A very quick note: Thanks for a serious article, Peyman. I should confess it's the first time I see the terms "immanent" and "transcendent" in the sense you have used them here, but I can be a big fan of binaries sometimes, simplistic as they may be. I should read your post again...
Not much time now for a substantive response to the "succinct" posting. ;-) However, democracy is based on a few—simple—principles. The trouble with educated MEsterners is that they argue, like medievalists of old, in obfuscating language nebulous ideas, things akin to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"—while never taking the bull by the horns and DOING something. High-minded language only obfuscates the obvious. "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Wessie
"All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Not because she said it, but after re-reading Peyman's post, I was going to dispute this very claim. Babak Seradjeh, another thinker of your school, once argued that all tenets of democracy are reducible to the issue of Rights. I'd like to think that every democratic notion and practice has its roots in Equality. However, the axiom of Equality is nothing but a comforting convenient assumption; yet another "ultimate principle" that is, as far as I can see, based on nothing but the obviously wrong idea that humans are all created equal, while only some twins seem to be created equal. Since we're not equal in our potentials (some are smart, some are dumb, to use another simplistic binary), what then makes it necessary for us to deserve equal rights, equal treatment? I would expound... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Wessie: what you say is true in general about intellectuals as well i.e. obfuscating simple ideas in overly-complex language. Yes, democracy should be examined in simpler terms.. individuals having rights is part of it: the persian empire was ruled by tolerant benevolent monarchies, and afterwards the greeks (who came up with individuals endowed with rights) had democracy: so there is a link there. Now some comments on the article itself. First with immanence? Apparently it means, "remaining within" ... What does that mean? Why would it impact a democracy? "The resistance against a perceived "other" is the highest justification for the regime's policies." - Separation into "us" and "them" is inherent in all human psychology, to some extent.. are not democracies bound by national identity? How is constant resistance against the "other" bound to the concept of immanence? Lets look at history before the persian empire: the assyrian empire... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
on transcendance "The politics of transcendence is based on the principle of inalienable rights." - If you define it so.. and yet isn't the idea of all people having rights also an ideology? Can an exclusive group based on ethnicity not be democratic? "Thus the politics of transcendence is a politics that receives its legitimacy in the eyes of the outsider, here or there." - Some states seek legitimacy in the context of universal morality, some use justification for violence based on supremacist ideology, some based on religion as an ideology, but even those states which are based on the idea of universal rights of all individual have an inherent, internal view of what is right and wrong. Is that not "immanence"? "The success of such politics is measured by the treatment of minorities, immigrants, the invisible, impoverished, injured and voiceless." - Again, the persian empire was not based... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
(I meant Britain is still nominally a monarchy..)
The issue of equality is equal rights to which we are all born—not equal abilities of talents, etc., Senior. Thus, in a democracy the richest man, the smartest, the dumbest, the handicapped, the talented—all are ideally treated equal under the rule of law. Now, in reality, that is not true. However, it is more true in a democracy than in any other system. JFTDMaster "First with immanence? Apparently it means, "remaining within" ... What does that mean? Why would it impact a democracy?. . ." Because EVERY creature is inherently democratic—born free. Democracy is immanent—within, whether it is suppressed by despots or not. That is why caged birds often don't sing and animals in zoos fail to breed and humans don't thrive without their natural born immanence to freedom and democracy. "yet isn't the idea of all people having rights also an ideology? " No! Because an ideology is... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
I believe that Dr. Vahabzadeh is applying his thoughts on immanence and transcendence erroneously to democratic theory. "That is why politics of immanence cannot survive without the presence of an outside threat or a foreign agent—call it as you wish, no shortage of terms in this case—that apparently has sworn to undermine this phantasmic principle. " I find this completely wrong and off base. Immanence if the freedom to which we are all born—the freedom within. Regardless of external threat freedom is an inalienable right and immanent within all creatures—especially man. ". . .The politics of transcendence is based on the principle of inalienable rights. . . ", The "politics of transcendence" is the belief in those inalienable rights and their attendant responsibilities. "Still, there are many cases in which democratic states advocate one or another despotic policy: just recently, a fanatical interpretation of secularism in France led to... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Outgoing Iranian lawmakers made a bold, direct challenge to the country's supreme leader Tuesday, issuing a tartly worded open letter accusing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of leading "a system in which legitimate freedoms and the rights of the people are being trampled on in the name of Islam." "Institutions under your supervision, after four years of humiliating the elected parliament and thwarting bills and restricting the legislature, have now, on the verge of the parliamentary elections, deprived the people of the most basic right: the right to choose and be chosen," the letter said. Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49077-2004Feb17.html Ah, you see, they KNOW that rights and freedom are immanent, regardless of whether they can be free. Wessie
"[I]n a democracy the richest man, the smartest, the dumbest, the handicapped, the talented—all are ideally treated equal under the rule of law." Why?!
