Snark aside, the second half of the article is a good discussion of takfiri history and the argument within Islam over why it's a really bad idea.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Controversy has arisen in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum over the increasing takfiri activity taking place in the country. This has taken place against the backdrop of the Sudanese Assembly of Ulemas -- a hard-line religious institute -- takfiring [branding as apostate] the opposition Sudanese Communist Party [SCP] and describing them as a "cancer" on Sudanese society.
I think in this particular case the label of apostate might possibly be utterly appropriate, even if I lack complete understanding of the subtle arguments from both sides.
The SCP strongly rejected accusations that it was an "infidel and godless" party
Clearly not Marxist communists, then. Perhaps liberalhawk can name the flavour of Communism on display here -- I'm still not clear on the difference between Leninism and Trotskyism, although I think I grasp why poor Mr. Trotsky needed an ice pick in his skull.
and in turn branded the fatwa issued against it as being an example of "religious hysteria." For its part, the government has kept a tactful silence on the ongoing conflict between both sides.
"Red on Red is good for the rest of us!" (Green actually, in the case of the takfiris, but that would be confusing on the first read.)
This [conflict] returned the issue of takfir to Khartoum, along with all the bloody conflict and violence that is associated with it. The initial spark in the conflict between the Communist Party and the Assembly of Ulemas took place whilst the SCP was celebrating the opening of its political office in the "Al-Jurif Gharb" district in eastern Khartoum. Elements from both sides fought with each other, although details are contradictory. The Sudanese Assembly of Ulemas said that its members went to the site of the celebrations in order to hand out a statement regarding the SCP's activities, while the Communist party claims that what happened was equivalent to a break-in by the members of the Assembly of Ulemas, and that one of them was brandishing a knife.
The Sudanese Assembly of Ulemas which includes a number of well-known Sudanese religious figures, said that the takfir of the Communist Party was not a new thing, and that a similar fatwa was previously issued by the Al-Azhar University in the 1970s. Sudanese Assembly of Ulemas spokesman Dr. Alaa al-Din al-Zaki informed Asharq Al-Awsat that the SCP had crawled out of its hole and started to spread through Sudanese society like a cancer.
It seems there are those in Sudan who are tired of the religiousity. Are they counted among the six million who are said to have left Islam recently, I wonder...
Recent arrests of Islamic militants in Kyrgyzstan, their clashes with the Pakistani army in Waziristan, and last month's statements of Tahir Yuldashev raise questions of viability of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) that threatened its home country throughout the 1990s.
Is there any future for the group that promotes the idea of an Islamic state in Central Asia? To answer this question, we'd better recall how it was established and who promoted this "brand" in the first place.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
#1
So-o-o-o the Artic is NOT referring to the INTERNAN MONETARY UNION - my bad, albeit weirdly and mysteriously the geopol consequences of an ISLAMIST-LED BREAKUP OF MAINLAND ASIA [read, ALLEN WANTS YOUR NUKES] is same.
You don't have to be a genius, or a conservative, to recognize that California's experiment with ultra-progressive politics has gone terribly wrong. Although much of the country has suffered during the recession, California's decline has been particularly precipitous--and may have important political consequences.
There is growing disenchantment with the status quo. The percentage of Californians who consider the state "one of the best places" to live, according to a recent Field poll, has plummeted to 40%, from 76% two decades ago. Pessimism about the state's economy has risen to the highest levels since Field started polling back in 1961.
Inevitably, this angst has affected political attitudes. Though still lionized by the national media, Gov. Schwarzenegger's approval ratings have fallen from the mid-50s two years ago into the low 30s. The 12% approval rate for the state legislature, according to a Public Policy Institute of California survey in May, stands at half the pathetic levels recorded by Congress.
Moreover, voters now favor lower taxes and fewer services by a 49-to-42 margin--as opposed to higher taxes and more services. Support for ultra-green policies aimed to combat global warming has also begun to ebb. For the first time in years, a majority of Californians favors drilling off the coast. Californians might largely support aggressive environmental protections, but not to the extreme of losing their jobs in the process.
