectual fashion or express his honest opinion, are you saying that he should not be able to if what he is saying is questioning his faith or belief?
There is a time and a place for everything. You said you have been a Muslim for only 4 years. When you converted I am sure you had very deep and spiritual conversations that where contradictory or questioning in nature to the faith and philosophy you held before.
For you to come and tell us what you think we should not do and to assume that our outlook on such concepts like freedom of speech and freedom of religion is very, very arrogant.
I congratulate you on your new found faith but may I advise you not to sour the taste in peoples mouth by telling them they are wrong.
Muhammad the Roman,
I’m not a Muslim or even religious. Am I exempted from these rules? Or do you believe Islamic law should be enforced on me?
In complex cases where interpretation is required, who decides if the spoken words are allowed?
Does Islam permit me to call the leader of my country incompetent? Do you have that same right with your country?
I am a US citizen…what is an example of speech that is forbidden in my country?
gary
Gary, always remember you are automatically above Islamic law. Only Muslims have to deal with it.
Finnpundit,
Are you being sarcastic?
gary
1)I’m not a Muslim or even religious. Am I exempted from these rules? Or do you believe Islamic law should be enforced on me?
I cannnot impose anything on you. However one living in an Islamic State, would lay down certain conditions for non-Muslims to abide by if they were to reside there. In according to the Penal Code if you or I were to do such acts that penalties warrent execution then we have the punishment ‘enforced’ upon us. If as a Dhimmi/non-Muslim citizen, you would be exempt from certain Muslim-only legislation. such as paying the Zakah/a kind of tax, but would have to pay the Jizyah which is in fact far less, and women, children, elderly, and clergy would not have to pay it.
In complex cases where interpretation is required, who decides if the spoken words are allowed?
Give me an example of a complex case?
Does Islam permit me to call the leader of my country incompetent?
In the Quran, Allah, the Creator, told Moses to go to his leader and to advise him, first with soft words to stop his oppression of the land, and this was the greatest of Tyrants, Pharoah. So yes you can question him on the terms that are laid down for him to abide by if he breaks them or trys to change them.
Do you have that same right with your country?
I am in UK, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, for me a Muslim to question the leader here will lead to one being labelled an “extreme radical Islamist”, and liable for imprisonment for up to a certain number of months with no trial for alleging that the action of the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan is injust. For me to call to unifying the Islamic World and to removing its disbelieving tyrant rulers, is encitement to terrorism yet Europe may unify as it pleases and kill many innocents without question. I will post links for my commments.
However if you are referring to the Islamic State which unfortantely no longers exists e.g the Caliphate/Khilaafah…
The Khalifah/Calipg who is the legislated ruler of the entire Muslim world , even he cannot do what he desires, however it must be justified by Islam. And under certain conditions he may be overthrown, so of course he is accountable first to God and then to the ruled, and one may disagree with him in issues where he contradicts the Islamic Law.
My question is how do you expect to bring your leader Bush, allegedly a Democrat, to be held account through Democracy when he can change laws to make himself above the law?
Is Democracy absoloute? Can you explain to me what makes a Democracy?
Hello , I’m just a visitor here .
I always visit and read some of the blogs in this site and this one really got my attention.
gary , I totally agree with you in what you first said about 1 for 10 millions it’s true … people are sliding backwards regarding reading blogs , political blogs … etc.
youtube is making alot of progress , alot of issues are getting vedio taped and alot of people are enjoying watching those short movies.
regarding islam , those rules are simply made to make the society we’re living in a better place.
we as people say that the US government or some other governments including our governments are incompetent because they do really are incompetent , we don’t say that out of religion … it’s a matter of you and us having brains to process what we see and hear.
gary ,you say the true leaders in your country are the capitalists , in our case unfortunatly it’s a mix of clerics , religious groups and capitalism too.
like what’s happening in Iran , Iraq and some other arabian countries ..
True islam should not interfere with politics , and true muslims know this .
thank you
Ausama
Omid Wrote:
Muhammad I can understand your point of view. Everything within moderation. I too believe it is inadvisable and inconducive to blaspheme and backbite, but when someone wants to speak his mind in an intellectual fashion or express his honest opinion, are you saying that he should not be able to if what he is saying is questioning his faith or belief?
Omid, could you give me an example of someone wanting to speak his mind in an intellectual fashion or express his honest opinion.
Are you against homosexuality, fornication and adultery? Do you believe it is right or wrong?