Because, Senior: "All men are created equal" and are endowed with certain "unalienable rights" by their creator—even some of the radical Muslims in Iran recognize they don't have their rights. Of course, the problem under Islam is that when "some" get their rights they won't give others their rights. For EVERYONE to have equal rights one needs a democracy. Islam is not compatible with a democracy because, for example, women are given fewer rights than men under sharia—not "different" but equal, but definitely fewer rights. Therefore, if sharia is used as a "Bill of Rights"—there will be no equal rights. And thus, some people cannot pursue "Life, Liberty or Happiness," because they don't have equal rights . Wessie
Wessie: I do believe in democracy, and I do believe that men and women are equal, and all that.. and yet I think you are just confusing the issue even further than the article. Democracy and equality are separate issues: in a political worldview, one could have one, the other, both or neither. Democracy developed in Greece, and the people who could vote were not only all male but they were mostly slave-owners as well. In recent history of the west, democracy was the same way, but over time, more people were included in the democratic process. "Islam is not compatible with a democracy because, for example, women are given fewer rights than men under sharia—not "different" but equal, but definitely fewer rights." - Equality under sharia law is impossible because sharia law mandates inequality of women. Democracy is also incompatible with sharia law: unlike in sharia law, in... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
"JFTDMaster "First with immanence? Apparently it means, "remaining within" ... What does that mean? Why would it impact a democracy?. . ." Because EVERY creature is inherently democratic—born free." - Maybe I'm missing something, but my impression was that Peyman talks about immanence being undemocratic, and transcendence being democratic. You seem to be using completley different language, with different meaning. Lets go back to beginning of society. At first what we are faced with is anarchy, with no law, and with individual people fighting over resources, territory etc. Then, for mutual benefit, people begin banding together in larger groups, for mutual protection, order etc. Eventually, as people band into larger groups, states are formed. Then, begins the process of evolution of states. The total freedom you think is "god given" is what produces anarchy and disorder. State is an attempt to bring order. Now a democratic state is a... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
". . . Maybe I'm missing something, but my impression was that Peyman talks about immanence being undemocratic, and transcendence being democratic. You seem to be using completley different language, with different meaning. . . " I use the SAME language with different—proper—meaning. JFTDMaster, my contention is that the author is inaccurate and just plain WRONG! ". . .Lets go back to beginning of society. At first what we are faced with is anarchy, with no law, and with individual people fighting over resources, territory etc. " Not true! Listen, even animals and insects are organized into groups—highly effective groups— where the division of labor is practiced. There was no "anarchy" before there were "sophisticated" societies. Apes our closest relatives, for example, are highly organized. So are insects—look at bees or termites or fish. . . BTW—there is NO true democracy—one man, one vote, in the modern world, except... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Dutch to kick out failed asylum seekers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/18/wneth18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/18/ixnewstop.html If this idiot thinks that sewing his mouth and eyes shut as a form of protest will get him anything but scorn and disdain, he is sadly mistaken. Muslims who do such things are seen as frightening, threatening barbarians or just plain nuts. Let's just say this confirms to the Dutch Burghers that they would not want this man to live next door to them. . . --- Denmark to get tough on Muslim clerics http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1006054,00.html --- Two of the most liberal nations in the world have had it with Islamofascists and the silent Muslims who support them! "Fortress Europe." I predict this will happen not only all across Europe, but all across the world with Muslims being shipped back to Islamia. The more Islamic terror attacks, the faster Muslims will be repatriated to their own lands— where they can deny... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Or, how about instead of shipping muslims out of europe... we support the strong pro-democratic movement of the people in Iran, help build a modern democratic state in Iran, which would encourage the Muslim in Europe as well to become more moderate.
