Replies

Food for thought... as DS mentions going back to the drawing board.

As you know, I've been warning about the dangers of democracy and its compatibility in the islamic world since the beginning, as I've witnessed its use (abuse) as a tool to bring in sharia first hand. One would be a fool not to consider the motives of islamic groups and not to understand the ideology of both islam and those influenced by the godfathers of the recent islamic resurgence - the Sayyid Qutbs and Abdullah Azzams and all other islamic purist groups (the Ikhwan, ie global Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots such as Al Qaeda and Hamas is one group at the top of my list) being influenced by Ibn Taymiyas call for a return to pure islam as practiced and preached by mohammad himself.

On multiple occasions, they have shown their willingness to use the democratic process as tool to undermine and destroy the very institutions which may bring them into power by ultimately imposing islamic rule and sharia which is a fundamental cornerstone of islam. Now that we have that out in the open, yet again, lets move on and consider solutions.

I believe (I may be wrong) it was Thomas Friedman who wrote an article about about the ongoing conflict or civil war in the islamic world between those that lean towards more secular forms of society, and the "true believers" who advocate a return to islamic basics. I believe he mentioned something along the lines of pushing for democracy in saudi arabia, not because he thought it would bring in rulers who were more friendly to the west, but the opposite, because it would bring in a more extreme theocracy, which may repulse the growing youth segment of their population in the hopes they may come to their senses, along the lines of the Iranians who have grown up to reject the rule by their mullahs.

Now, I differ with Friedman some of his basic premises about islam, but thats not what I wanted to bring up, it's his (if he was indeed the author I'm thinking of) "other" option here.

Lets also put aside possible holes in this argument which appears to follow a premise of "all other variables remaining equal" and the possibility of free and fair elections producing a theocracy which effectively becomes a terrorist state who may seek to acquire biological and chemical weapons (why spend years warning the kuffar by building nuclear infrastructure first) and consider what next step of the game plan is.

What if, for example in the case of the Palestinian elections, it was Sharons intention all along to let the world see exactly what Palestinians stand for and let paint themselves into a corner. In many ways, the Palestinian case differs from the above Saudi example because of their economic reliance on Israel, and they are much more vulnerable to the overwhelming power of the IDF and the freezing of international funds. We now have a situation where the enemy can be laid seize to, starved into submission, and those who support or voted for them can see exactly how and why their ideology will fail to produce the mythical islamic Shangri La they had hoped for.

The bigger question is, is this effect of bringing democracy elsewhere in the islamic world ethically acceptable as a two step solution as opposed to an end unto itself? If free and fair elections were held in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria etc, we know self declared "true believers" would benefit from it.

So do we take gamble and let muslims go ahead and use democracy or free and fair elections to feed themselves to the lions, so to speak, and have us all suffer the likely consequences so muslims may eventually learn the hard way that their lions (mullahs/imams) bite, maul and kill, and stop seeing islam thru rose tinted glasses and come around to understanding the realities of islamic rule like the long suffering Iranians and Afghanis because it ends up being a necessary process in both their collective societys and their individual ideological evolution?

Should we step back and return to continuing to prop up less than perfect regimes, our "friends" the "true believers" deem apostates and in league with the kuffar, turning a blind eye to the "imperfections" of the Mahathirs, Suhartos, Musharrafs and Mubaraks of the world because they are the lesser of two evils, going go back to the cold war "he may be a S.O.B, but he's our S.O.B." way of thinking that has caused us problems in the past?

Or do we face the harsh facts about islam and its founder, placing it firmly in the faces of both mulsim and our own "unenlightened" so we may honestly confront and discredit the ideology and many of its fundamental cornerstones first in the hopes we may eventually pave the way to another long term solution where they don't hang themselves and threaten to take us down with them in the process?