On August, 05, 2006 1:49 AM , Nas
from Canada said:

word for word

Do you realize that you are for, or against, sometimes based on the actions of individuals? For example you are not a leftist because the *leftists* are so and so. Instead you should stick to your principle regardless.

You are also for, or against, something depending on whether it works or not (constitutional monarchy for example). This is not what intellectual positions are supposed to be, where is your principle? Maybe your principle is that you dont have a principle and what works is OK? I dont mean to be insulting here.

See this is the problem of our "intellectuals" today. They do not carry their ideas deeply enough to stand up for them, and instead prefer a more pragmatic approach to ideas. Our "intellectuals" also confuse the message with the messenger, so a lot of people refuse Islam because we have a bunch of backward and corrupt Imams.

Thanks for being honest though.

Nas:

A question: since you put up a daily hadeeth on your blog, and you come across as someone who identifies with Islam, isn't monarchy a frowned-upon system of governance in Islam? I can point you to verses in the Quran and to hadeeths that say frown upon this system, if you're not aware of them already.

Your position is like those of "honor killings": I know its frowned upon in Islam, but...goes on the justification.

I tend to see a thin tribal thread in your positions that reveal themselves every once in a while, with Jordan replacing the tribe, and the king replacing the sheikh. In that situation, allegiance to the "system" is tantamount to allegiance to the tribe. In this setting criticisms of Jordan (the tribe, not the country) is a way of deflecting accusations of blind allegiance (in a way that dressing a short skirt can deflect accusations of backward-thinking for a woman).

The question of what mode of governance is best for us should be something on the debate agenda. Monarchy is not necessarly the best system on the long term (maybe on the short term).

On August, 05, 2006 4:23 AM , Qwaider قويدر
from United States said:

Constitutional Monarchy? You mean Saudi Arabia or Morocco?

On August, 05, 2006 5:26 AM , Moey
from Jordan said:

Nice post, and interesting.. you collect stuff in a nice way

On August, 05, 2006 9:11 AM , Hasan
from United States said:

Notice how his 1st point on "The Jordanian Regime and the King: " is twice as long as all the other points.

This coupled with the apologetic tones ringing in that "explanation" along with " I believe that the biggest mistake I made while creating my blog was to reveal my identity" is proving that you're support is in fact of "threats or incentives."

You wrote the whole post just to justify your 1st point, because you are afraid.

It is very obvious that are being pushed in a corner, by your own contradictory thoughts and ideologies. You support democracy, yet you fully support a Monarchy. (No UK is NOT a monarchy, don't even compare.)

I too feel that you shouldn't have revealed your identity because it is affecting your ability to write what is in your head.

censoring ideas? my posts aren't showing

On August, 05, 2006 3:51 PM , Batir Wardam
from Jordan said:

Thanks guys for the responses, and I will answer them separately.
Visitor; I am not censoring ideas but censoring insults. A lot of people do not know ho to debate and respect other peopl's ideas and after some bad experiences I opted to censor posts with personal issues. This is only one of two posts I am censoring in my blog of 90 posts.
Regarding your points. I said that i am pro "democratic left" with focus on social democracy. This trend is not rooted in Jordan and most of the leftist parties do contain anti-jordanian approacjes and they try to camouflage it with leftist slogans. I have worked with the "democratic left" party in the end of 90s and then left it because they joined kabariti governemnt. I am still hoping and working for a unified democratic left party in Jordan that is not infected with hating Jordanians. I used to hear statements from high-level party officials describing me as "good, although he is Jordanian".

On August, 05, 2006 3:57 PM , Batir
from Jordan said:

Visitor:
I am against or with something because it works. Of course. This is logical, Why should I support pan-arab dictatorship if it turns out to be an opressive regime? why should I support Islamic politics if they tend to be justifying terrorism and excluding all christians and seculars from their doctorine? Constitutional monarchy has worked in UK, Holland and most other countries. In Jordan, monarchy was able to manage a country with very small natural resources to become economically and politically better than other resource-rich countries. Tell me, if you were to live an another Arab country that is better than Jordan that gives you relative rights, where would you go? Iraq, Syria, Libya, UAE, Sudan? I know this comparison is not very realistic since we aim for the best not the worst but it indicates relative success of monarchy over dictatorship. My principles are freedom, democracy and development, and I find them in Jordan more than any Arab country.

