Posted on 05/19/2004 9:36:50 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
Amir Taheri's remarks during the debate on " Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy"
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am glad that this debate takes place in English.
Because, were it to be conducted in any of the languages of our part of the world, we would not have possessed the vocabulary needed.
To understand a civilisation it is important to understand its vocabulary.
If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.
There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word democracy entered Muslim languages with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish.
Democracy as the proverbial schoolboy would know is based on one fundamental principle: equality.
The Greek word for equal isos is used in more than 200 compound nouns; including isoteos (equality) and Isologia (equal or free speech) and isonomia (equal treatment).
But again we find no equivalent in any of the Muslim languages. The words we have such as barabari in Persian and sawiyah in Arabic mean juxtaposition or levelling.
Nor do we have a word for politics.
The word siassah, now used as a synonym for politics, initially meant whipping stray camels into line.( Sa'es al-kheil is a person who brings back lost camels to the caravan. )The closest translation may be: regimentation.
Nor is there mention of such words as government and the state in the Koran.
It is no accident that early Muslims translated numerous ancient Greek texts but never those related to political matters. The great Avicenna himself translated Aristotle's Poetics. But there was no translation of Aristotle's Politics in Persian until 1963.
Lest us return to the issue of equality.
The idea is unacceptable to Islam.
For the non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer.
Even among the believers only those who subscribe to the three so-called Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam ( Ahl el-Kitab) are regarded as fully human.
Here is the hierarchy of human worth in Islam:
At the summit are free male Muslims
Next come Muslim male slaves
Then come free Muslim women
Next come Muslim slave women.
Then come free Jewish and /or Christian men
Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian men
Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian women.
Each category has rights that must be respected.
The People of the Book have always been protected and relatively well-treated by Muslim rulers, but often in the context of a form of apartheid known as dhimmitude.
The status of the rest of humanity, those whose faiths are not recognised by Islam or who have no faith at all, has never been spelled out although wherever Muslim rulers faced such communities they often treated them with a certain measure of tolerance and respect ( As in the case of Hindus under the Muslim dynasties of India.)
Non-Muslims can, and have often been, treated with decency, but never as equals.
(There is a hierarchy even for animals and plants. Seven animals and seven plants will assuredly go to heaven while seven others of each will end up in Hell.)
Democracy means the rule of the demos, the common people, or what is now known as popular or national sovereignty.
In Islam, however, power belongs only to God: al-hukm l'illah. The man who exercises that power on earth is known as Khalifat al-Allah, the regent of God.
But even then the Khalifah or Caliph cannot act as legislator. The law has already been spelled out and fixed for ever by God.
The only task that remains is its discovery, interpretation and application.
That, of course, allows for a substantial space in which different styles of rule could develop.
But the bottom line is that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.
Islam divides human activities into five categories from the permitted to the sinful, leaving little room for human interpretation, let alone ethical innovations.
What we must understand is that Islam has its own vision of the world and man's place in it.
To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam.
On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.
In Muslim literature and philosophy being forsaken by God is the worst that can happen to man.
The great Persian poet Rumi pleads thus:
Oh, God, do not leave our affairs to us
For, if You do, woe be to us.
Rumi mocks those who claim that men can rule themselves.
He says:
You are not reign even over your beard,
That grows without your permission.
How can you pretend, therefore,
To rule about right and wrong?
The expression "abandoned by God" sends shivers down Muslim spines. For it spells the doom not only of individuals but of entire civilisations.
The Koran tells the stories of tribes, nations and civilisations that perished when God left them to their devices.
The great Persian poet Attar says :
I have learned of Divine Rule in Yathirb ( i.e. Medinah, the city of the Prophet)
What need do I have of the wisdom of the Greeks?
Hafez, another great Persian poet, blamed man's "hobut" or fall on the use of his own judgment against that of God:
I was an angel and my abode was the eternal paradise
Adam ( i.e.) man brought me to this place of desolation
Islamic tradition holds that God has always intervened in the affairs of men, notably by dispatching 124000 prophets or emissaries to inform the mortals of His wishes and warnings.
Many Islamist thinkers regard democracy with horror.
The late Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy " a form of prostitution" because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to God.
Sayyed Qutub, the Egyptian who has emerged as the ideological mentor of Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s.
He found "a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself."
Last year Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book ( available on the Internet) in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people.
Maudoodi, another of the Islamist theoreticians now fashionable, dreamed of a political system in which human beings would act as automatons in accordance with rules set by God.
