Banner Advertiser

Sunday, April 12, 2009

[mukto-mona] please vote for Bangladesh New7WondersNature

--- In mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com,

> Dear All,
>
> rubaiyat recommends you New7Wonders:
>
> http://www.new7wonders.com/key/4d9c02c890afa14270e1d2c9a6f14ffd/
>
> Message for you:
>
> please vote for Bangladesh. currently Cox's Bazar and Sundarban are in
> ranking no 1 & 2! please keep voting and forward this link to all of
> your friends, groups and network.
>
> cheers
>


------------------------------------

****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[mukto-mona] Child Bride

"0 Allah! Grant them for dignity of faith and enmity for Thy own sake. My Lord Leave not one of the disbelievers in the land. Wake up ambition in the breasts, O' Lord! Transform, the glance of the Momin into a sword. "0 Lord! These bondsmen have set out in Your path for Jehad. They are the seekers of Your good pleasure". Allama Iqbal

This is the Muslim Mind-Set I am talking about. He did his PhD and Bar-at-Law from England and Germany--- became the champion of Islam---See, how fascist the man was to the core! It is not his fault. When you take this drug—you will loose your entire rational faculty.
Today in Saudi Arabia, a 47 year old man married an Eight year old girl. The high court judge, using Sharia Law and his beloved Prophet's Sunna---declared the marriage to be valid and legal. Remember, Mohammed married Ayesha when she was only 6 year old. 2nd Caliph Umar married a girl when she was only 5 year old. These are incontrovertible facts. These Sharia Loving Muslims are sick and quite deranged. A child at 8-years-old is not emotionally developed enough, not to mention biologically developed enough---to become a wife. In any Civilized Society, it will be publicly announced that a Child Predator is among us. Please report to law enforcement immediately! But, you will never see such public announcements in Islamic countries. Under Islamic Sharia Law Woman is a Property of man. (Another incontrovertible fact) It is shameful that Islam treats women as Property. What kind of Dogma produces this mindset---where he does not see anything wrong in marrying a 8 year old girl? You see, Islam is a drug and it takes away your independent judgment faculty. Even if you earn a PhD from Oxford---you will still remain a dope, when it came to Islam. That's what happened to Allama Iqbal and Al-Ghazzali. I have been warning the world about this cult for quite some time. Am I not proven right time and again? This cult is worse than Opium. Once you enter—you will lose your entire rational faculty. There is no rationality in the argument that the Saudi Judge does not understand Sharia. Dishonest Muslims always apologize by saying 'it is out of context—you really don't understand Islam'. "I can stand brute force; But brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the belt". Oscar Wilde

SaifDevdas
islam1234@msn.com


Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.


Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. Check it out.
_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox.
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates1_042009


------------------------------------

****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[mukto-mona] FW: Dipu Moni' Statement : Unconstitutional And Provocative



 

Editorial

 

 

Dipu Moni’ Statement : Unconstitutional And Provocative

 

 

Daily Star has reported that Foreign Minister Dipu Moni has said in a seminar organized by bangldesh Enterprise Limited that  Bangladesh is not a moderate Muslim country as dubbed by foreigners but a secular country with a majority population of Muslims."The Awami League-led alliance did not believe in the idea of moderate democratic Muslim country," the minister told reporters after a seminar at Bangladesh Enterprise Institute (BEI) in Gulshan.She said Bangladesh is a non-communal country where majority of the people belong to Islam."We achieved our independence through an armed revolution with a dream to establish a non-communal country," Dipu Moni added.The minister said many countries were termed with different labels but it is not necessary to take other's indication when it contradicts the fundamental values, she said."So the concept of moderate Muslim democratic country is not applicable here," the foreign minister added.Bangladesh Enterprise Institute President Farooq Sobhan, diplomats from various countries including Norway, Iran, Australia and China were present at the seminar.

We feel that Dr Dipu Moni is not only saying fantastic ideas but also creating problem for her Prime Minister.No body in senses can say Bangladesh to be a secular country in terms of the present constitution where in article 8 (1) it is said that Faith in Allah is the basis of action of the state. Even in 1973 Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder  of Bangladesh attended summit of Organization of Islamic countries. Whatever was written in the then constitution he at heart believed that Bangladesh is a Muslim country.Even if the constitution is changed the reality of Bangladesh being essentially Muslim country will not change.

 

It is not true , as she has claimed , that Mohajote does not believe it to be a Muslim country because Ershad sahib and his party does not believe in what she has said.It is also not true that freedom fighters in Bangladesh fought for secularism , they even did not hear the word secularism. We ask Sheikh Hasina to rein in this lady who will badly harm the country by such statements. It is our bad luck we have such a foreign minister who does  not know even basics of reality and history.

 

 

 



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Khaleda Zia's younger son sued for money laundering



DHAKA ( 2009-03-17 20:43:48 ) :The younger son of opposition leader and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia has been sued for money laundering.

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Tuesday filed the case against Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) chairperson Khaleda Zia's younger son Arafat Rahman Koko for siphoning off about 192.6 million taka to Singapore.

ACC deputy director Abu Sayed, who filed the case with Kafrul police station, told newsmen that Koko has been accused of siphoning off Singapore $28,84,603 (128.8 million taka) and US$ 9,32,672 (63.8 million taka) into two accounts in Singapore.

According to the first-information report (FIR) on the money-laundering case, the money was taken out of the country during 2004-2007 period.

It was stated in the FIR that Singapore$ 28,84,603 was stashed into the account of a company named ZASZ while US$ 9,32,672 into the account of another company under the name of Fairhill Consulting Private Limited.

The case has been filed under the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2009.

Koko, who was arrested along with her mother Khaleda on September 3, 2007 in connection with a graft case amid a massive anti-graft purge, is now on parole and undergoing treatment at a Bangkok hospital.

This is the third case filed against Koko by the ACC. Earlier, during the countrywide drive following the political changeover in 2007, he was sued in the Gatco case and for amassing illegal wealth.

Copyright APP (Associated Press of Pakistan), 2009



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] India, Myanmar take steps to explore hydrocarbon reserves



Dhaka yet to wake up to offshore cross-currents

While neighbouring Myanmar and India have taken steps to explore potential hydrocarbon reserves in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh has failed to take commensurate measures due to indecision and neglect of the all-important issue of demarcating maritime boundary.

Myanmar has completed its seismic survey for oil and gas exploration in a disputed area close to Bangladesh's deep sea blocks 8 to 13. Myanmar's action in going ahead with explorations is tantamount to breach of commitment that it will refrain from any exploration activity before resolving the boundary issue with Bangladesh.

