Too Much Democracy May Damage Your Health By Eyad Abu Shakra: New Age Islam's Selection, 30 September 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
30 September 2017
• Too Much Democracy May Damage Your Health
By Eyad Abu Shakra
• Why Do Saudi Women Have To Wear Black Hijabs At Work?
By Tamadur Al-Yammi
• Women’s License to Drive: Embracing the Future
By Mashari Althaydi
• Women Driving and the Collapse of Illusions
By Abdulrahman Al-Lahim
• Reform in Baghdad Can Stop Dismantling Of Iraq
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• The Kurdish Referendum Portends Ethnic Conflict
By Talmiz Ahmad
• Crass Cliches about Arab Muslims Are Spreading Hatred and Fear across Britain
By Nabila Ramdani
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Too Much Democracy May Damage Your Health
By Eyad Abu Shakra
29 September 2017
One quote widespread in the Arab region, a few decades ago, was that it was facing the danger of ‘partitioning what has been already partitioned. Those days, several Arab capitals were run by leaders who cover their tribalism and sectarianism by claiming to be ‘Pan-Arabists’ as well ‘Anti-imperialist Globalists’!
No doubt the region was affected by the demise of the Arab Nationalist project after the defeat of 1967, and later the end of the ‘east – west’ rivalry in the late 1980s and 1990s as a result of the collapse of the ‘Berlin Wall’ and later the USSR. Thus evaporated all fake slogans, and emerged the true chemistry of most of these regimes.
It did not take long before the discourse of armed ‘Political Islam’ began establishing itself at the expense of that of ‘Arabism’ and the ‘liberation of Palestine’ as well as globalist discourse of the Socialist Left and Liberal Right.
However, there was no place for any armed groups under state authority; which meant that this kind of armed ‘Political Islam’ – namely, Sunni – bolstered by some electoral successes, became the ‘democratic choice’ in the struggle for political change against regimes unwilling to accommodate reform.
The ‘Arab Spring’
On the other hand, the states’ legitimate armies and security forces (and later Shi’ite militias, as we have witnesses in Iraq and Syria) became the effective means of stemming the tide of Sunni ‘Political Islam’. What has been called the ‘Arab Spring’ has been a turning point.
While many Arab intellectuals continue to debate the true meaning of this term, many have been questioning and arguing some serious issues, such as:
Why seek change if the human, political and economic cost was so high? What’s wrong in tolerating dictatorships if the alternative is chaos? Aren’t we immature nations that hardly deserve democracy anyway, so why ask for what we don’t deserve? Why must we show empathy with other suffering Arabs who trouble us and let us down instead of looking after our own interests? And last but not least, what’s wrong in being weak – even against regional challenges – when we can always rely on Super Powers that are always ready to protect us?
I reckon that being able to address these questions would ‘enrich’ our political culture, and refocus our outlook to the challenges faced by the Region and its peoples. On a negative note, however, we are approaching these questions neither in a responsible way nor with a commitment to accountability.
For example a lot has been written about the Palestinian Conflict and the ‘nature’ of Israel to the extent that many have lost interest. Later, we lived and continue to live under the Iranian project for hegemony which today runs four Arab capitals. We also read and follow Turkey’s tumultuous hankering to go back to Ottoman times after turning the page of the Ataturk Experiment with all its possible regional ramifications.
Inflated Snippy Individualism
In the meantime, Arab division and disintegration gather pace, against a back drop of inflated snippy individualism, and delusions about what the future might hold for the Region.
In Sudan, the South has already seceded and this may only be the beginning; and in some North African ‘Magharebi’ countries there are stirrings of dormant factional problems.
In Yemen, too, the Houthi phenomenon, coming hard on heels of the Qaeda phenomenon is surely a worrying sign. However, the real catastrophe is that taking hold of Iraq and the Levant.