Muhammad you are regurgitating non-sense repeated to you by some Sheikh. Your brand of Islam is not compatible with the real politik that dominates the World. I don’t mean any offense but it is simply not going to happen. Islam had its heyday. Now, we are living in a intimately connected World where consultation, cooperation, understanding and compromise are a prerequisite to any kind of international agreement–especially relations among people themselves.
Personally I do not advocate or condone homosexuality, fornication and adultery. These issues have been around since the dawn of time. Are they going away? Probably not. So what do we do?
This is my honest opinion. Would it be allowed ?
Moreover, I do believe Islam is a religion of God. The Quran is divine in origin and Muhammad was a messenger of God (PBUH).
But times have changed and so has the World. Frankly it sounds like you are wanting to apply 12th century rules to the 21st century. Fundamentalism is regressive in nature. Any call to a return “to the way it was” is simply backward thinking.
The real challenge facing Islam today is if its leaders and scholars are able to adapt to the REAL WORLD, and not make the World adapt to their views.
The real challenge facing Islam today is if its leaders and scholars are able to adapt to the REAL WORLD, and not make the World adapt to their views.
The only way of Life, and system of rule and worship accepted by Allah is Islam, as practiced by the Final Prophet Muhammad SAWS. Thats is the reality. The reality is that anything else is not approved of by God, let alone sanctioned whether Democracy, Socialism, Feminism, Capitalism, Christianity, Talmudism etc. The proof is the saying of Allah in the Quran:
2:21 O MANKIND! Worship your Sustainer, who has created you and those who lived before you, so that you might remain conscious of Him
2:23 And if you doubt any part of what We have, bestowed from on high, step by step, upon Our servant [Muhammad], [14] then produce a surah of similar merit, and call upon any other than God to bear witness for you [15] -if what you say is true!
2:24 And if you cannot do it-and most certainly you cannot do it-then be conscious of the fire whose fuel is human beings and stones [16] which awaits all who deny the truth!
“Indeed, the only religion accepted by Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. 3:19)
Dude, you can quote the Quran all day long. Who are you to interpret the Word of God? You’re a fallible man. Do you think just because you can copy and paste something that makes your argument more compelling? Do you honestly think that because these quotes seem to apply to what your meaning is, that they actually do?
Listen buddy, take my advice, you are not convincing anyone. You should be ashamed for using the Quran to justify your argument. Thats what Osama Bin Laden does. Wait let me guess, hes a real hero of yours. I bet a 100 pounds that you admire him. You’re sick man. Seek help. You have been infected with fanaticism.
Now, like I said I believe in the Quran. But that doesn’t mean that every word should be taken literally all the time. Your a fanatic if you do that.
Just a note: Ausama’s post was unfortunately marked as spam earlier and I just went through the spam files and de-spammed it. For those who missed it, please read it here.
And just for kicks…
“O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous.” Chapter 49, Verse 13
“God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable.” Chapter 60, Verse 8
“Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” Chapter 7, Verse 199
Now, like I said I believe in the Quran. But that doesn’t mean that every word should be taken literally all the time. Your a fanatic if you do that.
Where is your proof, stop dodging the questions and presenting Hellenical rhetoric.
The most hilarious thing is that indeed we take each other literally, whilst the word of God ois not taken literally, ie in the clear sense it is revealed?
Should I take this approach to the law of the land, and not take it literally?!, after all according to Ovid, that would make me a ‘fanatic fundamentalist’, for literally obeying the law … So should i reinterperet theft and murder, and make the impermissable permissable? This is total nonsense to try and escape the legislation of the Most Wise and the Best of Law Givers, Allah.
True islam should not interfere with politics , and true muslims know this .
Could you back that up Ausama with the Quran and the methodology of the Prophet Muhammad SAWS and the way of the Salaf?
(Omid is building a time machine to help Muhammad the Roman go back 600yrs.) All replies will be responded to in order of their merit. So, in this particular exchange, none warrant so.
Wow….I didn’t mean to turn this into a religious argument. Makes me thankful that my country attempts to separate politics & religion. Muhammad the Roman, to be honest your free speech guidelines don’t really help me much. First, I’m not of your same faith. Second and with all due respect to your faith, I will continue to say whatever I choose, dictators or gods notwithstanding. My view is that more needs to be said in this world, not less.
gary
Good thread. Dialogue is well done here.
My view is that more needs to be said in this world, not less.
Where is your evidence for this view?
And is this the reality?
Muhammad the Roman,
My evidence is the lack of freedom in the world. If we stay silent, nothing is accomplished. So the only alternative is to speak.
gary
my evidence is the lack of freedom in the world
Freedom to do what? Can you give some specific examples, maybe even in your country?