"Considering the grater interest of the country and to uphold our rightful claim on our declared EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), we must continue our exploration if not in all the blocks at least on the undisputed blocks in the Bay", Commodore (Rtd) Khurshed Alam, additional secretary, foreign ministry has told The Independent.

At the same time, hard and sustainable negotiation should be continued with the neighbouring countries to establish the rightful claim of Bangladesh on the Bay, he added.

It is learnt that Indian and Myanmar offshore gas blocks overlap an area of five thousand sq km on the eastern side of Bangladesh deep sea zone. Bangladesh has not so far made any definitive move in this regard. India and Myanmar already have done so and found large offshore gas deposits. "The issue has become a complex one as the maritime boundary issue remains to be resolved with the neighbouring countries.

Meanwhile, a citizens' group has demanded that the ongoing (or stalled) bidding process be cancelled and that public sector national gas exploration company BAPEX should be strengthened to undertake the job", a top official of the energy ministry told The Independent.

According to the energy ministry, Petrobangla last year selected Conoco Phillips, a US-based company and Tullow Bangladesh, as the right bidders to explore hydrocarbon in nine blocks in the Bay of Bengal. A government committee selected the companies after evaluating the technical offers submitted by nine companies from across the world. Tullow submitted its bid for the shallow-sea block 5, which is partially claimed by India. The committee selected Conoco as the right bidder for blocks 10,11, 12,15,16 ,17, 20 and 21. It is learnt that although Petrobangla has received 6 bids for the areas which India also claims to be within its waters.

A committee member said the Petrobangla has got poor response from the bidders in deep-sea areas as it has no data on deep sea. "The unsettled dispute over maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar is also a reason for such poor response from the bidders", a Petrobangla official said.

Experts feel Bangladesh should not waste time in claiming these blocks as its own because they legitimately belong to this country. Such a claim will discourage the IOCs from entering into contracts with neighbouring countries before this lingering problem is mutually settled.

India declared its offshore area up to 3000m depth for block bidding several years ago. Myanmar also did the same more than two years ago. But Bangladesh failed to take any concrete step for offshore bidding to add fresh energy resource to feed the country's starving energy sector.

"Some people have expressed the view that we have to engage the national exploration company to carry out exploration but the reality is that Bapex is not capable of conducting a 3D seismic in the Bay in terms of technology, financial strength. BAPEX has still to go a long way to build its capacity in offshore bidding", Muktadir Ali, Director PSC told The Independent. "Yes, we are not capable of handling the offshore issue. It is a fact", Immaduddin, Managing Director of Bapex said.

Professor Nurul Islam of BUET, a renowned energy expert of the country said. Bapex is not capable at this moment and we need IOCs to explore the offshore blocks but in that case we have to protect our national interest first.

Myanmar had 21.19 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves, or 0.3 per cent of the world's total, while Bangladesh had 13.77 trillion cubic feet, or 0.2 per cent, at the end of 2007, according to BP Plc. Most of it is located in the Bay of Bengal.

Before going for tender to award the blocks to the IOCs Petrobangla sent the PSC model to all concerned including the ministries and agencies.

Petrobangla, on May 7 last year, opened the tender documents of seven companies that submitted bids for 12 deep-sea blocks and three shallow-water blocks. No company has so far submitted any bids for eight deep-sea and five shallow-water blocks.

According to Petrobangla sources, the committee evaluated the bids on marking system that was dependent on 'work programme' of the IOCs along with specific offers.Petrobangla faced difficulties in reaching any agreement with these oil companies as the government was indecisive in taking any decision.

;http://www.theindependent-bd.com/details.php?nid=122148



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] bari boro naki desh? (A Bangla article)

http://www.khabor.com/motamoth/abu_hasan/motamoth_abu_hasan_04112009_000001.htm


------------------------------------

****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[mukto-mona] DOES ANYBODY IN BANGLADESH OCCUPIES 2 GOVERNMENT HOUSES?



'Conspiracy Zone'

Khaleda Zia was conspiring all evil sitting in her Cantt. House. To stop that, govt. had no choice but to evict her from there. As some people are arguing this as a simple matter, its not, its a huge right decission to stop her conspirating sitting in the safe zone.  Can anyone tell us, if anybody in Bangladesh occupies two govt. houses? She should have returned that house long time ago. She did not, because this house is her conspiracy zone. She was PM for 2 terms (not 3) and even did not felt that responsibility! to return that house. She is greedy and her two sons are just 'like mother like sons'? General Zia also used this house for conspiracy against Bangabandhu. Last almost 3 decades this house was used for  conspiracies against people of Bangladesh, latest may be, BDR revolt. We may call this house, 'Conspiracy Zone'. Let government build an apartment complex there for the myrters of BDR mutiny.



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] On Secularism 1972 Style



Where from the definition came "Secular Fundamentalism"? Is it like religious kafir? or what is it exactly? Or may be mid-night noon!! Putting words just together does not always make sense for practical meaning. A premise that is discussed must be clearly existing, otherwise, it becomes just meaningless and confusing. 
 


To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: mithumala@hotmail.com
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:52:42 +0000
Subject: [ALOCHONA] On Secularism 1972 Style



Secular Fundamentalism and Democracy
by Richard Ekins

[This article critiques the view, which may be termed secular fundamentalism, that democracy requires religious arguments and religious believers to be excluded from political discourse. Two objections are raised against secular fundamentalism: First, it is premised on a flawed reading of the historical record that assumes religion and democracy are incompatible; second, it falsely assumes a stark division between religious (irrational) and secular (rational) reasons. The article goes on to propound a democratic model of church-state relations, prem-ised on the "twin tolerations" and priority for democracy. Finally, it is suggested that, in certain polities at least, stable democracy may require a religiously coherent rationale.]

