[Asharq al-Aswat] Whether it was part of a plan or a mere coincidence, the timing and manner in which Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir announced the plan to declare Sudan an Islamic state has aroused a lot of controversy that will last for a long time. For al-Bashir linked the referendum over the future of southern Sudan to the implementation of Islamic Shariaa law [in the north]. He also commented on the Sudanese girl who was filmed being brutally whipped in an open area by laughing coppers who were apparently enjoying this scene of torture and her cries of pain. This is something that is, of course, nothing to do with the tolerant nature of Islam,
But everything to do with the intolerant nature of Islamics when they get power.
and the concept of justice, and the prerequisites for implementing Islamic Shariaa law. However how can we blame these coppers
Easy. They did it, they are to blame.
if the regime itself is using Islamic Shariaa law as a bargaining chip in its political maneuvering, and is justifying actions that in fact harm the people of Sudan, and their tolerant and kind nature, as well as [harming] Islamic tolerance, distorting the religion's deeply held principle of justice?
That distortion started pretty early in the history of the religion, as soon as there were different rules for believers and unbelievers in the community, followed by differential treatment for Arab Muslims vs. lesser mortals.
Al-Bashir said that if the south chooses secession in the referendum that is scheduled to take place on 9 January 2011 he will amend the Sudanese constitution so that "there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicity...Shariaa [Islamic law] and Islam will be the main source for the constitution, Islam the official religion, and Arabic the official language." Is Islamic Shariaa law, therefore, a bargaining chip in the referendum issue? More importantly, has all the previous talk about Islamic Shariaa law been nothing more than one act in the political theatre that has been ongoing since the Sudanese regime first tricked its way into power through force of arms in 1989? What about those who were tortured, whipped, and even executed, in accordance with Islamic Shariaa law -- or at least as the people have been repeatedly told -- since 1990 until the present time?
There is no doubt that the south will choose to secede because the policies of the regime have made this a foregone conclusion, and those in power in Khartoum are more aware than anybody else that the referendum will result in secession. This is because the government not only failed in making unity an attractive proposition [to the south] over the past five years, since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the Southern People's Liberation Movement [SPLM], but has greatly contributed to pushing the southerners to secede since it raised the slogan of "jihad" during the Sudanese Civil War in the 1990s. Al-Bashir's latest speech has only served to further convince the southern Sudanese to choose secessions, for it reveals that those in power in Khartoum considers any talk about diversity of culture and ethnicity to be "devious", even if this completely contradicts the reality on the ground in Sudan, and puts the future of the country in jeopardy. Diversity in Sudan is an issue that is not just related to the south, but extends from the north to the south, and the east to the west. Even when we were students at primary school [in Sudan], we would sing nationalistic songs praising the ethnic and cultural diversity of this country that is made up of one million square miles, however the size and population of this country will be greatly reduced soon due to the policies of isolating and marginalizing [the south], and exploiting religion for political goals.
In this same speech in which al-Bashir decreed the country's constitution and future in just a few improvised words, he also commented on the case of the Sudanese girl who whipped in public in a language that challenges the view of many Sudanese, especially as Islam in Sudan has always been distinguished by its tolerance, which is something that is inherent in this religion, as well as in the natural disposition of the Sudanese people. Al-Bashir called on those who objected to the brutal whipping of this girl to "perform ablutions, pray to God, and return to Islam." He added that "punishment in Islamic Shariaa law includes whipping, amputation, and death, and we will not be flexible with regards to the ordinances of Allah and the Islamic Shariaa." However these words contradict what he previously said with regards to the amending of the constitution depending on whether or not the southerners choose to secede. So, will the regime compromise over Islam and the implementation of Islamic Shariaa law depending upon whether the south chooses to secede or not? Were they flexible over Islamic Shariaa law when they froze its implementation for years? There has been a shift in the regime's position, from utilizing the slogan of the "Islamic theocracy -- providing safe haven to beturbanned goon Islamists from everywhere, offering training camps to Osama Bin Laden and his followers, and providing assistance to those behind the liquidation attempt on Egyptian geriatric President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa -- to the regime changing tack, submitting to foreign pressure, and kicking out its unwelcome guests, and even moving to cooperating with US and French intelligence...so how will the regime explain this [if it becomes an Islamic state]? Nobody knows, however the practice of "Taqiyaa" [concealing one's faith during dangerous circumstances] remains one that those in the regime have been committed to since they first came to power through a coup against the [previous] democratic regime, which they themselves were members of. They placed some of the previous regime's leaders in jail with the aim of concealing the true identity of their regime, and hushing up the role played by the National Islamic Front.
The talk that is being repeated these days about the constitution being amended and Sudan being declared an "Islamic" state seems to be nothing more than the regime attempting to hide behind the Islamic Shariaa law in order to avoid responsibility for dividing the country. They are attempting to draw everybody's attention away from the referendum and the forthcoming secession of the south, and the dangerous consequences that this will have, including the implications this will have on the war in Darfur, and the other developments that will result in the situation being more dangerous than many people imagine. There are also some parties within the regime that hope for, and even actively worked to ensure, the secession of the south, so that they will be solely in power in the north and can therefore revive their project to establish an Islamic state there, even if this state is not as large [as the previous unified state], and has a convulsive political approach that is contrary to the nature of the people it rules, and does not follow the tolerance of Islam, and its concept of just rule.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/31/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Sudan
"My friends on the right don't like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written 100 years ago, when America had thirteen states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it."
