Why is it that the Arabs don't revolt?

[أبو الحروف]

Greetings again.

great, but why the people don't revolt.let us see somewhere else in the world; Cuba and it's famous revolution. why the people revolted against the regime. before it, in Russia (communist revolution), and before it, in France. everywhere in the world you can find revolutions even in Africa.

To answer your question :

2nd. The individuality of State Status & establishment:

let us examain another example from the Arab world , U.A.E.


you have an Arab country which is making huge leaps to the forntier of modernity & post-millinual advanced nations. An oriental success with is parallel to Malasyia.

Peace & Tranquility , Lucrative atmosphere for investment on both human & financial sapect , stable social security , golden oppertunities & a cultural boom that goes hand in hand with the project of U.A.E as a pillar in the middle-east.

why would poeple revolt , if the whole state is revolting against time in a platonic fascinating way to become a role-model for other Arab states?

-------

As for K.S.A

i'll leave it to 3rd.

which is related to the 2nd point (metioned above) - however , it will deviate and will establishes a new point which is "Religious Doctrine & Hegimony"

i will post it hopwfully tommorrow .

--------


My regards

[orange infection]

they wont revolt because arabs pretend to be religious , or live in the illusion of religion
and when u live in a society where any religious figure (paid well by someone) can tell millions of ppl what to do and they have to obey because it's the word of god , then why are you expecting the dummest ppl in the history of human kind to revolt
all they care about is the spread of a religion they think and pretend to believe in , that , and of course keeping their pockets full
so whenever a revolution attempt occurs , it's because of zionists , CIA , shi3a or anyone we can blame

[milouvr3]

about the U.A.E i agree no need to revolt, but lets see the case of K.S.A, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Egypt.

KSA a huge number of poor and uneducated people for a country with a huge income.+ the people don't have the chance to choose his leaders (no democracy at all) + no religion right for none Sunni.

Syria, the intelligence is running the country and the people has no right to choose his leaders, because anyone who propose to the elections against alAssad vanish.

Iraq, a hall mess.

Palestine, no need to describe

Egypt=Syria

[أبو الحروف]

Greetings ,

about the U.A.E i agree no need to revolt, but lets see the case of K.S.A, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Egypt.

The situation is Syria is simillar to the situation of Iraq of Saddam.

As for K.S.A , lets talk about the 3rd point:

"Religious Doctrine & Hegimony":

The founder of the Kingdom , or the "Unifier"as the call him ; used religious Doctrine to establish his control over the tribes in Arabia.

By implementing the teaching of the Wahabi Doctrine with his persuit of controling the Arab pennensula under the banner of unifying the land under the rule of God. He managed to weaken his opponints.

let me quote our friend Orange Infection here :

when u live in a society where any religious figure (paid well by someone) can tell millions of ppl what to do and they have to obey because it's the word of god , then why are you expecting the dummest ppl in the history of human kind to revolt.

Actually , it is quite the opposit.

Religion is a powerful drive ; it can be submisive or explosive.

In the case of K.S.A , The Doctrine became the reason for the stability of the system>

When you associate any revolution against the system with deviation from the path of God ; you will be able to secure your power as a ruler.

Especially if you attach the religious Doctrine to education & hyperpole the concept of :

طاعة الله من طاعة أولي الأمر

مع العلم بأنه : لا طاعة للمخلوق في معصية الخالق

and the violation of human rights is a SIN.

However , the religious apparatus in K.S.A works both on the Intellectual realm & physical realm. In other words , it insures that any opposition to the system is relinquished for being a sign of infidality " شرك ". As long as the system insures the continuity of the Doctrine & its hardliners

Iran now i s having a similar avident experience ,

حيث يتم الزج بأسم الله و رسوله و ذلك لإسكات الناس عن المطالبة بحقوقهم التي كفلها الله و رسوله

Which is ironic ; and clearly indicate that the use of religion for a political gain is very dangerous.

Because religion affects our lives & can determine our approach to it.

Just think about Patriarch Nassallah Suffair's speech before the Lebanese elections. and ask yourself, did it affect the election in someway?

Though , In Lebanon , you can critique the political descion of a man of religion.

As for K.S.A (or Iran ) you cannot. it will be considered blashfemy & they may lash you or cut your head w/ a sword !

____________________________

The best way to HEGEMONIZE poeple is to use the name of God.