In China you are not free to speak up against your country. You are not free to surf the internet as you please due to censorship. In North Korea many starve to death while the government spends money on a massive millitary, so freedom to live a healthy life is compromised. In Darfur your entire village could be wiped out by a government which has no problem with genocide, so again the simple freedom of living a normal live is removed. This forum has discussed in great detail those imprisoned by the government of Iran, so that’s clearly a lack of freedom. As for my own country (USA) many point to our treatment of prisoners of war, but I would say our #1 crimes is the support of dictatorships across the globe for economic gain at the expense of democracy, which I equate directly to freedom.
So are you saying the reverse? Are you saying that this is a just world and that nobody is lacking for freedom?
gary
Gary, always remember you are automatically above Islamic law.
gary Wrote:
Finnpundit,
Are you being sarcastic?
No, Gary, I was not being sarcastic. There is no way non-Muslims have to subject themselves to Islamic law. We are automatically above Islamic law. Only Muslims need to deal with it.
Of course, some Muslims think that they need to impose Islamic Law on non-believers. These people are Islamofascists and, depending on the level of their bellicosity, they need to be dealt with accordingly, either through argument, or through war.
As for my own country (USA) many point to our treatment of prisoners of war, but I would say our #1 crimes is the support of dictatorships across the globe for economic gain at the expense of democracy, which I equate directly to freedom.
The US Gov. has intervened so many times, that i dont believe they stand for nothing except corruption yet they are no model for any kind of just and upright rule, just like their predecessors the Romans and Greeks. Look up how US intervened in Iran when Mosadaq was ‘democraticly elected’ and wanted to removed Euro/White Hegemony over the Iranian Oil fields.
So are you saying the reverse? Are you saying that this is a just world and that nobody is lacking for freedom?
No.
But in the name of what you term ‘freedom’, ‘free speech’ and ‘democracy’:
1)how are you going to decide what is allowed and what is forbidden; whether opinions, speech or actions?
2)Who will ultimatley decide?
3)And how will you eradicate the oppression and tyranny?
Finnpundit Wrote:
Of course, some Muslims think that they need to impose Islamic Law on non-believers.
Where has this been done? I infact seem to recall it happening the other way eg
-the Spanish Inquisition,
the Slavinazation/Christianization program in 1980s Bulgaria against Pomacs and Turks,
Chinas Sinazation of the Muslims,
European Colonialism of the Orient, subcontinent and Maghreb… all imposing non muslim laws and apostate leaders on Muslim majoritys,
-we neednt even mention the agressive French colony of Algeria which designated Algerians as non citizens unless they renounce their islamic faith,
-let alone the Papal wars on Heretic Christians and Muslims to impose their non Muislim Canon upon the Muslims esp. in the E.Med Crusader states.
Gary thank you for proposing this question – As a fellow American who is a human rights advocate and extremely politically active, I share in your frustration with America’s foreign policy and in your embarassment that most Americans do not care enough to participate in the global sphere.
To add to this discussion, yes, blogging is a great way to share and hopefully increase tolerance. I personally stumbled onto this website after signing Ayman Nour’s petition to be released from Egyptian jail, and I have great respect for everyone on here who faces the real threat of being imprisoned for what you say and believe. I am lucky that I do not face such threats, and I am frustrated that my country funds regimes who impose such restrictions and foster extremist ideas.
Of course history’s treatment of Muslims has been unfair at times, just as it has been unfair to Jews and Christians. No religion is without historial blemish, and as Gary previously alluded to – that very fact is what makes the complete seperation of church and state such a necessity.
Gary, in response to your original comment on the UN – although I agree that it can be – at times – a “cruel joke,” I want to remind you that the UN is only as good as the countries which make it up. The UN is not some independant body which makes its own decisions – and it has every opinion from all around the world to factor in. This task of course is not easy, and the UN is still extremely young – world problems that have been around since the begining of time are not going to be fixed in 70ish years by an overarching body with limited power.
Finnpundit,
Thanks for the clarification. I knew before joining this forum that the term Muslim covered a wide range of beliefs…now I’m seeing it in person.
————————————————–
Muhammad the Roman,
I agree with your frustration with the US. One minor clarification…in this country the people ARE the government, so making a distinction between the government and the people is unnecessary. The wrongs of the US rest squarely on the shoulder of the US citizens, sometimes for making bad decisions, but even more often for not paying attention at all. It’s easy to do when you’re more worried about which ipod to purchase than being invaded. In so many ways the US is a sleeping giant, still mostly asleep.
