Okay, every topic that has even remotely to do with the middle east keeps getting more general news put into it which removes focus from the original topic.
As such, I'm creating this thread as a general middle east and north africa topic. That means anything to do with the Arab Spring or Israel and Palestine should be kept to those threads and anything to do with more generic news (for example, new Saudi regulations on the number of foreign workers or the Lebanese elections next year, etc.) should be posted here.
I hope the mods will find this a clear enough statement of intent to open the thread.
Heck, there was exactly one imam who dared to speak out against Sissi and his regime shortly after the Rabia massacres (and unintentionally triggered a riot in the mosque when regime-sympathizing Egyptians who were in attendance took extreme and physically-violent offense). You know what happened him? Put under house arrest, got fired and occupationally blacklisted, then henceforth simply vanished into obscurity. Probably sent to one of the government's intelligence agency's secret prisons. Yes, they do exist; I passed one while running an errand in the middle of Mecca. Freaky forboding walls, I tell you.
edited 23rd Jan '14 2:56:22 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I meant more like - what does the Shura Council do, how significant is the Meccan imam, etc. I mean, I take it Imam of the Grand Mosque is a bit more influential in Saudi Arabia than the Archbishop of Canterbury is in Britain?
Meaning no disrespect, but should you be talking about that on the internet if you're still, well, in Saudi Arabia where they could get you? I'm...worried for you.
What do you think the likely ramifications of obvious government interference in the Council will be, both within Arabia and throughout the Muslim world?
edited 23rd Jan '14 3:02:40 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiYou know how some countries don't mind if everybody knows they torture people? Saudi Arabia is one of those countries. They carry out public executions, for crying out loud.
Now, granted, that doesn't mean they won't ever persecute people for talking to foreigners about it, but probably they do have enough self awareness not to do that.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.The Imam of the Grand Mosque is not so much influential, but rather prestigous and widely respected, though I think it's mostly because the people actually like the Imam himself rather than paying blind reverence to the position; apparently the regulations in place resulted in at least the last few Imams being quite likeable and pious individuals who have a good grasp of what they need to say to make a good, motivating/heart-moving sermon.
PS: Much of what I talk about here is an open secret. That's why I'm so "unusually" comfortable with discussing it; so long as we Saudis don't engage in clearly criminalized/taboo activities like open demonstrations, public activism that comes across as actually inciting against the government, openly supporting groups/ideologies/movements that have been publicly denounced by the government (such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the entire Anti-Coup Movement in Egypt, who are all slapped under the banner of "Muslim Brotherhood" by the government despite being inclusive of anti-MB liberals who found common cause with actual MB sympathizers), or going with this stuff to foreign news outlets, we're pretty much free to discuss the matter between ourselves or on private foreign-hosted forums.
edited 23rd Jan '14 3:51:31 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.As a general note, if anyone is reading this and doesn't know what "open secret" means (I doubt that this is the case, but it can happen,) I highly recommend looking it up - it's a very interesting and very useful term that you'll come to know if you pay attention to politics.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I'd think it's a bad thing since the government censoring a religious organization merely for criticizing them generally is a bad thing
Can you be arrested for something you say here?
edited 26th Jan '14 9:14:32 PM by stripes-the-zebra
Maybe. Maybe not. Saudi Arabia isn't like the Western world, where newly made laws are clearly and publicly explained to the citizenry in such a way that they would have a fair idea of what they can and can't do according to them. Our laws on such matters are, AFAIK, deliberately worded in a broad manner that leaves a lot of leeway for Loophole Abuse. They most probably have much bigger fish to concern themselves with than anything that I've said here, though.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Hmmm. Are you allowed to talk about preferred alternatives?
Proud member of the IAA What's the point of being grown up if you can't act childish?Algeria arrests 60 people for sectarian strife.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Since this is the general thread for it, I saw a piece of information that I want to share here.
When 9/11 occurred for America, can you guess which Muslim leaders denounced the attacks and offered sympathy to the victims?
Mohammed Khatami of Iran, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Yasser Arafat of Palestine, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, and Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Even motherfucking Saddam Hussein personally sent an email to an American to offer sympathy, while still denouncing Washington.
edited 30th Jan '14 7:41:01 PM by Sledgesaul
@Colonial: What's actually illegal, and Marq can correct me if I'm wrong, would be for Marq to do anything that gets him marked as a nuisance to the Powers That Be. If he started arguing about government policy anywhere in sight of a camera, for example, he might end up talking to the good chaps down at the police station. Or he might not; the Saudi police don't have a binary, computerized checklist to follow when deciding whether someone's a problem.
The laws are flexible like that. Nobody cares if Marq jabbers a bit on an internet forum or with his family, because Saudi Arabia is (broadly speaking) a functional country rather than a Straw Dystopia and the security services have much bigger problems to worry about.