Religious believers who organize collectively and who publicly advance arguments that rely on religious premises are often accused of engaging in inherently undemocratic political action. This article seeks to refute that charge, arguing instead that regimes that entrench secularism and exclude religious groups from participation in politics are not truly democratic. In what follows, I seek to establish that the intellectual framework that stipulates that religious believers ought to be excluded from politics is an absolutist doctrine that is inconsistent with a democratic interaction between church and state. As a dogmatic worldview that fails to respect democratic values, including the importance of compromise, insistence on strict secularism is a form of fundamentalism. For that reason, I refer to the view that religion should have no place at all in political life as &#147;secular fundamentalism.&#148;
The Tenets of Secular Fundamentalism
Secular fundamentalism is an ideological framework that stipulates a particular relationship between church and state and, to its adherents, justifies actions taken to enforce or institute that relationship. Specifically, the framework provides that for secular reasons religion should be excluded from political life. This means that the state should not act on religious reasons or enforce religious purposes. Further, religiously motivated persons and groups should not participate in political affairs unless they are prepared to set aside their religious convictions and rely on secular considerations. In this way, the state is to be secular in status and operation.
As a broad school of thought, secular fundamentalism embraces outright hostility to religion, as well as the more narrow view that religion must be excluded from politics for the sake of the polity. The former approach held sway in most socialist authoritarian states in the twentieth century, while the latter has been advocated by both Western liberals and third world autocrats. It is the latter view with which I am concerned, particularly the modern variant that &#147;responds to religious pluralism by restating the moral principles of state-neutrality and secularism and by defending the complete separation of state from organized religion as the preferred or even the only morally legitimate institutional solution.&#148;1
Differences appear among secular fundamentalists as to whether, in order to maintain such a relationship between state and religion, the state may legitimately regulate the operation of religion in the private sphere or repress political activity by religious groups. Thus, while there is unanimous agreement that the state must be secular, there is division over the means by which religious political activity is to be precluded from endangering the secular state. This division is explored below.
Many leading liberal political philosophers, such as Audi, Macedo, and Rawls,2 have argued that liberal democracy requires state conformity to a moral principle of strict secularism. Likewise, certain leading democratization theorists, such as Huntington and Rustow, argue or assume that secularism is a condition precedent to democracy.3 As Stepan has observed, &#147;analysts [often] assume &#133; that a separation of church and state and secularism are core features not only of Western democracy, but of democracy itself.&#148;4
The common assumption that strict secularism is a necessary condition for democracy is based on the following (mis)reading of Western political history.
It is a historical fact that modern representative democracy emerged in the Christian West. However, it is commonly asserted that the great advance of Western political thought, which followed the bitterly fought religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was to isolate and marginalize that Christian heritage from politics. This is said to have been achieved by insisting on a strict separation of church and state, confining the former to the private sphere, and allowing only secular concerns to determine the operation of the latter. Such a separation is assumed to have been prompted both by the observation of the destructive effects that religious divisions can have in a polity, and by the recognition that there is a distinction between rational reason and nonrational faith. These twin developments, it is said, led the enlightened rational elite to drive a wedge between religion and political power. In this way, it came to be accepted that political decisions would be made on the basis of reason rather than faith.
This liberal reading of history, from which secular fundamentalism is derived, provides that distinguishing religion (and faith) from politics (and reason) gave intellectual coherence to, and gained political support from, the American and French Revolutions. As is well known, the American Revolution led to the adoption of a constitutional form of democracy characterized by a prohibition on state religion. In France, the revolution gave rise to the use of state power in outright opposition to religion, giving a decidedly secular face to successive, eventually democratic, French regimes. These political upheavals are assumed to have cemented secularism into the framework of Western political thought, thereby establishing a necessary, albeit insufficient, condition for eventual democratization.
From this historical account, secularists derive certain conclusions as to the nature and political effects of religion. The first conclusion concerns the character of religion and religious reasons. It is clear that religions are transcendental worldviews that claim insight into the truth about humanity&#146;s relationship to the divine. They therefore necessarily make a claim for absolute truth and consider alternative religions to be false, misguided, or incomplete. Secular fundamentalists assume that the Enlightenment demonstrated a clear distinction between rational secular reasons and irrational, or nonrational, religious reasons. They then assume that the great age of human progress, in which both science and modern democracy were born, came when the West separated church from state and began to rely on reason rather than on faith. Thus, it is said that religious reasons for action are irrational, and that a modern democratic state can exist without recourse to faith.
The second conclusion is that because religious reasons are nonrational they are inaccessible to citizens who do not accept the religious framework from which they follow. This, it is said, provides two further reasons to support the strict exclusion of religion from political life. As members of the polity disagree, often fundamentally, over questions of religion, they cannot accept the capture of the state by the opposing religious viewpoint. Such a capture would provoke a violent response, destroying the underlying consensus that is necessary to preserve and sustain a democratic framework for action. Thus, for the sake of peace and stability, we need a method to live together despite our religious disagreements. That method, according to the liberal consensus, is to isolate religious disputes from the scope of legitimate political discussion, relying instead on secular concerns and reasons in the political sphere. In other words, the state is to be secular, and religious groups may not participate in political society. Only by making religion nonpolitical in this way can we insulate the state from the corrosive effects of religious division.
Modern liberal theorists have also argued that respect for the equality of citizens, which is presupposed in a democracy, proscribes the use of state power on the basis of reasons that are inaccessible to some citizens. That is, we must utilize public reason and advance our political arguments from within a consensus of generally accepted values. This &#147;public reason argument&#148; essentially means that contested worldviews, such as religions, must be excluded from the scope of political discussion: They are inaccessible and therefore intolerable in a democracy. Instead, our political exchanges must be conducted on the basis of and in the language of secular concerns, as only this is neutral among competing concepts of the good life and shows equal concern to believers and nonbelievers.5
The final conclusion drawn from this reading of Western church-state history concerns the nature of religious believers and the danger they pose to the body politic. Because religions are comprehensive worldviews, it is said they naturally tend to attract fanatics who will not accept limits on their authority when in political office and will be tempted to resort to violence to impose their views on others. This is illiberal and undemocratic. Therefore, religiously motivated groups constitute a standing threat toward democratic government as they will always hope to institute theocracy, and will do so if the secular state is not well protected.
It is for these reasons that secular fundamentalists contend that democracy requires the strict separation of the state from religion and the exclusion of religious believers and religious reasons from democratic deliberation.
Political Implications
Secular fundamentalism is taken to require and justify particular aspects of a democratic regime. It clearly supports the emergence of a political culture in which recourse to religious sources of authority is criticized as impermissible. Such moral restraints, however, are insufficient. The secular fundamentalist also enjoins specific constitutional entrenchment of secularism. This legally proscribes wayward political decisions made in reliance on religious reasons and prevents challenges to the secular status of the state. Moreover, political parties formed on the basis of religious identity should be closely scrutinized and banned if they deviate from the secular norms of the polity. Similarly, individual politicians should be monitored and excluded from political life if they rely on religious reasons for action or are too closely affiliated with religious groups.
