Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
Inapplicable to Southwest Asia. That's mainly an European concept.
|
Nuh-uh, it's quite universal. Not in European terms, maybe, but the model fits.
The Hashemites of Jordan and the Alaouites of Morocco both claim their legitimacy from their descent from the Prophet Muhammad. As close to divine right as it gets.
Ironically it is that prestige which allows them the leeway to contain their extremists and create moderate monarchies. Combined with historical circumstances that made them early and constant allies of the West, and they don't need to be as nasty as the rest. Good for King Abdullah, he can now slowly back out into the comfort and security of a true constitutional monarch.
Of course, on the other hand, hardcore theocracies like Iran or the Wahhabi Al-Sauds can go burn in the fires of their precious hell.
Saying Islamic leaders are shite is hardly racist. They are largely shite, through no fault of the Qur'an or Semitic racial characteristics, mind (that's just bullshit and nobody's saying that here), but because they're a bunch of asshole oppressors. Secular post-Nasserist dictators, Iranian theocratic clerics, Saudi/Gulf sheikhs with their fabulous oil wealth...the new generation of democrats, Islam-based or not, won't have to do much not to be worse, though there will be much work before they can really call themselves better.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aegir
And 'm saying that monarchy isn't a backward system by default simply for being a monarchy.
|
As a democrat (not the big D), that's what aohige believes. As an admirer of
liberté, egalité, fraternité, I agree. All kings should hang wherever they're found, except the decent ones, and they better remain decent or they can go hang too.
No racism here, just honest republicanism. And why the hell not? Why are kings kings, and why should I be loyal to oppressors and children of oppressors? Tradition is only worth the good it can bring, nothing more.
And as a secularist, religion can indeed go make love to itself. I study religions, even read the annotated Qur'an (quite an interesting book of poetry, that one), because they're quite interesting. Because I'm a historian not a philosopher I'm not particularly concerned with bashing religion to establish my worldview. But, in my secular politics, God can shove off. Not saying you can't believe, or that I'll look down on anyone for just believing, but I quite object to having other people's beliefs being used as the foundation of a society I live in.