On August, 05, 2006 3:59 PM , Batir
from Jordan said:

Quweider, I think Morocco is the closest to what I mean. In Morocco although the King is powerful but he is not immune from criticism. I have been there and read newspapers criticising the Kings' decisions. For a constitutional monarchy the Parliament is the main political influence and this is stated in our constitution but in practice it is different. I used to admire Laith Shbeilat while calling for constitutional monarchy before I discovered he used to get oil coupons from saddam Hussein.

On August, 05, 2006 4:05 PM , Batir
from Jordan said:

Hassan thank you for the psychoanalysis but I am not paying you for it since it is completely lousy.

I have no apologetic tone at all. I wrote this post to refere to it each time someone like you acts as a freudian analyst trying to analyse my personality and motives rather than discuss the ideas.
Democracy can be associated with monarchy and there is no contradiction. What we need is a system of political maturity where parties can form the governemnts and be accountable. In Jordan and the Arab world our problem is the lack of democratic behaviour and the lack of respect to other ideas and sometimes the lack of loyalty to the country.
I hope if you have a substantial comment to put it instead of your miserable psychoanalysis.

But Batir, you are only repeating what you wrote in your entry:

1. Pragmatism is a principle (or you can say that the lack of principle is ITSELF a principle) - thus for you constitutional monarchy is good because it works, not because you believe it is consistent with the principles of equality, fairness...etc.

2. Ideas for you are judged based on who CLAIMS to hold the idea, not on what the idea stands for. For you can hate the left because the leftists behave in a certain way, and not because you disagree with the principles of socialism.

Those are the points I mentioned, and I thought I'd rephrase them because you didn't answer them 1-for-1, instead you repeated your arguments in the post. But I think your claim to belief in ideas is a very weak one unless you can refute points 1&2.

On August, 05, 2006 10:33 PM , Hasan
from United States said:

Batir, I'm doing no more than reading into your writings. I thought this was a skill writers like you find vital in their field, to be able to analysis the ideas from motivation to intention.

"I think loyalty is not a function of origin and lineage"
Explain how a monarchy is different?

I agree with you however, tribalism is a main factor in holding us back. It was Islam that abolished the Tribal system and for the first time placed all the Arab tribes under one banner, the ummah. Since we are back to it, I'm not surprised that all the Sid effects are back too.

"Sometimes I identify with much of their political statement, refuse almost all of their cultural and social positions but respect their right of expression unless it justifies or supports terrorism." This is very narrow minded. If a "terrorist" said 2+2=4 are you not going to believe him?

"I used to be a leftist.." You believe all this naming bullshit that the west has imported here to control and confuse people's ideas?

Have you ever asked your self the question, Leftist to WHAT? What is the center? Who decides the center? How center is the center?
These are no more than to divide the people into categories. Not only does this confuse the "intellectuals" but it also confuses the masses in chose a side.

"Ultra Arab Nationalists:
Those political streams supported each and every dictator in the Arab World while asking for democracy. I simply cannot identify with the cause of such fascist and racist ideology."

It seems the Jordan Monarchy has identified with this since day 1. Jordan has an "Arab Army" and not a Jordanian Army. Jordan was born from the "Great ARAB Revolution" and not the Great Trans-Jordan Revolution...I don't think they had to believe in it to adopt Arab nationalism, but this what

Batir, another 3rd point I wanted to make is this:

3. You have a fallacy of choice: you say that we either have a monarchy or we have the pan arab dictatorships, and so you prefer the monarchy. This is a fallacy because there are other modes of governance, but if you dont see them, or prefer not to see them, it is hard to have a conversation with you.

On August, 05, 2006 10:34 PM , Hasan
from United States said:

"I am a patriot Jordanian and I do not joke in this issue. If you are coming to my blog insulting my country I will not be nice with you. If I read a comment in another blog insulting my country I will fire back. This is something beyond compromise. However, I do not support any misconduct by my country if proven to be right in evidence. "

So you will fight back when someone insults, but when your country has any "misconduct," you won't fight back, but only say that you don't support those actions

I don't think you should put yourself above others based on your "patriotism" to Jordan. Every Jordanian has patriotism in a since based on their interests as you have kindly stated.

I hope you realize that "Loyalty" to Jordan should be to the Land first, and not to the Government. As we all see how the US government is a danger to America and Americans, we would be naive to believe that our countries are immune of that. There is clearly a red line in Jordan that not many people are willing to cross.

On August, 05, 2006 11:57 PM , Nas
from Canada said:

Nas:

A question: since you put up a daily hadeeth on your blog, and you come across as someone who identifies with Islam, isn't monarchy a frowned-upon system of governance in Islam? I can point you to verses in the Quran and to hadeeths that say frown upon this system, if you're not aware of them already.