As noted above, secular fundamentalists are divided as to whether the state may legitimately intervene in the private organization of religious groups in order to preclude problems arising on a political level. Western liberals often oppose such intervention, viewing it as being inconsistent with the existence of an autonomous private sphere; modern secular forces in the developing world tend to be more willing to use state power for such preventive purposes.6
This, then, is the ideological framework with which I am concerned. It stipulates that religion ought to be kept out of public political discourse for the sake of democracy itself. Whether religious contributions to public life are inappropriate by reason of their potential for discord or because of their inherent irrationality, secular fundamentalists agree that democracy requires secular reasoning to be decisive in the public sphere. Thus, liberal democracy is said to require the control and suppression of the political manifestation of religion.
The Empirical Reality of Church-State Relations
The case for secular fundamentalism rests on a reading of Western political history that is flatly contradicted by the present-day reality of democratic political practice throughout the West. While Western polities did make major advances toward the emergence of stable democracy when they instituted minimal levels of religious tolerance and removed certain controversial questions of religious doctrine from the political agenda, this did not require or connote a strict separation between church and state or the exclusion of religion and religious groups from political life. This is evident from the fact that most European democracies continue to have a state religion and many of the major political parties in Western democracies are explicitly based on religious identity. Religiously motivated groups and individuals also continue to comment on state policy on the basis of their religious convictions.
The conclusions that secularists derive from the history of church-state relations not only ignore contemporary Western practice but also overestimate the efficacy of the Enlightenment in discrediting religion as a source of public values while relying on a distortion of American political experience. The U.S. Constitution did successfully proscribe the formal establishment of a state religion. However, for most of the nineteenth century this did not preclude de facto cultural dominance of Protestantism, nor, more importantly, did it mean that religious views and values were excluded from the public sphere&#151;far from it. The democratic character of the American regime at that time did not rest on its successful suppression of religion, although doubtless a high level of religious tolerance did enable a heterogeneous community to live peacefully when that might not otherwise have been the case.
American politics has always been characterized by the use of religious values in public deliberation, and the campaigns to abolish slavery, prohibit alcohol, and institute civil rights were all driven by religious groups who made explicit and highly effective reference to Christian values. In the late twentieth century, religiously inspired groups and individuals have continued to participate in the political process, and while some restrictions on their political agenda have been imputed from the constitutional prohibition on religious establishment, there has been no comprehensive exclusion of religion from the public sphere. This empirical reality cannot negate the argument that ideal democracy requires secular fundamentalism, but it certainly does debunk the claim that the exclusion of religious believers from politics was a historical precondition to the emergence and consolidation of democracy in the West. That simply was not the case.7
Secular fundamentalists are in error when they assume that the rise of religious tolerance in the West, and the concordant isolation of certain highly controversial religious questions from the political agenda of certain Western states, meant that reason had triumphed over faith. On the contrary, these empirical changes in Western political practice, the distortion of which leads to the claim that secular fundamentalism is a precursor to democracy, were grounded in religious doctrine and justified in religious terms. For example, John Locke&#146;s famous &#147;liberal&#148; argument for religious tolerance depends entirely on religious premises.8 It was an argument from within the Christian tradition as to how Christians ought to deal with those with whom they disagreed. To misconstrue this as reason and secularism coming to dominate the public sphere in place of faith and religion is to ignore the terms in which political discourse was undertaken.
Secular Reasons and Religious Reasons
Secular fundamentalism claims that a preference for secularism has to be entrenched into the framework of democratic states because such entrenchment enables the state both to be neutral among competing controversial religious views and to avoid political decisions being made on the basis of inaccessible and irrational religious reasons. Obviously, this presupposes that secular reasons are rational and uncontroversial, and that religious reasons are irrational and controversial. This, however, is not true. Moral reasoning proceeds from controversial premises, and no argument can avoid &#147;dependence, conscious or unconscious, on indemonstrable first premises, over and above the presuppositions of reasoning as such.&#148;9
In other words, in reaching conclusions about how we ought to act, we have no choice but to reason from &#147;indemonstrable first premises,&#148; to use Budziszewski&#146;s phrase. Some of these premises may be secular, others may be religious, but they are all taken on faith or assumed for the sake of argument. It cannot be said that secular premises are never controversial. Consider, for example, the uncontroversial, and explicitly religious premise that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us,10 and the controversial secular premise in utilitarian theory to the effect that maximizing utility is the ultimate good. It is unsound to simply assert a dichotomy between the secular and rational and the religious and irrational.
This means that the public reason argument cannot justify an entrenched preference for secularism. Certain religiously grounded values, such as the claim that persons are entitled to equal treatment, may be accessible to almost all members of the polity, while some secular values will not enjoy such currency. Moreover, in practical deliberation, decisions cannot be reached without recourse to values that some citizens will find controversial or objectionable. The public reason model itself presupposes values of equality and the capacity for autonomous choice, yet even these values have their detractors.11 If we were to make decisions on the basis only of universally accepted values, then there would be almost no possibility for constructive political discussion.
Citizens are not disrespected when their fellows advance political arguments on grounds that they find inaccessible, so long as efforts are taken to express the arguments civilly and to render them intelligible. In political discourse, disagreement extends to premises as well as to the process of reasoning whereby we derive conclusions.12 We cannot escape this by postulating some model of decision-making on the basis of universally accessible reasons, nor should we try to do so.
The fact that secular premises are not necessarily more (or less) rational or uncontroversial than religious premises also undermines the claim that a preference for secularism is neutral among competing religious claims. In fact, secularism is neutral only to the extent that it is equally hostile to all religions, regardless of doctrinal or sectional difference. The claim could be that this approach is neutral between atheists and believers, but again this is false; by excluding religious values from democratic deliberation a priori, secular fundamentalism clearly gives preference to the values and beliefs of atheists over those of the religious.
Exclusion of religious groups cannot be justified on the grounds of neutrality, and &#147;religious cultures and identities are not treated fairly by declaring that religion is a private matter or by excluding religious argument from political or constitutional debate.&#148;13 Attempts by the state to deal with competing religions with equal respect, or social agreements (whether consociational or otherwise) that seek to depoliticize certain religious issues, have a much better claim to be attempting to institute neutrality among competing religious views. Enforced secularism, which rules out religious concerns and values by fiat, is not a form of state neutrality.
It follows that the arbitrary exclusion of religious concerns and values from political discussion is undemocratic. Entrenched secularism cannot be justified on the grounds of neutrality among competing views because it is not neutral&#151;indeed the very point of the approach is to ensure that the political process generates only certain types of outcomes, those that are not premised on views that secular fundamentalists find objectionable. The democratic rules of the game cannot be formulated on the basis of such reservations. While this is not to suggest that there are not real political advantages in religious groups&#146; (and others&#146;) accepting certain restraints on the questions and issues they seek to resolve in the public sphere, it does mean there is no ground for the comprehensive exclusion of religion from politics. Religious groups legitimately perceive such exclusion as an affront to their dignity and as a denial of the political equality on which democracy is premised.
The &#147;Twin Tolerations&#148;
