Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

First Iraq, massive displays of people power by Hezbullah in Lebanon and now Saudi..the Islamist wave seems to be spreading across the Middle East..

http://arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=62688&d=24&m=4&y=2005

‘Golden List’ Men Sweep Polls
Mahmoud Ahmad & Abdul Maqsood Mirza, Arab News

Five of the winners from Jeddah, from left, Abdul Rahman Yamani, Bassam Akhdar, Bassem Al-Shareef, Hussein Al-Bar and Hassan Al-Zahrani. (AN photo by Marwan Al-Johani)

JEDDAH, 24 April 2005 — Candidates endorsed by religious scholars swept the polls in Jeddah, clinching all seven seats at stake, according to results released yesterday.

The “Golden List” candidates’ widely anticipated win followed similar victories in holy cities of Makkah and Madinah after voting on Thursday to elect half the members of municipal councils in a landmark nationwide ballot. Several western and northern regions were covered in Thursday’s final round of elections, which began in the Riyadh region on Feb. 10.

The Jeddah winners — Bassam Akhdar, Bassem Al-Shareef, Hassan Al-Zahrani, Rabah Al-Dhaheri, Hussein Baakeel, Hussein Al-Bar and Abdul Rahman Yamani — ran separately in each of the city’s seven constituencies but were backed as a group by influential scholars, including Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

Good, excellent, elections.

Rather than fear this we should embrace it. Better to have elections that to have 19 frustrated terrorists flying planes into world capitals.

Natan Sharansky argues this case well:

They insist that there are certain cultures and civilizations that are not compatible with democracy and certain peoples who do not desire it. They argue that the Arabs need and want iron-fisted rulers, that they have never had democracy and never will, and that their “values are not our values.”

Once again, it is asserted that democracy in certain parts of the world is not in the best interests of the “West.” While it will be readily admitted that the current regimes in the Middle East suppress freedom, those regimes are believed to also suppress a far worse alternative: the radicals and fundamentalists who might win democratic elections. The message is clear: It is better to deal with a Middle Eastern dictatorship that is our friend than a democratic regime that is our enemy.

Finally, it is said that even if the free world might be made more secure by the region’s democratization, there is little the democracies can do to help. We are told that freedom cannot be imposed from the outside and that any attempt to do so will only backfire, further fanning the flames of hatred. Since democratic reform can only come from within, the prudent role for leaders of the free world, it is argued, is to make the best of a bad situation. Rather than recklessly trying to create a new Middle East that is beyond reach and which will provoke greater hostility toward the “West,” democratic leaders are advised to work with the “moderate” non-democratic regimes in the region to promote peace and stability.

One thing unites all of these arguments: They deny the power of freedom to transform the Middle East. In this book, I hope to explain why the skeptics are as wrong today as they were a generation ago and why the West must not betray the freedoms on which it was built.

I am convinced that all peoples desire to be free. I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe. By pursuing clear and consistent policies that link its relations with nondemocratic regimes to the degree of freedom enjoyed by the subjects of those regimes, the free world can transform any society on earth, including those that dominate the current landscape of the Middle East. In so doing, tyranny can become, like slavery, an evil without a future.

The great debate of my youth has returned. Once again, the world is divided between those who are prepared to confront evil and those who are willing to appease it. And once again, the question that ultimately separates members of the two camps remains this: Do you believe in the power of freedom to change the world? I hope that those who read this book will count themselves, like me, among the believers.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

so much for the waiting to be liberated theory :hehe:

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

Hmmmm………. A liberal Islamist. Now is that an oxymoron or something within the scope of Islamic beliefs….. and who draws the line of boundry. Hmmmm (just thinking out loud)

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

Islamists sweep of SA election is a good news :k: also a slap on the faces of those who claim that Muslims of middle east want a secular govt.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

^^ I like the choice of words that you used "sweep" Only fundos "Sweep" Moderates "win".
:D
Why do Muslims of Iran now want secualr government? I am just curious, is it that they got sick and tired of getting thier asses whipped 5 times a day to go say their prayers? or was it something else.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

^ How can you be sure Iranians want a secular govt? Student’s protests in streets of Tehran doesn’t really prove that people of Iran want a secular govt. They might not be happy with govt on some issues but they have already seen the worst of worse under Shah rule.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

^^ AS most of those kids protesting were not even born when Shah was thrown out. So they have no clue what freeedom tastes like. They have only seen it on MTV and they like it.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

So you are saying that there was freedom under Shah’s rule? :hehe: People of Iran wouldn’t have overwhelmingly supported Khomeini’s revolution if they were happy with Shah.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

Actually there was more freedom under shah than under ayatollahs. Atleast shahs police didnt whip iranians to go pray. People of Iran or Muslims in general are weak and cannot stand upto a molvi/ayatollah and question his teachings, it is called power of the pulpit. Christianity went through the same thing in medievil times. Newton went to poland to publish his theories becasue he didnt want to get killed. People with narrow and enclosed minds tend to take the voice from pulpit word for word and literally lynch should a person from among themselves question.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

Before we start opening the champagne bottle (just kiddin) are’nt we forgetting one thing? WOMEN!! Women are not allowed to participate in Saudi elections. Period. They cannot run for office or vote, how can this be a fair relection where 50% of the population is deliberatly kept out.

Another criticism of these elections has been the undue influence exerted by the clergy in deciding who runs and who wins. If the idea is to create a facade or an illusion of people participation, then this was another Saudi grand production…:smiley:

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

What the heck does the word "Islamist" means? Its either "muslims" or "momins". So who won?

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

[quote=“Verizon”]
Atleast shahs police didnt whip iranians to go pray.

[QUOTE]

Neither do the ayatollahs. I think you’re confused with saudi.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

^ Saudis don't do this either. It's just western propaganda.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

You are absolutely correct, it’s not the ayotallohs, it’s their foot soldiers that whip one into submission. Thanks for pointing that out, but either case to whip someone to say their prayers whether in Iran, or Afghanistan or SA is sort of ridiculous.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

Comrade faisal..ze islamists are coming. Cower in fear.

I had the same issue with the word 'islamist'. It seems to be used in almost a derogatory sense.

If islamists are those who follow islam and would like to implement islamic laws in their governments then call me a proud islamist :)

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

The word "Islamists" was used extensively after 9/11 in the US media, ostensibly to differentiate between the majority peace loving muslims and the few terrorist muslims. But now that the word is being associated with those muslims who won the elections in Saudi Arabia, even the previous nuance is losing focus. Now it probably means, if I don't agree with you then you are an "Islamist" and you are bad. If I agree with you, you are a "muslim" and you are good.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

Like i said it seems to be, and i suppose it is, used in a derogatory way nowadays.

Are 'muslims' now only those who follow a more 'progressive' and 'liberal' agenda. Meaning those who dont really pracitce the true essense of islam.

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

If islamists mean people who belive in governance based on religious doctrine and absolute interpretations of 1500 yr old tenets, then yeah…islamists are a bit :mudhosh:

Look, Kuffar is a word that only has meaning for muslims. For Islamists it’s their battlecry. Similarly Islamists has a meaning for Kuffar. :slight_smile:

Re: Islamists sweep Saudi Local Elections..

I believe in the 1500 yr old tenets as you call them.

No Kuffar isnt a battlecry for me. You are a kafir and well i dont go about looking for ways to kill you. Rather i wish for Allah to guide you. As my '1500 yr old tenets' tell me to.