#1
"...it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it."
Only because you don't want to hear the answers, you dumb sh@t. The Constitution was written by men of what was for the time, high learning (but not the best; only a few of the Founders were college grads in the sense we understand it), but they knew that the people who would most be affected by it would be men and women of only the most basic schooling - or none at all. They therefore wrote it so that even if a citizen had to have it read to them, they could grasp the concepts and apply them. Or change them, if they wanted to.
I suspect Mr. Klein fears that basic premise more than anything else - if Americans could actually hear the Constitution again, just the simple words on the pages without the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' that it has been saddled with,they would run people like him out of town on a rail.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/31/2010 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
100 years ago? Really?
How about admitting you were shooting spit wads in Am History and having your dad buy good grades? It's quite obvious you never read any of the material and still haven't.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
12/31/2010 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Is it too late to put a law in that if you are going to write about something for public consumption that you at least know what the fuck you are talking about? That violates the First Amendment? Damn. Just shoot her for craven stupidity then. It is a danger to the general population.
#6
..it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it."
Except it has a amending process that allow the country to alter it. It's been done numerous times. However, it requires more than simple 'consent' to make those alterations. Ever since the Equal Rights Amendment failed to get that level of consent, the Left has decided that the whole thing needs to be done away with in words and deeds. If this country ever gets a Franco or Pinochet, the Left will come to painfully understand why you don't remove the very safeguards of the thing that while they inhibit getting things done you want, also protect your posterior from even greater evils.
Actually I'll take the higher learning of the Founders - I.E. James Madison and Governour Morris who wrote the lion's share of the U.S. Const. over any 99% of poly sci pseudo-intellectuals at today's so called elite universities. (Madison took much inspiration from George Mason during the Bill of Rights phase).
What idiot's like Klein don't realize is that principles are transcendant and irrespective of time or social expedience. The founders knew what tyranny was or could be. Today's cabal of pseudo-intellectual circle-jerkers have no idea.
#9
The weasel Klein has changed the reference to the date of the Constitution.
I wrote this yesterday as a comment at Eyeblast.TV, which was the first site to host the video for ridicule:
Let's challenge Mr. Klein to work through his position to its logical conclusions:
1) no document over 100 years old is understandable. Throw out all law, contracts, books and writings done prior to 1910. I'd start the burning with Das Capital. Make sure your gentle Muslim friends understand that the Quran is right out...
2) propose a new constitution. Make sure you stipulate that it's good for, at a maximum, 100 years, since we wouldn't want to encumber future generations after that. Start with a preamble (I've always been fond of 'We the people...' but wherever you want to go, Ezra) and work your way to the end. No, you can't use the old Soviet constitution as a model.
3) let's challenge writings that are under 100 years old while we're at it. I suggest we examine such sage sources as the Huffington Post.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/31/2010 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The constitution was "Discovered"?(and he says he gets 4.0 grades, I'd flunk him on basic english)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/31/2010 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
As my dad said, "They lived it."
Once again the libs don't understand human nature.
#17
I'm still hunting for a reason why anyone pays attention to Klein. He's a 26-year-old, brainless twat. Why is his opinion worth a bucket of warm spit?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/31/2010 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Why is his opinion worth a bucket of warm spit?
Well. Rob, it isn't, becuz the bucket of spit (warm or cold) is the end product showing achievement even of trivial pursuit. Whereas, Ezra is volume of mass achieving perfect vacuum.
As President Barack Obama is beginning the mid-point of his first and possibly only term in office, sociologist Frances Fox Piven is pushing a new form of the old Cloward-Piven strategy.
#1
Cloward-Piven, that weak minded duo, have several critical failures in their theory.
The first is the odd assumption that capitalism is a recent invention, slapped together by nefarious men in a slapdash manner, instead of a powerful and evolved means of mutual benefit across the economic spectrum.
The second is that the poor have chutzpah enough to demand entitlements and largess from the middle and upper classes. Revolutions do not start from the poor, but from the middle and upper classes. The poor just go along for the ride.
And the third bad assumption is that the middle and upper classes cannot squish the poor like insects if they become too pestiferous.
On top of that, they don't grasp perhaps the most important point, that if they push the welfare system to the breaking point, it is not capitalism that will be broken, but the welfare system.
That is, no more welfare. How revolutionary will the poor feel then?
"People talk about how Israel attacked Gaza [in Operation Cast Lead two years ago]," said interview host Faysal al-Qassem on al-Jazeera. "By God, if Gaza revolted against any Arab ruler, would there be anything left of it?"
#4
Such voices have been repeatedly heard and repeatedly ignored, suppressed and/or exterminated for about 13 centuries.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
12/31/2010 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Lest we fergit, 1990's + PRE-,POST-9-11 ISLAMIST "GLOBAL JIHAD" = either a de facto MOHAMMEDDAN/MUSLIM WORLD CONQUEST [PCorrectness = Islamic/Islamist OWG-NWO?]; or the de facto BEGINNING OF GLOBAL ISLAMIC/MUSLIM
"REFORMATION", which should had occurred centuries ago.
#1
This only seems to address inventions and techniques, not discoveries. There is a mild prejudice between basic science and technology as well, that is less pronounced.
#2
I would name the Microchip as the number one advancement in the last 100 Years.
And further back, the discovery of elctricity itself, followed by the electric light bulb.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/31/2010 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I would name the Microchip as the number one advancement in the last 100 Years.
Closely followed by the anonymous web server and the net-aware database.
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.
