By Nonie Darwish
As I watched the Iranian uprising on TV, I could not help but remember the many years of demonstrations by Iranians against the Shah which ended in the 1979 revolution. The Shah regime was accused of being a puppet of the West, corrupt and not Muslim enough. The people of Iran then installed one of the most radical and cruel regimes in modern Middle East history. The Iranian Islamist movement negatively impacted the whole region and empowered radical Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Wahhabi Saudi sect.
Now, Iranians are having another uprising. What do they really want? A less Islamist and more modern regime? Wasn’t that what they had before? Do they want a Western style democracy where they can peacefully vote out a corrupt leader? But is that allowed under Islamic Law? It surely is not because under Sharia a Muslim head of state can hold office through a violent seizure of power. So who can tell a Muslim leader who seized office through a coup or an assassination that he is wrong? Such a coup will especially be popular among Islamists if the assassinated leader was friendly with the West.
There are parallels in almost all Muslim countries, especially in Egypt, where the dreaded label ‘America’s puppet’ can get a non-Islamist leader assassinated. The complaint of being a puppet of America can merely describe a Muslim leader who refuses to be the enemy of the West and to engage in jihad. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and his successor Husni Mubarak until today are called ‘puppets of America’ for that reason. Before them, the revolution leader President Gamal Abdel Nasser ousted the Egyptian King Farouk on the grounds that he was a puppet of the British. The story keeps repeating itself in Muslim countries where many leaders end up with a dilemma. On the one hand, to win respect and fear of the Arab street, they must stand against Western interests and peace with Israel (i.e. Nasser, Assad of Syria and Ahmadinejad). On the other hand, several regimes try to hold the stick from the middle and allow hate speech against America and Israel in their media while in private have mutual respect and cooperation with the West and Israel. Read more ...
As I watched the Iranian uprising on TV, I could not help but remember the many years of demonstrations by Iranians against the Shah which ended in the 1979 revolution. The Shah regime was accused of being a puppet of the West, corrupt and not Muslim enough. The people of Iran then installed one of the most radical and cruel regimes in modern Middle East history. The Iranian Islamist movement negatively impacted the whole region and empowered radical Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Wahhabi Saudi sect.
Now, Iranians are having another uprising. What do they really want? A less Islamist and more modern regime? Wasn’t that what they had before? Do they want a Western style democracy where they can peacefully vote out a corrupt leader? But is that allowed under Islamic Law? It surely is not because under Sharia a Muslim head of state can hold office through a violent seizure of power. So who can tell a Muslim leader who seized office through a coup or an assassination that he is wrong? Such a coup will especially be popular among Islamists if the assassinated leader was friendly with the West.
There are parallels in almost all Muslim countries, especially in Egypt, where the dreaded label ‘America’s puppet’ can get a non-Islamist leader assassinated. The complaint of being a puppet of America can merely describe a Muslim leader who refuses to be the enemy of the West and to engage in jihad. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and his successor Husni Mubarak until today are called ‘puppets of America’ for that reason. Before them, the revolution leader President Gamal Abdel Nasser ousted the Egyptian King Farouk on the grounds that he was a puppet of the British. The story keeps repeating itself in Muslim countries where many leaders end up with a dilemma. On the one hand, to win respect and fear of the Arab street, they must stand against Western interests and peace with Israel (i.e. Nasser, Assad of Syria and Ahmadinejad). On the other hand, several regimes try to hold the stick from the middle and allow hate speech against America and Israel in their media while in private have mutual respect and cooperation with the West and Israel. Read more ...
Source: FPM
Posts