The Kurds have decided on full independence from Iraq, and had things been more conducive, would have done the same in Syria. The truth is that as ‘inventing’ ISIS has brought down the Syrian popular uprising and rehabilitated Al-Assad Regime under US-Russian auspices and Iranian firepower, the transgressions of the reigns of Saddam Hussein and Nuri Al-Maliki have provided the leaders of Iraqi Kurds ready-made excuse to seek an independence that had really worked for all along, regardless of what they diplomatically claim today.
Sure, there is no moral or political justification to oppose the Kurds’ right to seek independence, whether in Iraq or Syria, or even Iran and Turkey for that matter. But, as it is often said, ‘the devil is in the detail’. What sort of country will the new Kurdistan be? What are its borders going to look like? What political system will it have? What are non-Kurds to expect in a ‘nationalist’ Kurdish entity?
The War on ISIS
The early signs in the ‘disputed areas’ are not encouraging. Indeed, during ‘the war on ISIS’ Iraqi Kurds made haughty pronouncements such as “the Peshmerga (the powerful Kurdish militias) will never withdraw any territory they liberate”; and then there is the volatile situation in the oil-rich mixed-race city of Kirkuk, and the issues of Tel Afar and the towns of the Nineveh Plain, without forgetting the bouts of ethnic and sectarian ‘cleansing’ in Diyala Province.
Not to be outdone, Syria’s Kurds are steadily working to establish their ever-expanding Rojava ‘autonomous region’ at the expense of Arab, Turkmen and Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean towns and villages; changing their mostly Arabic names in the process.
Mr Masoud Barzani, president of ‘Iraqi Kurdistan Region’, who has insisted on including the ‘disputed areas’ in the independence referendum, is continuing to reassure world leaders that the new independent ‘Kurdistan’ would be a Northern Europe-style pluralistic democracy… but under the arms and banners of the Peshmerga.
The Kurdish parties working for a Kurdish ‘autonomous area’ in northern Syria, which are also trying to impose its hegemony over mixed areas, claim they too are committed to ‘democracy’ and have been conducting ‘elections, under the watchful eye of what is attractively called “Syrian Democratic Forces’ which are actually dominated by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia.
This brand of ‘democracy’ does not reassure many living whether within or outside the Kurdish dominated areas. In fact, if helpless minorities find themselves willing to accept a ‘lesser of two evils’ when faced with two worse options: either living under Iran’s Shi’ite militia led by Qassem Suleimani or under ISIS, others do not feel compelled to accept such a scenario.
Honest aspirations and goodwill, aside Kurdish leaders today face many serious doubts and strong opposition, and if Arab lamentable weakness cannot save the identity and sovereignty of Iraq and Syria, Iran’s and Turkey’s national interests may be capable of disturbing Kurdish calculations, and impose conditions of their own.
On their part, it may be in the interests of the Kurds to be cautious in over-relying on international promises of support. They may be wise not to burn all their boats… even with the Arabs who are now the weakest player in the Near East.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/29/Too-much-democracy-may-damage-your-health.html
----
Why Do Saudi Women Have To Wear Black Hijabs At Work?
By Tamadur Al-Yammi
29 September 2017
One of the labour laws relates to women’s headscarves. The law stipulates that a penalty will be imposed on shops in which female workers do not abide by the rules of Shariah relating to modest Hijab. What is the definition of Hijab and what is a modest Shariah Hijab?
There is no one single definition for Hijab and there is no consensus among Muslims regarding this issue. Therefore, the wording of the above violation should be clarified so that it cannot be distorted or abused. For example, some people with very conservative Islamic views believe that Abayas that hang off the shoulders are not modest enough while others consider that the uncovering of a woman’s face is against Shariah. Others believe that only black Abayas are Shariah-compliant.
Female employees should be judged according to how well they perform their duties at work, not on the colour or shape of their Abayas. They already face difficulties relating to transportation to and from work, and have the responsibility of being mothers and wives.
Employers force female workers to wear black head covers and not other colours because they are mistaken in thinking that the labour law refers to black Hijabs. If a female worker arrives at work wearing a grey or light coloured Hijab, she will be given a notice. Workers who ignore the notice will be given a warning that they will be fired.
