[LoudRepublicangirl]

" Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy

No shiite, Sherlock!

[OK]

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/

[CaptRon]

On the one hand we have Islamophobia, a particular affliction of those who blame Islam for all the ills of our world

I call it realism.

[eggman]

The common folk, al-awwam, are regarded as "animals "( al-awwam kal anaam!)

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.

[BayouCoyote]

BOOKMARKED. THANX!

[Pagey]

Amir Taheri says: "...past 14 centuries Muslims have, on occasions, succeeded in creating successful societies without democracy..."

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.

[mbraynard]

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."

[Samwise]

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.


-Winston Churchill

[PsyOp]

The Second Amendment - Commentaries

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

That's not our problem.
History[Dustbin] = Islam

[k2blader]

Bump.

[Mat_Helm]

Excellant post and cultural perspective on why the middle east and islam represents the antichrist.

[Flying Circus]

He makes a lot of very good points in this. Western, Christian history agrees with most of this. God's law, which can be recognized as the natural law, is truly sovereign and Men's laws are good and just only to the extent they are in accord with God's law.

Our own nation's founders rejected democracy in hopes of forming a republic because they recognized the dangers of democracy. In the past century the constitutional protections have been progressively abrogated and we have drifted closer to democracy and with it growing abuses and inconsistencies in the law.

Where he is mistaken is in thinking that Islam is a close reflection of God's law. Contrary to Islam, all humans are equal in dignity, man or woman, slave or free and we are all sinners.

Islam is restricted in its government just like it is limited in its language. Its regulations are rather particular to desert dwelling nomads, not suited to properly governing beyond that sphere. This key flaw stems from the fact it is the creation of a man of a particular place and time(Mohamed) and not the eternal and universal God.

[PhilDragoo]

A series of interesting points.

I think his citing Islam as the one true monotheistic religion is in reference to the Christian trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Too little emphasis on historic reality: Islamic governments are without exception misogynist dictatorships.

The main problem of Islam vis a vis democracy is that pesky little death-to-the-infidel thing.

That and it's always run by blockhead micromanaging fascist perverts.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

An interesting passage:

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.

Khomeini shares the contempt for the untermenschen with patrician prick Jihad Fedayeen al-Keri who voted for fatwas before he voted against them.

America's founders held truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In view of this I see no free future for mankind in any "religion-neutral" direction.

Secular humanism has no ethical problem with the extermination of Jews by Hitler, Christians by Sudanese Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and home-worshipping Christians by Communist Chinese.

Freedom is God's gift which must be safeguarded by men.

Democracy is in general the rule by the people; representative government is the American way.

Anything which dilutes the diktats of the nomenklatura is despised by the Kerrys and Khomeinis.

The safety valve must be available to the Iranian people: The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants.

And never forget: Mr. UN is not your friend.

[highlander_UW]

My major concern regarding the Iraq war was the exit strategy depended upon establishing a democracy...but I was already aware that Islam is not compatible with democracy.

[Former Proud Canadian]

ROP bump

[Cold Heat]

Interesting, and common sense for the most part.

In my opinion, Mohamed corrupted Islam into it's current state.

Prior Islamic communities were thriving and productive.

But, unfortunately, no Muslim can go against Mohamed. He fixed that little problem.

The question is can they overcome it?

The answer is going to be long in coming.