و المتاجره بإسم الله ، هي كمن يبيع روحه لشيطان الذات في سبيل الملذات من ملك و سلطان

لأنه يستحيل على من يؤمن بأنك الحاكم بإسم الله أن يرى أخطائك

ستكون ، منزه ، طاهر ، تقي في عينيه

و سيكون كل من يخالفك عدوا لله و حليف للشيطان

ستميل معه أينما مال

،سترى الآخر كضد، كعدو

و ستتجاوز عن ظلامات من يحكمك حتى و إن كان ضدك

قد يسميه صديقنا أورانج انفكشن ، غباء شعبوي ،

و لكني أسميه

غفلة دينية

فواقع الدين شيء ، و طبيعة تطبيقه شيء آخر

و لهذا

with other factors i mentioned before , it is completly hard to establish a revolution in a state governed by a religious Doctione.

As for Egypt , i will leave it for 4th :

"The Westren shield of intersts - System presrvation"


My regards

[milouvr3]

that is right أبو الحروف
but the question still, why those people don't revolt

noway for that a man with a minimum of culture to be ruled by religion
here come the question, why the people where there's a "Religious Doctrine & Hegimony" don't have the curiosity to know or to read about other systems in the world? if this people just read about democracy and the splitting between the religion and the state, and with a minimum of culture, i think there will be a chance for change.

about egypt/syria, we have a part of the people that wants to change but the system is going brutal with them, so the revolution need to be armed and go by Guevara's way

[zoomzoom]

Originally Posted by Libnene Qu7

Arabs don't revolt due to their lack of education. They simply don't know any better that they can live and have the right to better lives.

Education has nothing to do with revolution. Many revolutions started by non-educated farmers and workers.

[milouvr3]

Originally Posted by zoomzoom

Education has nothing to do with revolution. Many revolutions started by non-educated farmers and workers.

the workers were led by leaders such as Karl Marx and other, how(leaders) succeeded to convince the people by there thought, the same for Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. these leaders just started the revolution and then they revolution has grown. so you need a leader, a people willing to change the system because they know by reason than the system is wrong. this reason come with the education/culture (ثقافة)

in KSA we have a people with an Islamic culture, so it's obvious that the people will not revolt against the king, because for them, he is the representor of god on earth, so if you want for this people to revolt, you need to tell them and convince them that there's better systems or ways to live (e.g: democracy). and while the interest of the system is that the people stay holding his thought about the king and his system, so the people need to self explore the others system, then he choose. so if a group of people see that democracy is the best for them, they should work undercover for a while, until the group is big enough to start the revolution.

[zoomzoom]

Originally Posted by milouvr3

the workers were led by leaders such as Karl Marx and other, how(leaders) succeeded to convince the people by there thought, the same for Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. these leaders just started the revolution and then they revolution has grown. so you need a leader, a people willing to change the system because they know by reason than the system is wrong. this reason come with the education/culture (ثقافة)

in KSA we have a people with an Islamic culture, so it's obvious that the people will not revolt against the king, because for them, he is the representor of god on earth, so if you want for this people to revolt, you need to tell them and convince them that there's better systems or ways to live (e.g: democracy). and while the interest of the system is that the people stay holding his thought about the king and his system, so the people need to self explore the others system, then he choose. so if a group of people see that democracy is the best for them, they should work undercover for a while, until the group is big enough to start the revolution.

True a revolution needs its leaders but the leaders education is secondary. The leaders should posses more of charismatic and galvanising attitude. There are some revolutions started by the people and the leaders took advantage. Viktor Yushchenko was boring throughout most of the orange revolution. His speeches in Independence Square in Kiev were keenly anticipated, but a few minutes after he began talking, after he had started rambling on about Seneca or bee-keeping or whatever, people generally began chatting among themselves. He seemed to be an honest and clean leader Ukraine the conclusion might be that a revolutionary leader and that was enough to command the trust of the masses who trusted him to bring about change.

[TripolySunni]

Charisma, Eucation and a Just Case which he MUST be committed to.

Remember that the diffrence between Oussama and Mustafa Sa3d is in Charisma.

[punkgirlie16]

a "revolution" with leades is not my revolution, and even if others among the workers and peasants, choose to follow leaders it will turn out that those leaders revolution is not theirs. thus they will learn it the hard way.