Your position is like those of "honor killings": I know its frowned upon in Islam, but...goes on the justification.

----> actually no there is nothing in Islam that states monarchies are not allowed. as long as the leader or king is muslim and practices Islam. to be even more technical about it, Muslims cannot revolt against a Muslim leader unless he stops practicing Islam and forces his followers to do the same, for example shutting down the mosques.


*I tend to see a thin tribal thread in your positions that reveal themselves every once in a while, with Jordan replacing the tribe, and the king replacing the sheikh. In that situation, allegiance to the "system" is tantamount to allegiance to the tribe. In this setting criticisms of Jordan (the tribe, not the country) is a way of deflecting accusations of blind allegiance (in a way that dressing a short skirt can deflect accusations of backward-thinking for a woman).*

---> sorry, come again?

*The question of what mode of governance is best for us should be something on the debate agenda. Monarchy is not necessarly the best system on the long term (maybe on the short term).*

---> well what we have now is a constitutional monarchy and in the short term I have to agree with Batir that it is in the best interests of the country. the problem have with this system now is that while it is constitutional it is practiced in more absolutist terms, which is something I also have no problem with in the long term. If the king were anyone else i probably would have a problem with it. there is a move to m

On August, 06, 2006 12:00 AM , Nas
from Canada said:

Hasan, just because someone is in support of something you are against doesnt mean their beliefs are based on fear. that view is as simplistic as using post hoc ergo proctor hoc to draw conclusions.

similarly, dissent is not evidence of courage; bravery can easily be mistaken for bravado

Nas,

You committed a 'straw man' fallacy. I said:

"isn't monarchy a frowned-upon system of governance in Islam"

You rephrased me saying:

"nothing in Islam that states monarchies are not allowed"


I said "frowned", and not "not allowed".

In all cases, take this hadeeth from:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&ID=91355&SearchText=منهاج%20النبوة&SearchType=exact&Scope=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&Offset=0&SearchLevel=QBE

"‏كنا قعودا في المسجد مع رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وكان ‏ ‏بشير ‏ ‏رجلا ‏ ‏يكف ‏ ‏حديثه فجاء ‏ ‏أبو ثعلبة الخشني ‏ ‏فقال يا ‏ ‏بشير بن سعد ‏ ‏أتحفظ حديث رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏في الأمراء فقال ‏ ‏حذيفة ‏ ‏أنا أحفظ خطبته فجلس ‏ ‏أبو ثعلبة ‏ ‏فقال ‏ ‏حذيفة ‏ ‏قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء الله أن يرفعها ثم تكون ملكا ‏ ‏عاضا ‏ ‏فيكون ما شاء الله أن يكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون ملكا ‏ ‏جبرية ‏ ‏فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ثم سكت"

I hope you know how to read Arabic.

Also, take this famous verse form the Quran:

"قَالَتْ إِنَّ الْمُلُوكَ إِذَا دَخَلُوا قَرْيَةً أَفْسَدُوهَا وَجَعَلُوا أَعِزَّةَ أَهْلِهَا أَذِلَّةً وَكَذَلِكَ يَفْعَلُونَ"

Sure you will argue whether the hadeeth frowns upon monarchism or not. It certainly frowns upon the "عاضا" and "جبرية" (by imposition, by force) way monarchism is applied. But those two descriptions aren't dont have posi

On August, 06, 2006 2:41 AM , Hasan
from United States said:

"I am against or with something because it works. Of course. This is logical, Why should I support pan-arab dictatorship if it turns out to be an opressive regime? why should I support Islamic politics if they tend to be justifying terrorism and excluding all christians and seculars from their doctorine? " As "Visitor" said :Our "intellectuals" also confuse the message with the messenger, so a lot of people refuse Islam because we have a bunch of backward and corrupt Imams."

You cannot base your decision on what works and what doesn't. If this is how we all think, this will mean thousands of years of trial and error before we find the right balance. Instead of understanding the real meaning of Monarchy, or the real meaning of Sharee3a, or anything else.

Like I said, If a "terrorist" or anyone you are against says 2+2=4, does that mean he is lying?

You need to study Islam to see if any of those Islamists are practicing it correctly. Study the Monarchy system, democracy, and socialism and see what are their advantages/disadvantages. You cannot "judge a book by it's cover."

"Constitutional monarchy has worked in UK, Holland and most other countries" Waaaaaal. You are comparing the UK political system with Jordan’s? There are huge differences.

Rights and freedoms are not the result of a Monarchy.

