Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? 5 page

According to the American writer and scholar Daniel Pipes[111], Omar Ahmad, the long-serving chairman of CAIR, told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

Pipes claims that CAIR has mastered the victimisation game[112] and is “perpetually on the prowl for any incidence of anti-Muslim sentiment, real or imaginary, spontaneous or provoked, major or minor.” The organisation’s goal, Pipes says, is “to make the United States like so many other countries - a place where Muslims, Islam and Islamism cannot be freely discussed.”

CAIR receives significant financial aid in its efforts. In 2006, wealthy Saudis such as Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal donated at least $50 million to CAIR. Much of this money was to be spent on a media campaign[113] over the next five years in the United States. CAIR and other Islamic organisations have had significant success in achieving acceptance of the concept of “Islamophobia”[114]. It has met with representatives of federal institutions[115], including the FBI, to address this issue.

What exactly is democracy? Karl Popper has said that “I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence ‘democracy,’ and the other, ‘tyranny.’” Ludwig von Mises held similar views, stating that “The essence of democracy is not that everyone makes and administers laws but that lawgivers and rulers should be dependent on the people’s will in such a way that they may be peaceably changed if conflict occurs.”

Historically, direct democracies have almost always been relatively small communities, such as the Greek city-states where the word “democracy” itself was coined in the 5th century BC. The most famous was the ancient Athenian democracy, where voting rights were gradually expanded to all citizens, which still meant a minority of the population of the city.

The scholar John Dunn[116] tracks this development in his book Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy, a title he chose in order to convey a degree of irony. According to Dunn, “Under democracy the citizens of Athens, quite reasonably and accurately, supposed that they were ruling themselves. But the vastly less exclusive citizen bodies of modern democracies very obviously do nothing of the kind. Instead, they select from a menu, which they can do little individually to modify, whichever they find least dismaying amongst the options on offer.”

Whereas Plato loathed democracy, Aristotle was critical but more sober. He envisioned a government by the many, which was nevertheless a good system:

Page 47: “Aristotle himself chose to call it not democracy but politeia, (polity or, more informatively, constitutional government). Politeia was distinguished from democracy not merely by a difference in purpose and disposition (a commitment to collective good rather than group advantage), but also by a different and more elaborate institutional structure.”

James Madison, the chief drafter of the Bill of Rights, contributed a great deal to drafting of the US Constitution and set-up of its government, in discussion with among others his friend Thomas Jefferson. They were both critical of the idea of pure democracy. Thomas Jefferson warned against “elective despotism.” They desired what Alexander Hamilton had called a representative democracy, or indirect democracy. Dunn is not convinced this arrangement can properly be called democracy, in the meaning of direct citizen involvement in decisions which it had in ancient Greece.

Page 79: “Whatever else the new American state might or might not be called, it could not properly be termed a democracy. A representative government differed decisively from a democracy not in the fundamental structure of authority which underlay it, but in the institutional mechanisms which directed its course and helped to keep it in being over time.”

John Dunn thinks US President Bush’s idea that the expansion of democracy to Iraq and the Middle East should roll back terrorism was “a glaring instance of ideological overstretch.”

Maybe the word “democracy” is now so diluted that it has become almost meaningless. Since the word itself is vague but at the same time too established to ignore, perhaps we can distinguish between pure democracy, which isn’t always a good system even without Islam, and restrained democracy, with a balance between short-term populism and long-term interests.

In The Case for Sovereignty, Jeremy A. Rabkin describes how Jürgen Habermas, Germany’s most celebrated philosopher, talks about establishing a structure of international law and authority that will control and direct all governments.

As Rabkin timely asks: “Who could challenge or constrain a world authority with such immense power? Even if it were constrained by a formal constitution, who could possibly ensure that the world authority remained within its proper bounds? How could it be anything like a democracy? Would a hundred small nations outvote the half-dozen largest nations? Or would a billion Chinese, a billion Indians, and a half-billion Southeast Asians be allowed to form a permanent majority, dictating law and justice to the rest of the world?”

There was no United Nations or international law in the late 18th century. Rabkin thinks the US Founding Fathers “would have been appalled at the thought that the federal government, in turn, would be subordinate to some supranational or international entity, which could claim priority in this way over the American Constitution and American laws.”

The combination of 21st century mass media, transnational legislation, and bureaucratic feudalism helped transform Europe into Eurabia[117]. Thousands of pages of legislation continue to be passed without the knowledge or consent of European citizens. Through mass immigration the demographic profile of the continent is now rapidly changing, frequently without public consent.