And you’re absolutely correct…defining freedom, free speech, and democracy is very difficult to do. Wise men have been working on it for centuries. I think the founders of my country (USA) did a decent job of this with our constitution (not that we always follow it). But there’s really no alternative. If we are lazy and make no distincion between a free democratic system and a dictatorship, we will end up with lots of dictatorships due to human nature (power corrupts absolutely). As much as I rail against the United Nations, there’s a group within the UN that has made an admirable attempt. It’s called the Democratic Caucus. Here’s there attempt at answering your questions…
http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/CD_participation_criteria.pdf
So my answer to your question is that we MUST to the hard work required to answer your excellently worded questions. Our children will have better lives if we do.
————————————————–
Jessica M.,
We obviously have much in common with our beliefs. Probably the only place where I differ is your assumption that we need patience with the UN. Seventy years is far to long for nuclear proliferations to not be under control, for genocide to still be occurring across the globe, and for such a large percentage of the world to still live under dictatorship. If I thought we were moving forward I might be willing to sit still. But that’s not what I see. The UN has lost credibility from almost everyone you talk to, either here in the USA or with people on this forum in the middle east. And it’s very clear to me that, if we truly believe in the principle of democracy, our global organization needs to reflect that belief. We can’t have a security council where relatively small or dictatorial countries manipulate global policy. That’s just not acceptible. We can do much better. If we’re to avoid millions of senseless deaths in the future, we’ve GOT to do better.
gary
Gary,
I agree that the UN has to do better, but I want to reiterate again that the UN is not independant. As citizens of the world, it’s failures are on our shoulders, just like the failures of the US are on the shoulders of the US citizens. After all, it is the right of those dictators to participate in the UN. World powers for YEARS (and even before the UN) have been trying to solve the problems of dictators, democracy, and genocide – these problems will never be eliminated, but our reactions to them can evolve and change to hopefully lessen the effects. The UN is simply trying to change these reactions through COLLECTIVE action, and that is extremely difficult, especially when the UN has limited powers. Compare it to how hard it is for the US Congress to pass a certain bill or declaration – and now multiply that times 50 and that’s what the UN is facing.
I am certainly not arguing to give the UN a free pass to sit back and not do anything – I would advocate for serious changes to the Security Council, ect – but I also simply believe that the UN could improve if its participating countries are willing to give it some tools to do so – and the US is one of the major violators of this. The US does not want anyone telling it what to do, least of all an international body that may tell it No.
Jessica M.,
Are you serious? On what grounds do you believe that dictators have a right to paricipate? Because they have managed to stomp out democratic reform in their respective countries? Because they have lots of weapons? Please clarify.
Totally disagree. This becomes a self-fulfilling propecy.
Agree. I see the purpose of the United Democratic Nations as improving existing democracies as well as creating new ones.
gary
Gary I admit i may have mistaken what you want to achieve on here. We all want justice and the lifting of oppression from the world here.
Where we differ, I believe in Allah and that His way of life is the answer, where as you believe in the priniciples of democracy and man made legislation is the way forward.
From what i see i disagree on what you call freedom of speech etc anywhere where it violates the rights of the Creator and His way of life, ie Islam.
I do not disagree about confronting Tyrants, Oppressors, and those who spread corruption in the land, whether by speech etc.
I believe that maybe our definitions of corruption and oppression, we may not always agree, but to clarify what i mean in regards to see of in the name of ‘freedom of speech’ in terms of innappropiate and spitefull manifestations:
-The insulting of Prophet Muhammad SAWS through the Caricatures, calling this execising ones freedom of speech, where no one even (rightfully) dared do the same to the Jewish Community or to dare even mention the holocaust under the same prinicples, except they were imprisoned under a special law that denys any discussion of such matters.
-Or the number of videos of non muslims abusing the Quran eg in Guantanamo,
-its defilement by the US army in Iraq
-or youtube videos of its flushing down toilets and various other acts.
This only further invalidates the concept freedom of speech/democracy for permitting/advocating such.
We have a verse in the Quran:
وَقُولُواْ لِلنَّاسِ حُسْناً
“And say to mankind (ie Muslim or otherwise) that which is of goodness” Chapter2 verse83
This is a major principle in Islam, which encompasses the leaving of lewd and filthy language to not belittlling others with crudeness, and would not leave us Muslims free to abuse others as was mentioned hitherto.
Muhammad the Roman,
That last post was very elegant. So we have differences, mostly based on religious difference, but I suspect we are MUCH more alike than different. And even though I don’t personally feel bound to religious laws, I would be very unlikely to violate those laws anyway since most would exhibit poor taste and hatred anyway. I very much appreciate your perspective on all this. Thanks!
gary