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.Mubarak was an American puppet and to say otherwise would have jeopardized him. Musharraf was trying to save his own ass considering the ISI's involvement with the Taliban and AQ. Saddam was too, since he was the boogeyman at the time (some in the US cabinet wanted to strike at Iraq at once after 9/11 because they all thought he had a hand in it). Assad was newly minted at the time and was trying to be on the West's good side (to good effect I might add). Gaddafi was insane.
Only Khatami genuinely meant it. He himself was a moderate vis a vis the US and Iran was ideologically opposed to AQ and the Taliban.
Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...Iran actually held public mournings for the victims of 9/11. Khatami was easily the most genuine of the bunch regarding that, yet even he did not sanction the public mournings (those were spontaneous). It makes me wonder how things can be if peace happens between the United States and the Islamic Republic.
Saddam said that 9/11 was a chicken coming home to roost moment for the US. He did not mince words over how much he bragged about Washington getting attacked on their soil. Even in that email, he kept criticizing Washington for its policies abroad. He wasn't trying to cover his ass at all.
edited 30th Jan '14 11:47:50 PM by Sledgesaul
I think you got the gist of it right.
Covering your ass doesn't mean grovelling necessarily.
And the US and Iran were getting along famously in the immediate months after 9/11, leading to their quiet acquiesance to invading Iraq. It was when Bremer screwed up the post-war administration that they got annoyed, leading to the Dinner Jacket becoming elected.
Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...I know that one. Cheney said "We don't talk to evil" and told Khatami to piss off when the latter presented a deal that would've cut funding to Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Dinner Jacket was elected as a way for Khamenei to say fuck you to Cheney. Ahmadinejad would then give so many pro-military (really, pro-Revolutionary Guard) initiatives, among many other episodes, that I think Khamenei regrets ever allowing him in charge.
edited 31st Jan '14 1:02:57 AM by Sledgesaul
That's an understatement. While the Dinner Jacket himself was mostly a powerless idiot, the IRGC gained tremendous amounts of political power in Iran under the Ahmadinejad presidency, to the point of becoming a threat to the Supreme Leader's supremacy.
Just don't say "pro-military," because the Artesh pretty much got squat; it was all to the Guards' benefit.
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.What kinda power did the Pasdaran (revolutionary guard) get from Ahmadinejad? Does the Pasdaran qualify as a branch of the Iranian military, irregular military, or paramilitary?
All of the above and then some. Theoretically, Artesh does army stuff and Pasdaran does national security, border enforcement, police duties, religious and secret police stuff...also, Iran's missile corps is under IRGC control.
Furthermore, the Guards have a powerful political wing (this is where Ahmadinejad comes from) and control of a significant share of the oil revenues, and control the Basij militias who are used to enforce Islamic law and shoot protestors. They also have control of a significant share of the economy (to the tune of $12 billion in annual revenue); they're the third-wealthiest organization in Iran according to one source, and one of their big sweetheart deals in 2009 was the purchase of a 51% share in the Telecommunication Company of Iran.
Or in trope terms, they're a State Sec. A militarized state-within-a-state that controls a significant amount of the Iranian power structure.
edited 31st Jan '14 1:32:27 AM by Ramidel
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.At this point, can we consider Iran, not as an Islamic Republic, but as a military junta?
Too soon to call. The new President may be able to pull back the Guards like Rafsanjani did in his time.
We'll have to wait and see.
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.I very much hope Rouhani is able to offer substantial reforms that would diminish the theocracy and the Pasdaran. I really dunno if he will, though. The Supreme Leader and Guardian Council need to be abolished over there.
Well, that's a switch. However, note that the Supreme Leader is the least of Iran's problems right now. Part of why he allowed Rouhani to be elected, I think, was in the hopes of thawing relations with the US and weakening the Guard. Ali Jafari (the Guard commander) is not exactly an ally of his.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Khameini (a savvy politician if ever there was one) saw his own best chances of retaining his own power, and that of his office, in increased liberalization of the country.
edited 31st Jan '14 1:41:24 AM by Ramidel
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.Crossposting from the I/P thread:
Iran has 77 million people. Iran also has more oil than it has water, it owns and operates that oil itself, and it has its own business interests (particularly religious "charities") dedicated to exploiting those 77 million people.
Just saying, it's not the bastion of cheap labor that you might think. (It also has a moderately strong social-welfare system, albeit a horribly corrupt, bloated and inefficient mess of one. Tends to reduce the value of their people as cheap slaves.)
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
Can you provide a little context and explanation for this post - like why this is a good/bad thing, who is who, what they want, etc? I don't follow.
Schild und Schwert der Partei