The Jihad riots in France[118] in 2005 demonstrated that hundreds of ghettos were under de facto Islamic control. French state control ceased to function in these areas; thus the state’s monopoly of violence has been broken. The rule of law in much of Europe is now being seriously eroded. People see that the national taxes they pay go to governments that can no longer control their own borders, uphold their own laws, or even provide the most basic security for its citizenry.

Either the conditions needed for a functioning democratic system will be restored, or the system will collapse. An increasing number of observers fear[119] that we have already passed the point where the tensions can be contained within the structure of a democratic system, and will give rise to civil wars.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill[120] in Britain from 2005 is a textbook illustration of the potential flaws of a democracy in meeting with Islam. Minorities can wield disproportionate influence in a democratic system if they can tip the scales in favor of a particular party or alliance. In this case, the Labour Party was using the freedom of speech of their citizens as a bargaining chip to woo Muslim voters.

The powers of the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of the British Parliament, have steadily declined since the 19th century. However, they can still delay bills from the House of Commons. A watered down version of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was finally passed, following opposition by the Lords. Notice here that it was the “anachronistic” House of Lords - the least democratic element of the British Parliament - which proved to be most sensible in this case.

The US Founding Fathers feared “mob rule” and tried to insulate the elected representatives of Congress from what they perceived as the fickleness of the general populace. I understand this viewpoint. We should be less religious about what is or is not democracy. Democracy should never be a goal in itself, nor should all legislation be passed according to the whim of the majority at a given moment. The ideal is a balanced and well-functioning system.

However, it isn’t always the case that ordinary citizens are stupid and their leaders wise. It was after all the political elites in Europe who created Eurabia, not the general populace. The US Founding Fathers in the 18th century did not fully foresee the possibility that the elected representatives could deliberately choose not to uphold their country’s borders, as they are doing in the United States vis-à-vis Mexico in the 21st century.

A century or two ago, the interests of the national political elites largely coincided with those of the nation state as a whole[121]. This is no longer automatically the case in our globalised society. Many politicians and senior bureaucrats feel little emotional attachment to their own nations. Often they are more interested in courting the transnational organisations and multinational corporations, since these entities will provide them with the most lucrative job opportunities.

This situation is an important factor behind the growing erosion of trust between the rulers and the ruled in many Western nations. A common - and often quite accurate - theme among ordinary citizens is a sense of having been abandoned by the “political elites.” In the 21st century, one of the greatest challenges for a functioning democratic system will not merely be to keep the fickleness of the “common people” in line. Even more important, it will be necessary to force the sometimes reluctant elected representatives to uphold their country’s borders and to take into account the wishes of the electorate for national sovereignty. This balance may not be easy to achieve.

The Chinese blogger Ohmyrus[122] (who also writes very sensible articles about Islam) on his blog “Reforming Democracy” refers to politicians as “votepreneurs” and points out that democracy has several flaws: “There are, simply put, more poor people than rich people. What this means is that politicians can prosper at the ballot box by proposing redistributive policies. The result is high taxes.”

According to Thomas Jefferson, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Quotes like this indicate, according to Ohmyrus, that the US Founding Fathers were concerned more with liberty than with democracy.

Ohmyrus also believes that democracies produce short-term thinking, and “are incapable of delivering short term pain for long term gain. They tend to do the opposite, ie, deliver short term gain at the expense of long term pain. (...) I think the monarchies of the 19th century Europe were better macroeconomic managers than the democratically elected politicians of the 20th century. Statistics show that interest rates, taxes and inflation were on the whole lower. So was government debt as a share of the GDP.”

He believes this happened because monarchs and nobles tended to think more about the long term. At the same time they did not have absolute power, and so had to take the will of the general public into consideration. Our current problem lies not so much with the votepreneurers (politicians), but with the system under which they labour.

He proposes several remedies for this situation. Among other things, the US President’s time in office could be increased to a single term of eight years, while the time in office for other elected officials would also lengthen and similarly be fixed for a single term.

According to Singapore’s long-time leader Lee Kuan Yew[123], it is demography, not democracy, that will be the critical factor in shaping growth and security in the 21st century. Although I do not always agree with him, it is true that any political system, democratic or non-democratic, cannot long survive the loss of its territorial integrity without also losing control over its own demographic future. Yet this is exactly the current reality in many democratic nations.