Having rejected secular fundamentalism, I now turn to the question of how a democracy ought to structure the interaction between church and state. It is clear that religious fundamentalism, wherein radical religious groups seek absolute political power to impose their agenda, is incompatible with democracy. Theocracies may be as authoritarian as secular autocracies. Democratic church-state relations must avoid both forms of fundamentalism. This is best achieved by institutionalizing two concepts: the twin tolerations and priority for democracy.
The first concept, the twin tolerations, has been advanced by Stepan and refers to the respective room for autonomy that the state and religion must acknowledge for each other.14 This is not synonymous with a simple notion of separation whereby the state operates in the public sphere, which is sealed from the private sphere. Instead, it starts from the premise that the polity acknowledges a distinction between civil and religious authority. That is, even if there is an established religion with state involvement in the religious hierarchy, the two sources of authority are regarded as being distinct and making separate claims on their adherents.
Instituting the twin tolerations requires a number of concessions from the state and religious groups respectively. At a minimum, the state must respect religious freedom to worship. The reasons for this are clear. To those who accept its precepts, a religion makes fundamental demands on the human conscience. Therefore, where believers are denied freedom to conform to their perceived religious obligations, they will view the state as tyrannical and illegitimate. A democratic regime that is committed to respecting human dignity and equality, and that hopes to secure popular consent, ought not employ state power to frustrate persons from complying with the dictates of their conscience. This is necessary to ensure principled support for democratic regimes and, as such, is both sound strategy and a moral imperative.
Further, civil authorities must be prepared to tolerate religious persons&#146; or groups&#146; organizing politically and participating in the democratic process. Religious believers must enjoy the same freedom as other persons to engage with the state through available political channels. Thus, they may legitimately critique state policy on religious grounds, lobby for change in reliance on religious sources of authority, and argue for particular state action to enforce or respect their beliefs. This is consistent with the freedom to participate that every other citizen in the polity is entitled to enjoy; it cannot be disrespected without arbitrarily and unjustly excluding a class of citizens from the democratic community, and it is just such exclusion that is antithetical to the democratic ideal. In a democracy, religious political action and argument should not be ruled out by fiat.
From the religious, the concept demands toleration of the religious freedom of other citizens, as well as respect for the legitimacy of the state and its autonomy to set policy and act unfettered by religious veto. Thus, religious groups must accept that the state has authority to determine the rules for action in the polity in accordance with its own procedure, and they must abide by the decisions that it makes. This is necessary if there is to be a meaningful forum for democratic deliberation and a focus for democratic action. A regime in which the state had no autonomy independent of religious control to assess problems and determine solutions would not be democratic. To be clear, this does not mean that it is undemocratic for the religious sensibilities of the voting public to effectively control the scope of state action through the democratic process. It does mean that religious hierarchies should not have power, formal or otherwise, to veto state action or to exercise influence in gross disproportion to the voting weight held by their adherents.
In short, there can be no artificial exclusion of religious groups or religious reasons from the political process, nor can there be a priori limits on religious activity, save that it be peaceful and respect the democratic framework. Conversely, religious groups must refrain from seeking to fuse civil and religious authority. This does not preclude the establishment of a state religion, provided citizens are not compelled to worship and it remains possible to disestablish religion. The framework stipulated by the twin tolerances is a minimal set of requirements that must exist if a regime is to be democratic. Thus, while there may be good reasons to agree to remove certain religious questions from the political agenda, beyond the requirements of the twin tolerances these self-restraints may be prudentially desirable, but they are not conceptually required by democracy. Therefore, within the twin tolerations &#147;there can be an extraordinarily broad range of concrete patterns of religion-state relations in political systems that would meet our minimal definition of a democracy.&#148;15
Priority for Democracy and Religious Obligation
Compliance with the twin tolerations is desirable in part because it helps to secure priority for democracy. This latter concept refers to the state of affairs where all political actors, including believers, accept that the political decisions that result from the democratic process are to be respected and obeyed even if they are inconsistent with the actors&#146; own preferred policy outcome or view of how the polity should be ordered.16
Thus, the concept provides that religious groups must continue to abide by rules and decisions that are inconsistent with their religious convictions, and secularists must respect state action that is informed by religious norms and values. That is the price to be paid for living in a democracy. The political equality of all persons means that where we disagree over controversial questions of value, and where we need a decision, we agree to be bound not by our own comprehensive worldviews but rather by the outcomes of the democratic procedures that are fundamental to the regime.
Ideally, of course, we seek to develop consensus, or, at the very least (as consensus will rarely be obtainable), we endeavor to communicate our political claims, sourced as they are in rival worldviews, civilly, and intelligibly. That is part of the discipline that political actors must learn to operate under if democratic politics are to persist over time. The deliberate alienation and marginalization of opposing political views, as secular fundamentalists advocate in respect of religious believers, can only undermine the support that is necessary to maintain democracy.
This discussion, and the very notion of priority for democracy, raises the serious question of why a rational actor would willingly abide by the results of the democratic process when those outcomes are inconsistent with his or her comprehensive view. The question is especially pertinent with respect to religious persons whose commitments are asserted as fundamental requirements and who cannot as readily be swayed by appeal to secular values. That is, while we might accept as rational the decision of a secular group to settle for its second-best outcomes when pursuit of its preferred outcome would be counter-productive, it seems difficult to conceive of religious individuals&#146; making a similar calculus. There seems to be something inconceivable about treating transcendental and absolute claims of access to divine truth as defeasible.
The apparent puzzle of securing religious support for democracy can be unpacked by considering the distinction between the external perspective held by an observer of religion and the internal perspective held by an adherent to the religion. From the perspective of the social scientist observer, or nonreligious political actor, it might seem that the best way to secure religious support for democracy is to seek to weaken the strength of religious conviction and instead substitute prosperity or a desire for peace and social harmony in place of religious objectives. This might succeed in dulling calls from within a religious tradition for the repudiation of democracy. However, it is equally true that, if the religious group&#146;s support for democracy seems inconsistent with its own theology, this constitutes a resource that may be used by elements within the tradition to reject democracy. This is the threat posed by religious fundamentalism.
To survive, democratic regimes require the principled support of believers (among others). This means the religious must view democracy as intrinsically rather than instrumentally valuable. In other words, democracy must be seen to have a moral value in its own right, independent of the extent to which it enables the religious group to secure its political goals.17 For principled support to be rational, believers must have sound reasons from within their tradition to justify their support for democracy. Such reasons might relate either to the affinity between democracy and religious freedom or to the implications of a religiously grounded notion of human equality. When harmony exists between the tenets of the tradition and the principled support of the devout for democracy, this provides a strong foundation for the democratic regime. Historically, this is consistent with the rise of democracy in the Christian West, just as tolerance has its roots within the Christian tradition.
Truly democratic regimes are characterized in their church-state relations by the twin tolerations and priority for democracy. Thus, in a democracy, believers are free to worship as they see fit, as well as to participate in public life. The state has autonomy to reach its own policy decisions and authority to implement those decisions without being constrained by religious veto. In this way, while there is no strict wall of separation, political actors observe a distinction between civil and religious authority and give priority to the outcomes of democratic procedures, irrespective of their inconsistency with individual or group preferences. To be sustainable, religious groups&#146; support for democracy must be justified from within their traditions.18 It follows, then, that contra secular fundamentalism democratization may well require explicitly religious arguments for democracy.




Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Worth a read "Arab Oil: If It Runs Out - As̢۪ad Abu Khalil

"Arab Oil: If It Runs Out
As'ad Abu Khalil
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Laura and Fadwa kindly translated an article I wrote in Arabic for Al-Akhbar from a few weeks ago. As'ad Abu Khalil

As'ad AbuKhalil Arabic: أسعد أبو خليل (born March 16, 1960) is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at University of California, Berkeley. AbuKhalil is the author of Historical Dictionary of Lebanon (1998), Bin Laden, Islam & America's New "War on Terrorism" (2002), and The Battle for Saudi Arabia (2004). He maintains a popular blog, The Angry Arab News Service. He is an occasional commentator on Middle East issues for television in the United States and a frequent commentator for Al-Jazeera.

What has oil madness brought to the Arab person? What can we say about the accumulated billions that have gone to support the Western banks and corporations hostile to our interests, or to buy arms for America to use to support those servile regimes, or for the sake of subjugating those who raise their voices against Israel. Is there anyone among us who will yearn for Arab oil and its political actions, if the oil runs out?

If Arab oil runs out, there would be a great deal of change in our Arab world. If the oil runs out, there wouldn't be clusters of men flocking to the Janadriya Festival screaming of manhood saying good things about a king who finds it hard to speak correct Arabic. If Arab oil runs out, there wouldn't be the Arab national missionary, Ma'n Bashur, to endure the hardship of travel in order to take part in the glorification of a government whose job is to fight nationalism and to strengthen regionalism and the Bedouins and tribalism and factions. If the oil runs out, no one would come to the Janadriya Festival, except for Abdullah and his sons – unwillingly. If the oil runs out, a corps of senior religious officials in the Kingdom would become a television laughingstock and a reason for the intellectuals to show the ugliness of these people and a target of real enlightenment – not the false enlightenment of the entourage of this or that Emir.

If Arab oil runs out, the sermons of the mosques of the Shi'a and Sunni would join together equally to condemn the doctrine of primness and fanaticism and hostility towards the Saudi women with abundant money. If the oil runs out, the dark extremists could never speak in the name of Islam, and repress the dream and tolerance and the true brotherhood of man. If it ran out, their historical splendor and luster would be returned to Mecca and Medina and debate and discussion would return to them. Poetry and prose in all their forms would return to the season of the Haj as it was before the rise of Mohammed Bin Abd-al-Wahab. If oil runs out, religious scholars would speak the truth and would condemn doctrines of fanaticism supported with oil money. If Arab oil runs out, we wouldn't be talking about the Saudi age - the first and the second - and the imperialistic policies of the West wouldn't depend on the Saudi regime. There would be a great change in the Arab world, and the media would stop calling the Saudi king by the title "Servant of the two Holy Places." Servant of the two Holy Places? And who gave him the right? And how does he serve the two Holy Places? And what about his service for American and Israeli interests? Doesn't that deserve a special title too? If the oil runs out, they would call the Saudi king the servant of dates and perfume - no more - that is if the monarchy continued which wouldn't survive without the benefits of oil. If Arab oil runs out, Saudi women would drive cars and buses and vehicles, uncovered or with hijab or veiled, if they wanted. If oil ran out, Saudi women would leave their marital jails for the open society and freedom.

If Arab oil runs out, our contemporary history wouldn't be as it is now. If oil ran out earlier, the Egyptian army wouldn't have been immersed and exhausted in the destructive Yemen war. If oil had run out earlier, the sheikhdoms and emirates and sultanates and kingdoms drawn by imperial pens would be republics. If the oil had run out, the Palestinian revolution, with all its organizations, wouldn't have been corrupted with oil money, and Yasir Arafat and Abu al-Said wouldn't have been able to impose the logic of backward Gulf Arab regimes on the national Palestinian movement in accordance with the vision of successive American administrations. If Arab oil had run out, Arab revolutionaries in the 1960s would have ignited the Arab region, and would've made the earth tremble under the feet of the freedom fighters – not opportunists. If the oil had run out, the revolution of Thafar would have triumphed and established a less oppressive government than the government of Kaboos or his father who rule with power from God (and with such odd behavior, as Fred Halliday wrote about in his valuable book "Arabia Without Sultans"). If the oil had run out, the Marxist regime in South Yemen would have flourished and spread out over the Arabian Peninsula and spread ideas of progress and freedom.