He said that God has arranged man's biological functions in such a way that their operation is beyond human control. For our non-biological functions, notably our politics, God has set rules that we have to discover and apply once and for all so that our societies can be on auto-pilot so to speak.
The late Saudi theologian, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair, a man I respected though seldom agreed with, sincerely believed that the root cause of all of our contemporary ills was the spread of democracy.
" Only one ambition is worthy of Islam," he liked to say, " the ambition to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of manmade laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation."
Thus those who claim that Islam is compatible with democracy should know that they are not flattering Muslims.
In fact, most Muslims would feel insulted by such assertions.
How could a manmade form of government, invented by the heathen Greeks, be compared with Islam which is God's final word to man, the only true faith, they would ask.
In the past 14 centuries Muslims have, on occasions, succeeded in creating successful societies without democracy.
And there is no guarantee that democracy never produces disastrous results. (After all Hitler was democratically elected.)
The fact that almost all Muslim states today can be rated as failures or, at least, underachievers, is not because they are Islamic but because they are ruled by corrupt and despotic elites that, even when they proclaim an Islamist ideology, are, in fact, secular dictators.
Let us recall the founding myth of democracy as related by Protagoras in Plato.
Protagoras's claim that the rule of the people, democracy, is the best, is ridiculed by Socrates who points out that men always call on experts to deal with specific tasks but when it comes to the more important matters concerning the city, i.e. the community, they allow every Tom , Dick and Harry an equal say.
Protagoras says that when man was created he lived a solitary existence and was unable to protect himself and his kin against more powerful beasts.
Consequently men came together to secure their lives by founding cities. But the cities were torn by strife because inhabitants did wrong to one another.
Zeus, watching the proceedings, realised that the reason that things were going badly was that men did not have the art of managing the city ( politike techne).
Without that art man was heading for destruction.
So, Zeus called in his messenger, Hermes and asked him to deliver two gifts to mankind: aidos and dike.
Aidos is a sense of shame and a concern for the good opinion of others.
Dike here means respect for the right of others and implies a sense of justice that seeks civil peace through adjudication.
Before setting off Hermes asks a decisive question: Should I deliver this new art to a select few, as was the case in all other arts, or to all?
Zeus replies with no hesitation : To all. Let all have their share.
Protagoras concludes his reply to Socrates' criticism of democracy thus:" Hence it comes about, Socrates, that people in the cities, and especially in Athens, listen only to experts in matters of expertise but when they meet for consultation on the political art, i.e. of the general question of government, everybody participates."
Traditional Islamic political thought is closer to Socrates than to Protagoras.
The common folk, al-awwam, are regarded as "animals "( al-awwam kal anaam!)
The interpretation of the Divine Law is reserved only for the experts.
In Iran there is even a body called The Assembly of Experts.
Political power, like many other domains, including philosophy, is reserved for the " khawas" who, in some Sufi traditions, are even exempt from the ritual rules of the faith.
The " common folk", however, must do as they are told either by the text and tradition or by fatwas issued by the experts. Khomeini coined the word "mustazafeen" (the feeble ones) to describe the common folk.
In the Greek tradition once Zeus has taught men the art of politics he does not try to rule them.
To be sure he and other Gods do intervene in earthly matters but always episodically and mostly in pursuit of their illicit pleasures.
Polytheism is by its pluralistic nature is tolerant, open to new gods, and new views of old gods. Its mythology personifies natural forces that could be adapted, by allegory, to metaphysical concepts.
One could in the same city and at the same time mock Zeus as a promiscuous old rake, henpecked and cuckolded by Juno, or worship him as justice defied.
This is not possible in monotheism especially Islam, the only truly monotheistic of the three Abrahamic faiths.
In monotheism for the One to be stable in its One-ness it is imperative that the many be stabilised in their many-ness.
The God of monotheism does not discuss or negotiate matters with mortals.
He dictates, be it the 10 Commandments or the Koran which was already composed and completed before Allah sent his Hermes, Archangel Gabriel, to dictate it to Muhammad:
Read, the Koran starts with the command; In the name of Thy God The Most High!
Islam's incompatibility with democracy is not unique. It is shared by other religions. For faith is about certainty while democracy is about doubt. There is no changing of one's mind in faith, while democracy is about changing minds and sides.
If we were to use a more technical terminology faith creates a nexus and democracy a series.
Democracy is like people waiting for a bus.
They are of different backgrounds and have different interests. We don't care what their religion is or how they vote. All they have in common is their desire to get on that bus. And they get off at whatever stop they wish.