Employers are adamant about this issue because they do not want labour inspectors to fine them if during a spot inspection they find that a female worker is wearing a grey or light coloured Hijab. They try to avoid this violation for fear of hefty fines. The fine will increase if the violation is repeated. Strangely, expatriate female workers do not have to abide by the same dress code. Some of them show up to work with their heads uncovered.
The Minister of Labour should take steps to enable women to play a more important role in building the country by removing the unjustified obstacles that they face. Why do female Saudi workers face such obstacles while their male counterparts do not? The wording of the violation should be changed to remove any ambiguity about the dress code of female workers. There should be no discrimination against female workers. Women are free to wear any colour of Hijab that they wish.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/article/518281/Opinion/Local-Viewpoint/Saudi-women
----
Women’s License to Drive: Embracing the Future
By Mashari Althaydi
29 September 2017
The matter which many have been inquiring about for long has been addressed as King Salman granted Saudi women their right to drive cars.
This issue has had an impact on Saudi Arabia’s reputation for around three decades ever since it surfaced during the war to liberate Kuwait when women drove cars in Riyadh in what looked like a protest in November 1990.
The Islamist movements went mad at the time and mobilized the Saudi society speaking out against what “violated their habits!” They kept making these statements for a long time and really went far with their criticism.
The case has been on hold ever since without being resolved and the Shoura council only got involved recently.
The Beginning
It was started by Dr Mohammed al-Zulfa a historian who is an enthusiast for women’s causes. Zulfa is the member of the Shoura Council who in 2008 brought up the issue of women driving only to be confronted with a Sahwist attack that hurled insults at him and suspected his motives.
The issue was brought up again when women became members of the council during King Abdullah’s era. Female members of the council Latifa al-Shaalan, Haya Al-Minai and Mona al-Mushayet brought up the issue up in the Council but it was thwarted from within. During their second term, Latifa remained adamant as she did not give up and resumed her journey.
All this is now from the past following the historic decision made by the prime minister and Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman who has now inaugurated a new Saudi era.
Except The Enemies
The issue is more than the legal and technical part and this is why the entire world – except the enemies – celebrated this major Saudi decision. It is because they know it is a decision that embraces the future and truly empowers Saudi women.
How many times has the western media attacked Saudi Arabia due to this strange issue? How many times has an envoy or minister or even ordinary citizen failed to find an excuse to respond to those who try to embarrass them when they bring up the issue of women driving?
Even Khomeini supporters and the Brotherhood mouthpieces used this issue to harm Saudi Arabia’s and the Saudis’ reputation. Can you imagine that!
The story is now over. Let a bigger and more important story that is related to drafting laws against molesters and violators – whom will find many people to justify their acts for them – begin in order to deter them and protect decisions from enemies.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/29/Women-s-license-to-drive-Embracing-the-future.html
-----
Women Driving and the Collapse of Illusions
By Abdulrahman al-Lahim
29 September 2017
Another façade has been torn down in a historic night that buried a scarecrow, which extremists used to terrorize the Saudi society for 30 years.
On that great night, the custodian of the two holy mosques issued a decree that delivered justice to women and granted them one of their basic rights, which is to drive a car. This naturally leads to accomplishments of other rights such as the freedom of movement.
Inability to enjoy these ordinary rights resulted in women suffering serious harm that prevented them from exercising many of their civic rights.
Not allowing women to drive cars prevented many from exercising their right to work as most women are not financially capable of hiring a private driver or giving him part of their salaries. At some point women would figure out that they were working to pay the salaries of the foreign labourer.
Paying For the Driver
The historic decision allowing women to drive is far bigger than just about women as it encompasses the entire country and its vision for the future.
It confirms that the kingdom is strongly and steadily walking down the right path to achieve an ambitious vision engineered and supervised by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
This vision has become part of the national dream, which many pessimists and figures preaching misery doubted the capability to achieve. The prince however won the duel and we have seen illusions fall one after the other.