If Arab oil runs out today or tomorrow, a lot will change in our Arab world and hypocrisy will be shown for what it is. If the oil runs out, Shakir al-Nablusi would stop praising the poetry of Khalid al-Faisal and Jihad Fadil would stop praising the poetry of Abd-al Aziz al-Khooja and Samir A'ta allah would stop praising the Emir Muqrin Bin Abd-al Aziz and Jihad al-Khazin would stop praising every Arab emir who passes through London or New York. If the oil had run out, Om Kalthoum wouldn't have sung for Abdullah Faisal, and others wouldn't have sung the poetry of Manea' Said al-A'tiba. If oil runs out, the Arab world wouldn't allow Walid Bin Talal – investor of the News Corps company which owns the Fox News network specializing in hatred of the Arabs and Islam – to decide for us taste in art and music. If oil runs out, our media's dehumanization of women in a very humiliating and vulgar way and Wahhabi fanaticism would fade away. If Arab oil runs out, Arab media would be exposed and the financing of the Video Clip (the cheap and silly Video Clip) would stop. If oil runs out, who knows? Samir A'tallah would write the memoir of the sins of the Saud family and their scandals. If Arab oil runs out, Arab liberalism will come out. If the oil runs out, the Arab liberals would come out screaming angrily calling for the fall of all the Gulf governments. If oil runs out, the liberals would say that the biggest obstacle facing the freedom of the individual is the continuation of the oppressive oil regimes, especially in Saudi Arabia. If the oil runs out, they would speak their minds frankly, and the Arab newspapers would be full of the news of sons of Sultan Bin Abd-al-Aziz and their bribes which fills the Western media. If the oil runs out, the Lebanese writers would speak their minds frankly in the lectures of Khalid Bin Sultan in the military academies - the one who everyone made fun of who dealt with him in the First Gulf War and who hired Patrick Seale to write his biography as he wrote the non-critical biography of Hafiz al-Asad. If the oil runs out, the Arab liberals would write volumes about the methods of torture used by Emir Nayf bin Abd-al-Aziz and people would write about the shameless "wild nights" of King Fahd. If the oil runs out, the appeasement coming from the pens of Lebanese media would disappear. If the oil runs out, would Ibrahim al-A'ris have said that the initiative of Abdullah Bin Abd-al-Aziz in a dialogue with Shimon Peres that it was the greatest initiative in human history? If the oil runs out, would anyone agree with "the initiative of Emir Abdullah" which he received from the Zionist Thomas Friedman? A Zionist composing an initiative for the Arabs, and then it is adopted by an Arab king and imposed on all Arab regimes! If the oil runs out, the Arab media collectively will call for the necessity to remove all regimes from the remnants of Western colonialism with characteristics from the Middle Ages. If Arab oil runs out, the Wahhabi liberals would discover that the oppression in the governments is a characteristic of all Arab regimes, not only Libya, Sudan, and Syria - that is, the opponents of the Saudis. If the oil runs out, Hazim Sayyigh would have been perplexed and looked finally to the Wahhabi way of democracy saying that "Free elections are not necessary if they produce enemies to Israel and al-Saud." If the oil runs out, the Wahhabi liberals and the writers who appease the regimes would have noticed that the stoning of the lovers and the beheading of people do not agree with individual liberties and human rights. If Arab oil runs out, the real Saudi gifts in music and dance - other than the male arda dance – and cinema and theatre will appear. If the oil runs out, fun would appear in Saudi Arabia and Ra's al-Khaima and Oman and decoration would fill A'jman and al-Fajira.

If the oil runs out, all the Western policies would change and forums and hearings in Congress would be held to look into the miserable human rights situation in the kingdom. If the oil runs out, Western banks would be empty of Arab fortunes which finance some of the economies which continue to support Israel with weapons to kill our women and children and old people. If the oil runs out, Bush and Chirac would have never danced with the oil sheikhs. If the oil runs out, no poetry would have been written to praise the dates and the extreme heat and no plans would've been made to take over the sand dunes in the Peninsula. If Arab oil runs out, the Security Council would hold a special session to look into the nature of the unjust and oppressive Saudi regime and the International Criminal Court would have dragged the kings of al-Saud to the court with the accusation of oppressing men, women and children. If the oil runs out, the human rights organizations would have looked into the issue of slavery of men and women in the palaces of al-Saud and al-Shakhboot. If the oil had run out, we wouldn't have seen businessmen, intellectuals and journalists from East and West lining up to be blessed by the oil princes. If Arab oil had run out, Wahhabism would have turned into a small fanatical group on the margins of their religion, of every religion. If oil had run out, al-ijtihad would have developed (which the Sunnis never closed the doors to, as Wail Halak proved in his serious historical studies) and the life of the believers would have been easier. If the oil had run out, we wouldn't have seen the pictures of vulgar spending of the Gulf Emirs in the magazines and the demand for gold painting would go away. If Arab oil had run out, the Kadafi foundation would have never been able to advertise itself and the Green Book would have been only a magnet for dust. If Arab oil had run out, no one would have praised the wisdom of the King of Saudi Arabia, and his highness would never have received awards from these hypocrites from the East and West. If Arab oil had run out, the power of the Saudis and Shakhboot would be equal to the power of the government of Djibouti or less. If the oil had run out, none of the Western officials would have stopped in Riyadh during their shuttle trips. If the oil had run out, all the international foundations and forums would never have accepted the membership of Saudi Arabia because of horrible violations of human rights and the pictures of the princes of al-Saud would have appeared on the Most Wanted list – if the oil had run out.

If Arab oil runs out, Arab women would breathe freedom and they would get rid of religious edicts of oppression, injustice and mistreatment. They would walk without fear and the religious police wouldn't dare to harass them in the streets and squares. If the oil runs out, love and flirting wouldn't be considered forbidden and lovers would never be stoned. If the oil runs out, a woman would walk hand in hand with a man, not behind him with her head down. If the oil runs out, a woman would be allowed to travel freely without permission from a man, no matter what his relation to her. The seeds of unrest are financed by oil money. If the oil runs out, Lebanese men and women would not go to the oil countries to compete in humiliating appeasement. If the oil runs out, all these books praising desert poetry wouldn't be published and the officials in the Arab countries wouldn't have run to the airport every time an Emir from Saudi Arabia goes to their country, no matter how young he is. If the oil had run out, the Emir Sultan bin Fahd wouldn't have managed one sports club and "Azouz", the spiritual guide to Sa'd Hariri wouldn't have occupied any government position, this guy who suffered hallucinations and was madly in love with the American actress Jasmine Blyth as she mockingly relates.

If the oil had run out, Eastern and Western businessmen wouldn't have praised the wisdom of Rashid and Zayid's sons. If the oil runs out, nobody would go after awards named after the oil sheikhs who have no connection whatsoever with knowledge or science.