I Don't think you should review our posts before approving them. Let them insult you so we know who these kids are.

On August, 06, 2006 3:13 AM , Hasan
from United States said:

Nas: "that view is as simplistic as using post hoc ergo proctor hoc to draw conclusions. "

You are telling me what I was trying to tell Batir. His opinions on things are full of "cause and effect" fallacies.

You just simply share Batir the opinion that the Monarchy is the best thing Jordan has in the Middle East. We are so great and stable because of the Monarchy.

This IS a "post hoc ergo proctor hoc"

My impression of Batir's fears is not derived from this posting alone. I have been reading Batir's blog for months now and have been sensing a lot of it.

Especially in his contradictory arguments about the Jordan government's oppression, violation of Human Rights, corruption and every single thing he dislikes about it to prove to him self that he supports democracy, but never admits or accuses the Monarch part of the blame even though (as Batir said) the "king hold the keys to political reformation" in Jordan.

He wastes his time writing and writing about problems and accuses only one side while ignoring the other. By this, all his attempts to reach a clear conclusion to find a solution will be in vein.

He keeps complaining about the insects for entering his home without noting that his doors and windows are open all the time.

If you leave your window open, insects will come in, this is just what they do. Corruption will always happen, it never ceases to exist. The solution is to "close" the windows making sure corruption stays outside. It's a continuous struggle, it doesn't just end once and for all. Batir seems to fail to see this. He only blames the Government officials because he's safe doing it.

On August, 06, 2006 1:20 PM , Khalidah
from Jordan said:

Loved this post Batir and I share most of the ideas you presented ..

I also agree with Nas on his reply to the guys ... it is the first sign of democracy that Batir can say what he believes and other should respect him and his beliefs no matter what they are ..

Just another proof that we are not ready at all for democracy and it is just words in bubbles flying in the air .. let's walk the talk for a change ok?

And by the way; I am 200% with Batir on the 1st point and I like the system very much :)

On August, 06, 2006 2:01 PM , Nas
from Canada said:

a visitor, you have to consider that the intentions of the person replying to your comment are not always sinister. in other words dont jump to conclusions and assume i created a straw man when in truth i simply forgot the word you used by the time i came to reply. so take it easy.

secondly, the quran mentions both good and bad kings as it mentions both good and bad, jews, christians, muslims, human beings, angels and even poets.

the quran and Islam does not establish any specific form of government in the way we seek to define or categorise it as monarchy, republic, parliamentary etc. In truth the Caliphate was part monarchy part republic.

Islam doesn't approach what form of government Muslims choose to implement but concentrates on what that government represents, in other words what it aims to impelement: justice, the well being of the people and shari3a, in addition to the ruler being Muslim.

On August, 06, 2006 2:04 PM , Nas
from Canada said:

hasan, what is your alternative then?

Khalidah,

I dont think you added anything useful to the discussion by nodding. You are entitled to that, unless

"we are not ready at all for democracy",

then you are not allowed to do anything, but nodd.

In all cases, who gave you the authority to decide if we are ready for democracy or not? This argument

"we are not ready at all for democracy"

is what dictators use. Are you one? Stop hiding behind banners of "not ready" or "ready" please.

And,

"I like the system very much"

I am not surprised then that you do not want to let go and embrace democracy, because the current system is the anti of democracy.

On August, 07, 2006 11:06 PM , Khalidah
from Jordan said:

visitor ... :)

Think whatever you want .. my comment was not directed to you .. it was directed to the owner of this blog!

You are right ... I don't want to let go of the system as it is ... I don't want to embrace your democracy ... sue me ...

The least you can do is show some guts and give a real identity so that you will be taken seriously and earn our respect .. who is hiding here?

On August, 08, 2006 2:20 AM , Batir
from Jordan said:

Here comes Hasan Freud at his best with another pathetic psychoanalysis. Can I get off the couch now Hasan, ot should I need a heater so that I am still shivering with fear?
Let me play the shrink now. It seems both you and the visitor are seeing democracy from one side. You think you are brave, with principles and holders of the divine wisdom that you express in sacred texts. So, for you, me, Nas and Khalidah are wrong because we differ with you, and since we express our support for our political system in Jordan (which seems to be a crime in your dictionary) we are having a lot of psychological problems and we are "benefiting from the system". So, if an Islamic system is prevailing in Jordan, after it ahs been proven successful in Iran and Afghanistan, and now Somalia we can accuse you of "benefiting from the system". The simple fact is that people carry different ideas and principles, and it happens that we (me, Nas and Khalidah) hold ideas that do identify with the Jordanian political system, but for you this should not be allowed. What democracy are you preaching here? I think the "exclusive" democracy practiced by the successful Islamic regimes in Iran and Taliban.
hey, I can play this game of psychoanalysis well, and it is more fun than engaging in real debate. Now I understand why you prefere it.

