The whole premise is wrong. Islamic fundamentlists don't reject "democracy" at all. They love it because they seem to win ever election including those in Iran (Maliki/Sadr) and Hamasistan.
It's because we mean two things by "democracy". We tend to use it to "convey constitutional representative government". Sure the islamowackos like being voted in. But once in they strip away constitutional protections, that we think are implied by "democracy". This pedantic remark brought to you by Starbucks French Roast.
Don't think so? Look at all the islamic people calling for sharia law and wanting to live under islam. No one is forcing islam on them. There are a bunch of imams on their side that are the counterparts to those on our side that study the bible, the Constitution, the American State Papers, to keep our heritage alive. This is our heritage, and islam is theirs. The most insignificant humble muslim freely wants rule under islam. That is democracy at its best. To say we want to bring them democracy is surreal in its error.
Muslims wanting islam is not unlike our ancestors wanting to set up democratic societies based on the bible, reference Plymouth and the Pilgrims. They went ahead and did it. And they converted some indians (tried to anyway) to Christianity, but note the indians didn't convert us. Our ancestors considered them savages and ourselves superior: we converted them, it was a one-way street. There was no tolerance.
For us it worked, and we were happy as Christians having the Rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta until George became an abusive king to the colonies. We got independence, had the Articles, the Constitution and here we are. Democracy implemented as a Constitutional Republic with Federalism.
The problem is not that muslims need democracy. They democratically want islam. The problem is they view us the way we viewed the American Indians in the colonial days: as savages and heathens to be converted. They consider themselves the superiors.
The basis of all our traditions, customs, and law, is the old testament, the old prophets, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and others, with modern ideas of John Locke and Enlightenment thinkers that do not contradict the foundations of the Old and New Testaments but are supported therefrom. Does that make us a theocracy? Sure, to some degree. Separation of church and state is an illusion that appears after the religious causes behind our laws are hidden behind a curtain. At the root, our state is based in Jewish and Christian religious principles and traditions no matter how much we pretend it isn't. And the fact that the would-be islamic state would be based on koranic sources makes it no more of a theocracy than ours is, or not much. It seems they are much more theocratic about it because they don't bother to hide it like we do.
It is really these old and new testament traditions that we want the East and muslims to accept as their basis. But this we tend to offer and then wonder why our offer is not accepted.
The basis of the Arabic traditions, customs, and law, is Islam which started as an effort to assimilate Arab pagans into monotheism, and unify some tribes. Christians and Jews not being part of islam are separate from it and muslims dealt with them as we dealt with the indians, move them aside if they can't blend in. What muslims want is for us to adopt Arab culture, customs, law, and the general feel of islam. Muslims pay lip service to the prophethood of Noah, Moses, Jesus, but basically dismiss them in favor of their greatest prophet, mohammed. This the muslims offer and don't wonder why we don't accept, they don't care, they are happy to dispose of us the way we disposed of the indians. If we are not careful, one day, we will have a modern equivalant of what we know as the "trail of tears," where Jews and Christians are marched off to "reservations," while muslims dominate the land.
Forget the foolish talk about bringing democracy to them. All we want is to keep our Noah, Moses, Jesus, Locke, Common Law, Magna Carta, Constituitonal Republic tradition secure, and not have it supplanted by mohammed the arab.
Can we resist their aggressive expansion? Hope so! Better get started! Can we get them to accept our tradition and let all their mohammedian culture go? Fat chance.
In the final analysis we have a clash of two democratic cultures, one rooted in the old and new testament to the exclusion of the koran, and the other rooted in the koran to the exclusion of the old and new testaments. The democratic aspect of ours is what made ours so dangerous to the way of the indian inhabitants. And it is what will make the islamic way a formidable adversary to our way.
The sooner we stop trying to democratize them or sell them the old and new testaments to the exclusion of the koran, the sooner we can begin building the walls, and arming to protect ourselves from the expansionist competing democratic muslim ideology---the way the indians would have if they had had the means. We have the means. Do we have the will?
btt