Remarkably, state government seems largely oblivious to these growing grassroots concerns. The legislature continues to pile on ever more intrusive regulations and higher taxes on a beleaguered business sector. Agriculture, industry and small business--the traditional linchpins of the economy--continue to be hammered from Sacramento.
#2
The thing is that because rational people flee extortion, the state concentrates the beneficiaries of extortion as the sensible emigrate and covers the loss of the productive with debt, until it all collapses.
#3
My goodness, the decline is even worse than the statistics would suggest. Agriculture has been decimated in the central valley by insane enviro's, gas costs an extra 50/gallon for our "special" blend, and every part of the infrastructure is falling apart. Schools cost near the top and produce at the bottom, and the LA basis is Mexico City with a few Americans left, struggling with the other minority immigrants for what is left of public services.
People who are net donors to the system are bailing as soon as they can.....we have truly screwed up paradise by electing democrats for decades..
#4
CNN this AM > WOLF BLITZER GUESTS PANEL [segments] = OBAMA ADMIN is engaging in a DECISIVE TRANSFORMATION OF THE USA.
BLITZER BLITZMAIL > alleges that the reaction of the FAR RIGHT in the Govt-US to POTUS BAMMER'S HEALTHCARE PROPOSAL is akin to the atmosphere in ISRAEL JUST BEFORE PM YITZHAK RABIN WAS ASSASSINATED????
#5
"You don't have to be a genius, or a conservative, to recognize that California's experiment with ultra-progressive politics has gone terribly wrong the way anyone with half a brain cell would expect it to go."
Fixed.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/30/2009 23:23 Comments ||
Top||
Yes, and Egypt won the Yom Kippur War and Saddam Hussein won Gulf War I. The "O" must have inherited this Muslim victory thingy from his father, or Baghdad Bob is working behind the scenes at the WH.
This Friday, September's job-loss total will be announced. Whatever the numbers, administration officials surely will tell us that life is better -- because of them. "We brought the global economy back from the brink," President Obama said at the close of the G-20 meeting last week. "(B)ecause of the bold and coordinated action that we took, millions of jobs have been saved or created; the decline in output has been stopped; financial markets have come back to life".
This has been the president's theme: His so-called stimulus package, bailouts for politically connected banks and industries, ludicrously wasteful programs like Cash for Clunkers, etc. have saved America from the greatest disaster since the Great Depression.
But this theme runs up against some rather unfortunate facts. In January, the administration's economic models warned that unemployment would hit 9 percent next year if its $787 billion "stimulus" wasn't passed. Passing it would keep the jobless rate under 8 percent before it begins to fall.
Well, the packaged passed -- and unemployment in August rose to 9.7 percent.
Oops.
OK, economic forecasters make mistakes. Fair enough. But neither the administration experts nor President Obama will acknowledge that their models and strategy are flawed. Instead, they spin the numbers and proclaim success, insisting that the plan is working even though unemployment is higher than they said it would be.
For example, Christina Romer, chief of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, preferred to emphasize that the 216,000 jobs lost in August were about half a million less than six months before. Never mind that the economic strategy hasn't restored any of those 700,000 jobs previously lost. They'd rather distract us by focusing on the slowing rate of loss rather than the losses themselves.
But, New York University economist Mario Rizzo writes, to take credit for this is to imply that "in the absence of fiscal stimulus, the rate of increase in unemployment never falls". That's ridiculous. Should Obama get credit anytime things aren't as bad as they might have been?
"The stimulus apologists are ignoring the original prediction based on a model. By that prediction, the stimulus is doing harm," Rizzo commented.
As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw writes, "In light of the shifting baseline, it is impossible to hold the administration accountable for whether its policies are achieving their intended effects."
"The administration, however, has not been particularly forthright in admitting to this lack of accountability. Indeed, the act of releasing quarterly reports on how many jobs have been 'created or saved' gives the illusion of accountability without the reality".
This lack of accountability -- this claim of success no matter what happens -- should surprise no one. Many of us warned about it months ago. Remember, Obama didn't promise to create 3.5 million jobs. He promised to create or save that many. There is no way to test that. If you still have your job, does that mean Obama saved it? If an entrepreneur created a new job, in spite of Obama's destructive anti-business regulatory apparatus, does Obama still deserve the credit?