Faith, however is internalised. Turned into a nexus it controls man's every thought and move even in his deepest privacy.
Democracy, of course, is compatible with Islam because democracy is serial and polytheistic. People are free to believe whatever they like to believe and perform whatever religious rituals they wish, provided they do not infringe on other's freedoms in the public domain.
The other way round, however, it does not work.
Islam cannot allow people to do as they please , even in the privacy of their bedrooms, because God is always present, everywhere, all-hearing and all-seeing.
There is consultation in Islam: Wa shawerhum fil amr. ( And consult them in matters)
But the consultation thus recommended is about specifics only, never about the overall design of society.
In democracy there is a constitution that can be changed or at least amended.
The Koran, however, is the immutable word of God, beyond change or amendment.
This debate is not easy.
For Islam has become an issue of political controversy in the West.
On the one hand we have Islamophobia, a particular affliction of those who blame Islam for all the ills of our world.
The more thin skinned Muslims have ended up on regarding every criticism of Islam as Islamophobia.
On the other hand we have Islamoflattery that claims that everything good under the sun came from Islam. ( According to a recent PBS serial on Islam, even cinema was invented by a lens-maker in Baghdad, named Abu-Hufus!)
This is often practised by a new generation of the Turques de profession, Westerners who are prepared to apply the rules of critical analysis to everything under the sun except Islam.
They think they are doing Islam a favour.
The opposite is true.
Depriving Islam of critical scrutiny is bad for Islam and Muslims, and ultimately dangerous for the whole world.
The debate is about how to organise the global public space that is shared by the whole humanity. That space must be religion-neutral and free of ideology, which means organised on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There are 57 nations in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Not one is yet a democracy .
The more Islamic the regime in place the less democratic it is.
Democracy is the rule of mortal common men.
Islam is the rule of immortal God.
Politics is the art of the possible and democracy a method of dealing with the problems of real life.
Islam, on the other hand, is about the unattainable ideal.
We should not allow the everything-is-equal-to-everything-else fashion of postmodernist multiculturalism and political correctness to prevent us from acknowledging differences and, yes, incompatibilities, in the name of a soggy consensus.
If we are all the same how can we have a dialogue of civilisations, unless we elevate cultural schizophrenia into an existential imperative.
Muslims should not be duped into believing that they can have their cake and eat it. Muslims can build democratic society provided they treat Islam as a matter of personal, private belief and not as a political ideology that seeks to monopolise the pubic space and regulate every aspect of individual and community life.
Ladies and gentlemen: Islam is incompatible with democracy.
I commend the motion.
Thank you
* The motion was carried by 403 votes for, 267 against and 28 undecided.
It is an interesting article, but I noticed that like most Muslims, Taheri has no idea what the Islamic scriptures say about Muhammad and who he really was:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
Did you ask Mr. Taheri about his ideas, yourself?
It isn't monotheistic. Read Genesis where our God family says, "Let us make man in our image." Sounds like hypocrisy, but that is because of how the mainstream teaches Christianity. They also teach about other things that are not in the Bible.... Christmas, Easter, Celibacy of Priests, Sabbath moved to Sunday, the Feasts done away with, etc. If you can see through it all, it might make you wonder who instructed all the teachings that are not in the Bible.... and, why?
I call it realism.
Three responses. First, that may be how God describes himself. Since we do not have three aspects ourselves, we cannot really imagine what that is like.
Second, "Let us make man in our image. Note that image is singular. While God may refer to himself in this way, God has only one image, and one essence.
Third, it may be like The Royal We.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/306175.html
I read from genesis..."and God said(singular) let us create man in our image(plural". It is an interesting puzzle a singular God talking to himself as though he were plural.
Have you ever spoken to your-self in thought...how do you do it? Let's say you make a mistake of some type....don't we you often say to your self..."Boy FreeAtlanta(or what ever your name is), that was dumb let's not make that mistake again" or sometimes "I'm not gonna make that mistake again. What part of your I AM place in your inner being is doing the talking and what part is doing the listening an obeying,hmmm?
Many people in their thought processes speak to themselves from a singular perspective to area of their hearts as though they were pleurally separate parts of themselves.
Did not David in one of the Psalms cry out" Why art THOU cast down OH MY SOUL?" Does this mean that David was a multi-personality? Some part of David was observing the sadness of his own soul and asking his soul that question?