Just as the planet is in the midst of an unprecedented population boom, and technological advances have combined to produce the largest and fastest migration waves in the history of mankind, many democratic nations have become so bogged down by idealistic human rights legislation and naive open border ideologies that they have now lost control over their own borders. Again, this cannot continue for long without serious consequences.

In January 2007, a poll conducted in Britain showed that 82% of the public disagreed with the claim that the Government was in control of immigration, and almost as many believed the authorities were not honest about immigration. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the think-tank Migrationwatch[124], said this reflected “a deep underlying resentment among the public that they have not had any opportunity to express their views - still less to be consulted - on a matter of major importance to them and to the future of our country.”

This represents a dangerous crisis of legitimacy. It is especially serious when it comes as authorities are increasing restrictions on free speech. This combination could well result in a popular explosion further down the road. As US President John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The blogger Ohmyrus[125] fears this outcome, too: “While it took a long time for Europeans to learn to settle their differences peacefully through the ballot box, this important lesson is slowly being unlearned. The lesson learned from the Danish cartoon affair is that violence pays. Most western governments caved in by issuing apologies or condemning the cartoons instead of defending free speech. Soon groups that oppose immigration will turn to violence too. If European democracies cannot manage their ethnic tensions, democracy will break down, ushering in dictatorial rule.”

To sum up my findings, I am not totally uncritical of the democratic system, nor do I believe that it automatically translates into individual liberty. Democratic nations may have to undergo significant changes if the system of democracy is to survive this century. The goals should be:

· A balanced and well-functioning system, which requires free speech;

· Real restraints upon the power of the ruler, and

· Equality before the law.

None of these are compatible with Islamic sharia.

Muslims aren’t necessarily afraid of voting. Note that the terrorist organisation Hamas gained power through Palestinian elections. According to historian Niall Ferguson[126], a Gallup poll published in 2007, which surveyed 10,000 Muslims in 10 different countries, revealed that radical Muslims were more supportive of democracy than moderate ones: “The richer these people get, the more they favour radical Islamism. And they see democracy as a way of putting the radicals into power.”

What Muslims are afraid of is freedom of speech. They want to intimidate the critics of Islam into silence, while they continue demographic conquest through immigration and high birth rates. They have enjoyed considerable success with this strategy. Our present system of democracy rewards those with high birth rates, which, for the present, means Muslims.

A democracy cannot be established in a genuinely Islamic country, at least not if “democracy” means anything more than the mere act of voting, with no restraints on state power and no safeguards for minorities. This is simply an advanced form of mob rule. If the meaning of “democracy” expands to include constitutional government, secular jurisprudence, the rule of law and equality before the law, and above all freedom of speech, then no - constitutional democracy cannot be reconciled with Islam. It is a waste of time and money to make the attempt.

Non-Muslims currently have the wrong focus. Trying to export democracy to Islamic countries such as Iraq is futile. As American blogger Lawrence Auster[127] has pointed out, we should rather be protecting our own democracies at home against Islam. Writer Diana West[128] has called for an anti-sharia defensive instead of a pro-democracy offensive as the preferred strategy in dealing with Muslims, which makes a lot of sense. Islam is utterly incompatible with human liberty in any meaningful sense of the word. However, Islam may be very well situated to exploit flaws in the democratic system and destroy it from within.

I have called for a global infidel strategy of containment[129] of the Islamic world as far as possible, which includes banning Muslim immigration. This would eventually force Muslims to face up to the failures produced by their cultural system. Challenge your enemy where he is weak. Islam cannot tolerate freedom of speech, which is its greatest weakness. The United States is well-situated to make this challenge. It still has a relatively low number of Muslims and also retains strong legal protections of free speech. The greatest weapon Muslims fear in the American arsenal is the First Amendment. This rule, so wisely included in the Bill of Rights by the Founding Fathers, ensures individual freedom of speech against the tyranny of the majority.

If the United States wants to maintain what it sees as its moral leadership, it can begin by challenging Islamic censorship and intimidation. China doesn’t care, nor does Russia, while India has a huge Islamic fifth column to worry about. Europe is controlled by a Eurabian elite that is both unwilling and incapable of protecting free speech from Muslim intimidation, which is why many Europeans have become free speech refugees on American websites such as Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch.org and Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs[130].

While formal protection of free speech is important, social and informal censorship are equally challenging. At the end of the day, we will also have to shed the straightjackets of multiculturalism and Political Correctness if our democratic system is to survive Islamic challenges as well as other attacks on our freedoms.