As I wrote in February: "Given time, the economy, unless totally crippled by government intervention, will regenerate itself. That's because an economy is not a machine that needs jumpstarting. It is people who have objectives they want to achieve. They will not sit on their hands forever waiting for government to 'fix' things. Instead, they work to overcome obstacles to get what they want. Some banks are struggling, but there are still people who want to lend money and people who want to borrow it. They will find each other without government help".
But I underestimated this administration. I expected it to say, in the face of continued rising unemployment, that the "stimulus" wasn't big enough. Instead, it claims success.
I suppose I should be relieved. Claiming success is far less destructive than another irresponsible "stimulus." I'm grateful for small favors.
#1
Stossel just doesn't understand Macro-economics...just like the rest of us rightwing tea partying racist nutjobs...cut spending, cut taxes - that's just nonsense, see, the stimulus is working, banks are paying off their debts - with our money - people are getting temporary gov't jobs and we might get another minimum wage increase to really put us over the top -- what could be better?
#1
Clearly you aren't "nuanced" enough to understand the multi=tasking capabilities of the One. That he hasn't frequently consulted directly with the Theater Commander and still hasn't decided to support the request for additional troops is proof of his vision. He is balancing all of this against his strategic vivion for the future of America, and deciding if we are enemies of or tacit allies of radical jihad and crypto-communist Latin America
#3
As I understood it he did. He was comminucating directly with the CINC's.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/30/2009 16:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
tomorrow, Obama will have spoken to the International Olympic Committee as many times as he's spoken to his appointed commander in the afghan theater, General McChrystal (i.e.: once).
*spit*
yet, he can pontificate on the length of a school year, tell lies about healthcare in 57 separate states (I know...), and piss on Honduran sovereignty. Priorities, asshole, priorities
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2009 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Did President Bush often confer with the theater commanders? I ask because I do not remember.
A minimum of once per week, but usually more than that.
At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, a reporter asked Obama whether sanctions would impact Iran. Noting that this wasn't "a football game," the president declared he was "not interested in victory but solving the problem."
It wasn't the first time that Obama had shied away from the word "victory." He did it in July when, during an interview with ABC News, he said about Afghanistan: "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
Can you imagine an American president being afraid to use a word like victory? Does that mean that he is prepared to tolerate defeat?
Well, not in some things. If you want to see Obama get passionate in pursuit of an international cause, you'll have to go to Copenhagen, where the president and first lady this week will lobby the International Olympic Committee to pick their home city of Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics. It's easy to see what's important to him: whatever matters to Daley.
#3
Zero's only real motivation -- not the fake ones he lets people believe he has -- is his own power. Nothing else matters to him. Nothing. If millions die in an Iranian nuclear attack, no big deal, as long as he clings to power.
#4
Every day that passes by makes it more and more obvious that this guy is in WAY over his head.
It would be funny if it weren't so incredibly dangerous (and scary).
His supporters love to talk about how smart and intelligent he is but they never think to mention his common sense or fortitude. That's because he has none, at least outside of campaigning for elective office.
While Bush was criticized for his lack of intellectual horsepower-- and I'm not going to challenge that here-- I would argue that the man rivaled any President of the last half century in common sense and fortitude. So as leaders go, Bush was 2 out of 3. While on the other hand we have Obama, who is 1 out of 3-- and that's assuming you believe he is as intelligent as they say he is. I have my doubts.
#5
D *** Ng IT, we want to make it absolutely positively categorically undeniably unequivocally ..........@FTLG-DON'T FORCE-ME-TO-TELL-BILL-TO-POINT-HIS-FINGER-CLEAR to the American = Amerikan People, ITS A VICTOFEAT = DEFEATORY, AND DON'T YOU EVER FERGIT WHAT WE NEVER TOLD YOU!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Moreover, voters now favor lower taxes and fewer services by a 49-to-42 margin--as opposed to higher taxes and more services. Support for ultra-green policies aimed to combat global warming has also begun to ebb. For the first time in years, a majority of Californians favors drilling off the coast. Californians might largely support aggressive environmental protections, but not to the extreme of losing their jobs in the process.