We are now entering into a new era for the homeland where there is no place for extremism. It is a country that is washing off the damage caused by hate and death preachers.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/29/Women-driving-and-the-collapse-of-illusions.html
-----
Reform in Baghdad Can Stop Dismantling Of Iraq
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
30 September 2017
If the Kurds are given a real share of the government in Baghdad, then they may stop thinking about independence. Currently, all they have are honorary posts without any real powers, and the same applies to many components of the new Iraqi state which was built, after the invasion, on a shared parliamentary system.
Almost all the regional states are against the idea of the separation of any province, and therefore the secession of Kurdistan will not be easy. There is a growing concern that the central Iraqi authority, in coordination with Turkey and Iran, may launch a war against the "Kurdish State," after 92 percent of the Kurds in the Kurdistan region supported the idea of independence from their country, Iraq. Secession is a rough, long and dangerous path, which may lead to military confrontation and a painful economic blockade. At the same time, the Kurds are adamant to have their independence, and even if they retract temporarily, they will try again later. Their project is disturbing because other Iraqi regions and cities entertain separatist ideas which may finally result in the end of Iraq as we have known since 1920, and whose boundaries were drawn by the British and the French.
The political powers in Bagdad need to offer the Kurds the powers and guarantees that they are real partners in the government, not just a sham formality. The Kurds, like the other Iraqi components which form the new Iraq, have been marginalized by their partners in the government after the departure of the Americans, who were the guarantors of the political project.
Baghdad is the capital of the whole country, and it is supposed to be administered by all components of the state to reflect the governance project, which was designed by the Americans to be a collective partnership. The defect started in the era of Nouri Al-Maliki, the former Iraqi prime minister, who centralized all the powers in his office. Later on, the parties which had an armed presence in Baghdad imposed their demands. Thus, the Iraqi capital became governed by armed militias with the help of Iran, which managed to give legitimacy to the armed militias under the banner of the "Popular Mobilization Forces." Some parties also tried to impose religious authorities as political references, and thus their fatwa -religious opinion - preceded parliamentary votes and governmental decisions. What is the use of the legislative institutions of the state, like the Parliament, if they had no real authorities, if the Supreme Court knuckles under the whims of the political leadership, and if the government could not impose its decisions unless the parties which rely on the power of the gun agree to them? How can we expect the Kurds, or any other political party for that matter, to stay loyal to the state without an identity or full powers? That is why the Iraqi state, not just the government, needs to restore its prestige through supporting its legitimate institutions, respecting the constitution, committing to equal treatment to all under the law, and launching a war against any party that shows disobedience, not just against the terrorists of Daesh and the separatists of Kurdistan.
During the years of the war on terror, the slogan was that the Iraqi state would not allow anyone to carry arms except its legitimate military institution, and that it would not allow any illegitimate group to administer any region or town. The war was launched under this promise, and Al Anbar, Saladin, Mosul and other areas were liberated. But in southern and central Iraq, the authorities of the state became weak, and the leader of the Popular Mobilization Forces became more important than the prime minister; Al-Maliki declared publicly his hostility toward the vice president, and thus they weakened the state. In these circumstances, the Kurds decided that their continued presence was useless, and that it was time for independence.
To stop these separatist tendencies, it is time to give the Kurds real powers. This may also stop other separatist tendencies entertained by the Sunni Arabs in Al Anbar and some Shiites in Basra, who are waiting for the battle of Kurdistan secession to start so that they can start their own battle. Unless Baghdad is for all Iraqis, the secessions will not stop.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1169836
----
The Kurdish Referendum Portends Ethnic Conflict
By Talmiz Ahmad
30 September 2017
On Sept. 25, Iraqi Kurds voted overwhelmingly to secede from Iraq and set up an independent state. The referendum had been announced in July by Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Over the last two months, the Iraqi government headed by Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi made every effort to persuade Barzani to cancel the vote and discuss federal and other issues with Baghdad.
Barzani ignored these blandishments and gleefully announced on Sept. 27 that with a 72-percent turnout, 92 percent of voters opted for freedom. Al-Abadi has affirmed the primacy of Iraqi unity, while Turkey and Iran are conducting military manoeuvres at the borders. Only Israel has supported Kurdish aspirations for independence.