Source:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-islam-compatible-with-democracy.html

1.http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

2.http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.220

3.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1650

4. http://52.571.13.320subf02:LRdpxjk781698196548ВЧ

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=ancienthistory&zu=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aristotle-politics1.html

5.http://www.amazon.com/How-West-Lost-Alexander-Boot/dp/1850439850/

6.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/736fyrpi.asp?pg=1

7.http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0226320618/

8.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1624

9.http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/11-years-chaos-for-eu-accounts.html

10.http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/08/welfare-state-is-dead-long-live.html

11.http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/07/let-them-eat-kebab-new-marie.html

12.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1101

13.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013083.php

14.http://www.meforum.org/article/734

15.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000250.php

16.http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/

17.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008946.php

18.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011752.php

19.http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/10/bangladesh-non-muslim-ethnic-groups_19.html

20. http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/pakistan-hindu-girls-forced-to-convert.html

21.http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/newsviewsdetails.php?newsid=437

22.http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/chapter_11.asp

23.http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=619

24.http://www.muhammad.net/quran/shadeofQuran/index.htm

25.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008758.php#more

26.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000687.php

27.http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/07/camel-economics.html

28.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html

29.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005810.php

30.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014195.php

31.http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23580&only

32.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008237.php

33.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007764.php

34.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000692.php

35.http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1888848,00.html

36.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003608.php

37.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016078.php

38.http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/alija.html

39.http://www.faithfreedom.org/book.htm

40.http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,1794445,00.html

41.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005810.php

42.http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60202.htm

43.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003590.php

44.http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689/

45.http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21799

46.http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP62103

47.http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP87605

48.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004902.php

49. http://48.866.2.306subf54:LWpprvt125662489953ЂН

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=WQ000AD30EE1NQFIQMGCM5WAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2004/12/18/nprince18.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=66141

http://47.372.8.539subf94:LCngckt463136616341ЖТ

50.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004932.php

51.http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA20805

52.http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-3-2004_pg3_3

53.http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b4d47fc8-9764-4bcb-9fa3-4cbd0d7c56e3&k=88232

54.http://snouck.blogspot.com/2006/11/muslims-in-west-implications-for.html

55.http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/320

56.http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=30780

57.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20817548-16947,00.html

58.http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP139306

59.http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=6622&ln=eng&txt=al-%E2%80%98aabid

60.http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/YounusShaikh50331.htm

61.http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145175705661&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar

62.http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544462

63.http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1605653,00.html

64.http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20051112.htm

65.http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html

66.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015002.php

67.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015008.php

68.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009430.php

69.http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/UnitedEuropeStories/unitedeuropestory06-35.shtml

70.http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14117

71.http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,376954,00.html

72.http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=117

73.http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/4462

74.http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri010603.asp

75.http://www.amazon.com/Eurabia-Euro-Arab-Axis-Bat-YeOr/dp/083864077X/

76.http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=4223

77.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008212.php

78.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005611.php

79.http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP94105

80.http://www.cphpost.dk/get/83602.html

81.http://www.cphpost.dk/get/94809.html

82.http://www.khader.dk/flx/in_english/the_ten_commandments_of_democracy/

83.http://www.meforum.org/article/1437

84.http://www.cphpost.dk/get/92320.html

85.http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21222

86.http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070131-102348-3981r.htm

87.http://www.nysun.com/article/44831

88.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005052.php

89.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015022.php

90.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/11/29/international/i114621S94.DTL

91.http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/article1240651.ece

92.http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/eurabia-code_19.html

93.http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/03/norwegian-government-surrenders-to.html

94.http://www.brucebawer.com/blog.htm

95.http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman51205.htm

96.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011610.php

97.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1739

98.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002750.php

99.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2238321.stm

100.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015024.php

101.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006664.php

102.http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html

103.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014250.php

104.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014369.php

105.http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23192&only

106.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009732.php

107.http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10813&page=all

108.http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24141

109.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29483

110.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014943.php

111.http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3437

112.http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23762_CAIRs_Victimization_Game&only

113.http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23450_CAIRs_Five-Year_Propaganda_Push_Continues&only

114.http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014530.php

115.http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/02/preparing_for_w.html

116.http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-opening/focus_2944.jsp

117.http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/eurabia-code_19.html

118.http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/sarkozy-backs-finkielkraut-over-muslim_09.html

119.http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-european-civil-war-inevitable-by.html

120.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

121.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1101

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 595