On August, 08, 2006 3:37 AM , Hasan
from United States said:

"So, if an Islamic system is prevailing in Jordan, after it ahs been proven successful in Iran and Afghanistan, and now Somalia .."

Akh ya galbi. You are comparing these countries as applying correct Islamic Law? Go study Islamic Law and its system first then tell me if anywhere in the world it is being practiced correctly, and coincidently we Muslims are failing at every level, governed by dictators because we deserve it. I will let you decipher this.

"and since we express our support for our political system in Jordan (which seems to be a crime in your dictionary)"

Where did I say it was a crime? Who is the shrink now? Stop whining man. I'm questioning your justification for supporting a certain political system. That's what is in question here.

"The simple fact is that people carry different ideas and principles, and it happens that we (me, Nas and Khalidah) hold ideas that do identify with the Jordanian political system, but for you this should not be allowed." Similar to Americans preaching about democracy but then not giving rights of marriage for Gays. My question is, whose ideas are moderate and liberal? To Europeans, Americans seem too conservative, and to Americans we seem too conservative.

Of course people carry different ideas!! The question is, which ideas are correct and which ones are plagued by contradictions!

"What democracy are you preaching here" I'm not preaching for any political system, I'm preaching for a system that gives people their full rights and considers their religious standards as reference to morals and ethics.

"hey, I can play this game of psychoanalysis well" Sorry to say but no. For some reason, while reading your post, there was this little girls whiny voice reading your words.

Man, I don't understand onwhat mechanisim of thought your mind wor

On August, 08, 2006 3:46 AM , Hasan
from United States said:

Khalidah,

Don't you see the Irony here? It's Batir who has been bent over importing Democracy to Jordan. If you don't like "visitor's" democracy, what makes us chose who's democracy to import?

The whole point of this argument on my side is to show that you cannot take a country where democracy worked as a frame of reference, because America is America. It will never be Jordan, and Jordan will never ever be America. They have different needs, we have also different needs. But if we change our language, religion, and a few generations into the future, then we might be close. But unless our neighbours follow, we will never have what American Democracy is giving America.

People like you are holding us back from reformation, as Batir here is also trying to do! So, do you support him? Or SUPPORT him? Which one?

On August, 08, 2006 3:53 AM , Hasan
from United States said:

Nas "hasan, what is your alternative then? "

My alternative is for people not to worry about "democracy" but about the internal affairs of the country. Corruption, welfare system, poverty, education, employment. Things that are affecting us more than free speech!
All these things can be changed without "democracy."

A hungry man needs to eat first, and then he speaks afterwards. But if you don't feed him, he won't even shout but punch and kick.

The majority of the population is Muslim, so create an environment that they can practice it. This environment existed centuries before, so it can happen again today. We have only regressed in time.

On August, 08, 2006 2:38 PM , Nas
from Canada said:

hasan, i have no problem with any of that and it seems to be that this is what both the government and king are trying to do and we've made some solid improvements in the last decade all things considering.

although democratic values such as those embodied in freedom of speech are also vital to creating a healthy environemtn that you speak of. freedom of speech gives way to freedom fo the press which gives way to great political accountability which gives way to decreases in corruption.

if anything these facts should serve the king-basher with the perfect arguement: the king is conspiring to keep the people fat so that they'll be too lazy to rise up against his oppresive brutality when the revolution comes around. the jordanian population after all has one of the highest obesity rates in the world.

On August, 08, 2006 3:29 PM , Khalidah
from Jordan said:

Hasan,

I am holding you back from reformation??!! Interesting idea ..

Tell me; which system in this world is perfect to be a role model for reformation?

In my comment I said that I agree with some of the ideas that Batir stated .. of course we might disagree on others ..

I support the system as it is and I did not hide this fact and will never do ... this does not make me a backward person who holds you back from reformation ... you are judging me and "people like me" from one comment on a post ... generalizing, are we?

Do you believe that people in Jordan are oppressed and stopped from practicing their religion? Do you think that as life evolves and changes, everything else should adapt? do you believe that the same system that worked centuries ago is applicable in this time and day?

P.S. Please remember that we are a part of a civilized conversation here and we will not gain points be rediculing or attacking others ... if we disagree on something; this should not make us lose focus and respect towards each other .. thank you :)