Building a "strong democratic state in Iran" is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Iranians! We can "support" the building of such a state, but we cannot do it for them. Germany and Japan built their democratic states, the U.S. only helped. Allah helps those who help themselves. The world is TIRED of throwing good money after bad to fix despotic Islamic states. For decades we have been giving BILLIONS of dollars to Islamic states who do nothing toward development of democracies and the rule of law. Indeed, people in Muslim states have far fewer rights today than they had 20 years ago. No, no, I agree that shipping them off—far away from the West—and leaving them to allah is the best way. Given that Muslims don't want to integrate into Western society, but rather they want Western society to change for them, WHY should we permit them to stay? Besides,... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Iran Announces Readiness to Sell Nuclear Fuel to International Buyers "Iran's foreign minister says his country may be prepared to sell nuclear fuel to international buyers. The disclosure comes amid increased international scrutiny of Iran's nuclear capabilities. "According to Iran's state news agency, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazzi says Iran has the potential to produce nuclear fuel and is ready to offer it on the global market. . . ." http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=8244DC1A-3751-48C7-9082384D007B3696&Title=Iran%20Announces%20Readiness%20to%20Sell%20Nuclear%20Fuel%20to%20International%20Buyers&db=current --- White House Concerned About Nuclear Discovery in Iran Tehran's nuclear research reactor "The White House says it is concerned about reports that U.N. inspectors have found parts of a uranium enrichment centrifuge in Iran. . . " "The United States has said it is unimpressed by Iran's moves to open up its nuclear program to the outside world. A key U.S. diplomat said Thursday he has no doubt Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear program. U.S. officials... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
"The world is TIRED of throwing good money after bad to fix despotic Islamic states." - Maybe the West should stop. In democracy, the state needs the support of the people, and the people need the state to provide services, national defense etc. The dictatorship in Iran stays in power partially by selling oil to Germany, France, etc, that is why the dictatorship does not care what the people want/feel. France, Germany, Britain and the US State Department should face the fact that "engagement" does not lead to reform: it leads to perpetuation of the regime. Like you said: tick, tick, tick...
"- Maybe the West should stop. . . .France, Germany, Britain and the US State Department should face the fact that "engagement" does not lead to reform: it leads to perpetuation of the regime. . . " Well, now that is interesting. Aren't you the one who was all for "engagement" and supporting the reformers? I am the one for leaving them alone—remember? But, the oil issue is tough. They have to sell it—we have to purchase it. Oil, after all, makes the world go round. Life as we know it would stop without oil. No one on the planet can live without petroleum products these days.
Is "the politics of Immanence" the same thing as "Groupthink?"
"Aren't you the one who was all for "engagement" and supporting the reformers?" - No. I'm for engagement with Muslims in general, not with the Iranian dictatorship (which has just proven to be unreformable). I support reform in Islam and in the interpretation of Islam.. I support people like Manji speaking out and demanding acceptance of human rights by other Muslims. On the other hand, I do not think its practical (as you suggest) to ship muslims out of europe or to educate muslims out of their religion.
JDFMASTER, FYI, Manji is more of a noisy media celebrity than a real thinker who can reform anything including Islam. If you are really intrested in muslim intellectuals who are seeking new interpetaion of Islam and support human rights there are people, men and women, much more sophisticated and knowledgeable than Manji. Search more and you will find them.
I happen to agree with Tautologist here. Manji can deceive naive outsiders into taking her seriously (she has a body guard!) Her agneda is nothing short of ridiculous. For example, she wants to arrange an "Abrahamic Hajj". A pilgrimage to Mecca by not only Muslims, but Jews and Christians as well. As if there's nothing more urgent than having the Saudis lift the ban on non-Muslims' going to Mecca and Medina. It's laughable. If Manji's ideas can reform Islam, then pigs can fly. She says she can't go to Mecca and makes a lot of noise about it. But she could easily go, if she wanted to and if she didn't make such a big deal out of it. She wants to expose the Saudis. What she doesn't know, is what all fakes fail to realize: She will be exposed sooner or later. But not that easily. A media... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Is it two hours yet? ;-) For those of you who don't know who Manji is, here's her website, from which she aims to reform Islam and free it from its "troubles". You can even hear her voice there. Humbug, you think? Yeah, me too. Enjoy folks. http://www.muslim-refusenik.com (In Persian we have this proverb about those who want "to fish in muddy waters". Could someone out there please translate it for Wessie? Look at the cover of her book. For some reason, in general I tend to be suspicious of authors with their picture on their books. :-) )
I noticed that the following has appeared in another column (under the Buñuel-related entry): And Senior Grad, I'm not sure if you mean your questions or are just asking them to provoke a certain person, but here goes anyway: Even if people are not inherently equal, they should be given equal 'oppportunities'. This is a way of giving the 'market' decide , since anyone who is better can also go further.(Just like in economy, you prepare free opportunities for all (that is where the rule of some kind of law is needed and that's what differentiates trade from theft) and then let it go,since nature is the best judge from then on) Any other way would need some ad hoc deciding procedure which is definitely not perfect (and worse than the 'natural selection'), in which case you would end up with more talented etc. people getting even less rights... [more at the permalink of the entry above]