If Arab oil had run out, the Arab system would have built a new foundation and the elections, no matter how small in our world, would not be affected to this extent by oil money. If Arab oil had run out, Mohammad Dahlan would never have found business opportunities in the Emirates and Montenegro. If the oil had run out, the Arab League would not be prisoner to the whims of the black oil sheikhs and kings. If the oil had run out, the US wouldn't have been able to spend such a huge amount against Communism and the enlightenment there in the 1970s and 80s and the Emir Turki would have been unable to establish an international army of fundamentalist and fanatics. If the oil had run out, al-Azhar would have been an expression of diversity and tolerance in religion, not fanaticism and quackery to be willing held hostage by the government, and the sheikh of al-Azhar wouldn't have honored Shimon Peres. If the oil had run out, Strida Ja'ja' wouldn't have praised the wisdom and depth of the Emir of Kuwait, the one who dealt with invasion by Iraq with tears and screams. If Arab oil had run out, the book "Cities of Salt" would have been in the curriculum of all Arab countries and Arab students would have learned about Abd-ar-Rahman Munif. If Arab oil had run out, the case of the kidnapping and killing of Nasir Said would have become an international issue like the case of the kidnapping of Mahdi bin Baraka. If the oil had run out, the titles like sultan, king, sheikh, emir, crown prince and servant of the two holy places would have disappeared from the dictionary of addressing people.

If Arab oil had run out, OPEC would not be an instrument to serve the economic and political interests of Western colonialism and they wouldn't have harangued us with talk about the "oil weapon" which was only an instrument in the hands of the US that used it to serve Israel. The oil weapon? That lie from the days of very loud declaration in 1973 when the Arab oil governments were selling it on the market to the US and its allies. If the oil runs out, an Arab committee of intellectuals, writers, and journalists would be formed to confront the danger of extreme Wahhabism and fanaticism.

If Arab oil had run out, secular ideas would have flourished and spread. If the oil had run out, revolutions would have come to pass and unions and leftist movements. If the oil runs out, the Asian workers would be free in the Gulf countries. If the oil runs out, gold and diamond watches would disappear from the wrists of many Lebanese journalists. If the oil runs out, Arab students' knowledge of sciences, humanities, and arts would increase. If the oil had run out, we would have studied the books of Ibn Timia and Ibn Qim al-Jouzia as they are, without Wahhabi "refinement." If Arab oil runs out, the Arab media would be more free and empty of the news of the princes and kings and their "genius." If the oil runs out, the "Arab" media would disappear from London and go back to its country with its tail between its legs. If Arab oil runs out, Arab satellites would be free from the control of al-Saud which imposes either vulgarity which makes women a commodity or religious fanaticism.

If Arab oil runs out, the Arab media and intellectuals would remember the poor in our area and their news and suffering would fill the airwaves, we would have competed in offering social services and fighting poverty, and joining the World Trade Organization wouldn't have been our aim that is more important in our priorities than freeing Palestine. If Arab oil runs out, we would re-shape the culture and politics in the Arab world and the "culture of oil" which marketed the worshipping of the white European man and commoditized women and trade in girls and boys and the social classes and the despising of the poor and the glorifying of polygamy and imposed prohibitions and restrictions on people while allow it to the ruling families and serving Western imperialism and prohibiting discussion and debate and restricting the limits in religious interpretation and education – all this would disappear. If Arab oil runs out, artistic activities would flourish all over the Arab world and a lot of the prohibited things would disappear. If Arab oil runs out, the mentality of inheritance in the governments and positions based on blood ties would become extinct. If the oil runs out, the borders and walls between many sheikhdoms and emirates would disappear.

If Arab oil runs out, what will happen to many of these nightclubs and brothels in the West which wouldn't have continued to survive for years if it wasn't for the Arab oil money. Wasn't the Playboy Club in London a playground for the Arab oil sheikhs and princes to the extent that an Arab, who is Lebanese of course, who specialized in Arab royal indulgences, was appointed to oversee it? And this man was very respected and appreciated in the Arab media in the 1970s. If Arab oil runs out, human trafficking in the south of France, which is supervised by Lebanese with the skills of the Lebanese of whom their green homeland is proud, would have to declare bankruptcy.

But, if Arab oil runs out, where would Lebanese politicians go on Haj? And what about Hariri's successors? Will they make free decisions or be committed to the orders of Sultan and Emir and the rest of them? Who will Ibn al-Faqih Ibrahim Shams al-Deen appease? Who is going to finance the leader of the southern Shi'a from al-Hazmia, Ahmed al-Asa'd? If Arab oil runs out, would the kicked out mufti of Sour, Ali al-Amin, go to give a speech on culture at the Janadariyya Festival? If Arab oil had run out, the magazine al-Huadith wouldn't have continued after the 1970s most probably. If the oil runs out, would Tariq al-Hamid find anyone who would publish his thoughts? If the oil runs out, to whom is Fouad Abd-al-Basat al-Senora going to send his prayers like the one published in the special issue of the "History of the Arabs and the World" about the Saudi king? If the oil runs out, would Munir al-Hafi find someone to publish his hypocrisies and appeasements to the Saudi ambassador or to publish his fancy volumes about the Saudi role in Lebanon? If the oil runs out, who would appoint Yasir Abd Rabo and who will open the pulpit for him to serve US-Saudi-Israeli plans? If oil runs out, who will give the orders to the writers in the Arab newspapers around the world, especially the Lebanese? If the oil runs out, what will happen to Fouad Mattar - who started out as the mouthpiece of Nasser then turned to mouthpiece of Saddam and wrote a biography of Saddam, then he turned to active Saudi-Wahhabi mouthpiece, poor Fouad Mattar if the oil dries up.

And if Arab oil runs out, would the artists of the Arab world work very hard to entertain the sheikhs and oil princes in private parties where the media is not invited?

We have the right to dream and to picture a different Arab world. Is anyone going to regret the transformation of the Saudi Shura council that was appointed by the king to an elected council that would express the hopes of men and women in Saudi Arabia which would change its family name? Is anyone going to miss the members of the corps of high religious officials and the frightening fatwas which are against logic and knowledge? Is there anyone who will miss Sheikh Mo's supervision of poetry festivals? On the contrary, we will find that Arab men and women will find happiness, great happiness, at what comes out of the land, like water and vegetables and fruits. The water, maybe the water would prevail instead of oil. What's the harm of glorifying the source of "every living thing"? Arab oil, if it runs out, we will leave our houses and huts in welcome saying hallelujah and clapping. If it runs out. Ah, I wish it would! Extreme bitter plants are better for us than oil."

------------------------------------

****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/