I beleive this is in essence what God meant by man being made into an "image" of himself. God the father dwells in "deep darkness" as the Bible states, but his Spirit and his Son are inseparable parts of himself. Our very thought processes and the way we think in side of our selves to our-selves are a reflection of this reality that is God.
So yeah God is singular Deist, existing as himself, existing everywhere through his spirit, yet resident in matter as his son Jesus...who put on flesh so that we might be saved...for as Paul stated"As in Adam all die, even so Christ shall be made alive...since by man came death, by man came also(who was Jesus)the resurrection of the dead.
Even God won't violate the balance of the universe...man screwed up it was going to take a man to clean it up again.
I'll bet Satan was mad God made an end run around conventional materialist thinking; like a brilliant chess move that leaves you check mated and gasping at the audacious inventiveness of it...you want to say the opponent cheated...but you can't. Then again Satan is a created thing...same as me!
Political power, like many other domains, including philosophy, is reserved for the " khawas" who, in some Sufi traditions, are even exempt from the ritual rules of the faith.
The " common folk", however, must do as they are told either by the text and tradition or by fatwas issued by the experts. Khomeini coined the word "mustazafeen" (the feeble ones) to describe the common folk.
This belief appears to be the core problem with Islam as a governing law for a nation. It relegates the "common folk" to a role as governed by a class of experts. They cannot even participate in government and must rely on specialists to rule over their powerless society. That is incompatible with democracy.
I don't see this as too much different from any other historical societies that allowed religion to rule government. When religion is used as the center of government you must have leaders who are in some way divinely chosen to rule. It may be by birthright or as an appointment process by the ruling class.
Under our democratic republic, religious laws cannot overrule what is designated as the rights of the individual as spelled out in the Constitution and our laws. That does not preclude the existence of religious communities including Islamic communities.
If Islam cannot recognize the rights of the individual to self determination, then it will not survive under our system. I don't know if this is a problem that is inherent in the true beliefs of Islam or whether it is an aberration created by the Islamists. I hope it is the latter otherwise we are in a holy war where the destruction of one side or the other is the only end.
BOOKMARKED. THANX!
Welcome!
I was just assuming that he actually believed what he wrote in the article?
If they need to be converted to something, why not Buddhism? The world would be more peaceful if everyone followed Buddhist principles.The history of Thailand, Burma, the Khmer empire, etc suggests to me that these "principles" are not necessarily put to practice by Buddhists. I don't think Buddhism has a monopoly on peacefulness.
Let Freedom Ring ~ Bump!
That certainly depends on one's interpretation of "Successful" now, doesn't it? I'll give you a pithy example of "Successful" in regards to Muslim Aggression over the last 14 centuries, Mr Taheri:
Quotes courtesy of Thomas F. Madden---Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University.
"......With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain.
In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands......."
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
They were successful back then, I pray for our success now. I shudder to think how little the average American citizen truly understands how much they want to kill us.
Nonsense. This is basically the same crap you get out of Pat Buchanan and racial/cultural supremecists on the right. I heard all this way before the Iraqi liberation.
If you need an example of a rigid classist society that was supposedly very 'incapatible' with democracy, look at India at the turn of the century. Now it is the largest Democracy in the world.
And look at Turkey. And at Malaysia. And at Indonesia. Or look at the Kurds within the last years of Saddam's rule.
Iraq is about the most Westernized country over there. Combine that with their post-tyranny recovery mindset similar to those experienced by the former Eastern Block countries and I couldn't pick a more ready place for Democracy.
It's a very stupid, tribal mindset that suggests that some just aren't 'ready' for Democracy because of the history in that country or the culture or (as W. said a few days ago and chaffed Mr. George Will's bow tie) "skin color."
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill
Islam must either become a private faith, with freedom to practice OR NOT, or the areas of the world in which it is predominant will remain backwaters and a problem for the rest of the civilized world.
BTW, I have read previously about the problem of language with regard to Islam, i.e., that arabic simply does not have the vocabulary necessary for democratic ideas. Interesting.....
This essay also lays out the way in which Islam is an ideology of utopianism. An all or nothing view of living in the world. The utopianism of the 20th Century lead to massive human deaths; I'm afraid that this is where we're headed in the 21st Century as well.
You always say it so well marron!
To be fair, those notions only surfaced after 9-11 and the evidence of Jihad in America, of radicla mosques in this countyr funded by a Fifth column emanating from Saudi Arabia.
Show me any such call for deportation or general dislike of Muslims in this country before that.
No different than the suspicion of communists during the Cold War.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.