The Kurds total about 30 million in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and are perhaps the world’s largest ethnic group without a state of their own. There is also evidence of sustained neglect of their political, economic and cultural interests in all the states where they live as minorities.
The 1991 Gulf War led to the setting up of the KRG in northern Iraq. With its capital in Irbil, it enjoys a high degree of autonomy, with its own assembly, government and army, even as Kurds hold senior positions in the federal government.
The dominant view about Barzani’s motive behind the referendum is that with the Iraqi government and army distracted by the war on Daesh, he is using the vote to bolster his sagging popularity, grab as much disputed territory as possible and reassert his authoritarian rule in the region. The disputed areas are Kirkuk, Sinjar, Makhmour and Khanaqin, which have mixed ethnic populations but which the KRG claims as part of its domain.
The most coveted jewel for the Kurdish crown is Kirkuk, which has 40 percent of Iraq’s oil reserves and the country’s richest agricultural land, both of which would be crucial for a free Kurdistan. The city, now under Kurdish control, has a mixed Turkmen, Arab and Kurdish population and rising ethnic tensions.
The KRG’s claims over the disputed areas will almost certainly be questioned. There are already reports that the Iran-influenced Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) are speeding up mop-up operations against Daesh and moving to challenge Kurdish control over Kirkuk, setting the stage for a bloody confrontation.
Given the opposition from the central government and neighbours, the outlook for an independent Kurdistan is grim. KRG territories are landlocked, with the area getting 92 percent of its needs from its neighbours. Its main source of income is from oil exports of about 650,000 barrels per day, but its sole pipeline passes through Turkey, which is also the major buyer of its oil.
The KRG is dependent on contributions from the federal budget, which generously provides it with 17 percent of the central revenues. Amid hostility with Baghdad and its neighbours, the KRG will hardly seem an attractive destination for international aid and investment, and could even face an economic blockade via closure of its pipeline, airports and borders.
Both Iran and Turkey, with large restive Kurdish populations of their own, can now be expected to cooperate to neutralize the urge for freedom emerging from Irbil.
Another emerging area of contention will be Syria, where the US-sponsored, mainly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are poised to set up their homeland Rojava along the Turkish border. Ankara has made known its opposition to this development: Its troops have already entered Syria to divide Rojava, setting up the possibility of a military confrontation with the SDF.
The role of the US and Israel in this imbroglio is uncertain. While the US has made strong statements against the referendum, some commentators believe that Barzani could not have persisted with it without tacit US support.
A writer for Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper has described the US as the “true ruler” in the KRG, and highlights its interest in maintaining a “permanent and guaranteed military presence inside Kurdistan,” which would give it an attractive base to watch and manipulate events in Iran.
The Kurds seem to believe that US and Israeli backing will help realize their aspirations for statehood in Iraq and Syria. But determined opposition from Iran and Turkey will reveal the true extent and effectiveness of this support. There is every likelihood that Kurdish dreams of freedom could soon turn into a nightmare of competition and conflict, and that the referendum will form one more chapter in their history of rising hope and rapid betrayal.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1169886
----
Crass Cliches about Arab Muslims Are Spreading Hatred and Fear across Britain
By Nabila Ramdani
30 September 2017
Ask a British person what an Arab looks like and descriptions are likely to fall somewhere between the enigmatic desert chieftain played by Omar Sharif in “Lawrence of Arabia” and the tawny, unshaven terrorist schemers in “Homeland.” Ignorance abounds and, at present, misimpressions tend to veer toward the crass fictional TV series end of the scale, rather than the slightly more sympathetic Hollywood movie end.
This is made abundantly clear by the new Arab News/YouGov survey on “UK attitudes toward the Arab world”. The extensive poll of 2,142 adults, conducted with the Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), revealed that an emphatic 81 percent admitted to “knowing little or nothing about the Arab world,” while 41 percent even said they would “never travel to the region.”
It is accordingly no surprise that widespread antipathy was detected for some 425 million people living in the 22 Arab-speaking countries of the Arab League. Disturbing views were certainly directed at the 370,000-plus members of the Arab diaspora currently residing in Britain, as well as those hoping to settle there.
The vast majority are, of course, Muslims and the overlap proved highly significant. Many of those questioned were convinced that the inhabitants of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example, were Arabs, simply because of their religion.
This absence of basic education also clearly influenced judgments about those fleeing conflict. While more than 70 percent of respondents thought the anti-refugee ideas of xenophobic politicians and other influential opinion-formers increased the risk of Islamophobia and hate crimes, 55 percent approved of “racial profiling against Arabs and Muslims for security reasons” too.
As many as 41 percent considered that those coming from war-torn Arab countries such as Syria and Libya were of no benefit to society at all. Almost 70 percent reckoned that the UK should welcome fewer refugees from such places. This figure jumped to 91 percent among Brexit voters. Overall, more than 60 percent felt that new arrivals from the Arab world failed to “integrate” in Western societies.
In short, people are well aware that animosity toward newcomers is prevalent due to a rise in populist nationalism, but this won’t stop them expressing some horrific, lazy prejudices of their own. To many, the very term “Arab” is now a catch-all word for anybody who is there to be demonized, pilloried and shunned.
No matter that Arabs in fact range from Gulf multimillionaires, through highly educated and affluent middle classes, to those struggling to build a life for themselves at home or abroad, after escaping persecution.
A lot of them are white, and a huge number of male Arabs don’t actually wear beards, nor women head coverings. They have different political and religious inclinations, as well as varied hobbies and food. Some are angry about the way the world is organized, others less so.
The notion that they are all one and the same — a homogeneous “other” — is preposterous. Such thinking is the reason malevolent commentators are able to equate unspeakable outrages such as terrorism with entire communities. They refuse to distinguish between the often drugged-up and psychologically deranged fanatics who commit low-tech, vile atrocities in Britain, and millions of decent people.
So it is that a mainstream British columnist keeps her job after comparing Arab Muslim refugees to “cockroaches,” then calling for a “Final Solution” to the ethnic and religious groups they originate from. A book by an equally bigoted and vicious media personality refers to the slow “death” of Europe at the hands of this alien swarm.
Genocidal sentiments aimed at these mythical savages are then echoed across unmoderated comment sections and social media platforms in a manner which would have been considered beyond the pale a few years ago.
In this climate of unadulterated hatred, there are very few references to far-right terrorism, least of all the murderous variety. Other violent crimes in Western societies, most of them committed by indigenous populations, are similarly ignored. Colonialism and the ongoing industrial killing carried out by the West with technologically advanced military machines on Arab and Muslim countries around the world are underplayed too.
One of the highest figures in the survey was the 83 percent of people who believe that Britain was wrong to go to war in Iraq in 2003. Fifty-seven percent said UK foreign policy is largely “ineffective” in upholding human rights in the Middle East and promoting global security.
The fact that the illegal invasion and occupation of Arab lands, and the associated oppression of Palestinians by Israel, are backed up by billions of dollars’ worth of arms export licenses and direct aid from the US and its allies — including Britain — is routinely bypassed. Tellingly, the poll found that 55 percent of people do not want the UK to even help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite Britain’s key historical role in creating it in the first place.
This year marks a century since British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared support for the creation of Israel in Palestine, so unleashing decades of war. Yet many British appear indifferent to halting the bloodshed.
Instead, it is only Arabs and those mistaken for Arabs who are portrayed as the perpetrators of the worst offenses. Those who buy into this crude stereotype call for their internment and deportation, as they rehearse the kind of Islamophobic and racist tropes propagated by the more high-profile rabble-rousers.
There is no place for common humanity in their woefully simplistic approach — no concession that people come in all shapes and sizes, and choose all types of lives for themselves, no matter what their ethnic, cultural or religious background.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1169841
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/too-democracy-damage-health-eyad/d/112711