-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Democracy and Islam
Military rule is about the best one can hope for.
It has to be said: The international media too quickly characterize mob action in North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East as an expression of democracy. Gatherings of large numbers of people demanding that autocratic leadership be changed does not constitute a willingness to pay the continuing social price of responsibility and compromise that is the basic element of democracy in any form.
The existence of post-colonial, military-created and/or maintained government is a given in the Middle East. The Saudi and Jordanian monarchies were an outgrowth of military action. The Islamic revolution in Iran originally drew its strength from the paramilitary overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlevi whose father had declared himself monarch after rising from the officer ranks of the Persian army. His was originally termed a “democratic revolution” by the military against the then existing Shah. Indeed Islam itself was originally introduced through military force.
Even today after the hundreds of thousands dominated Tahrir Square in Cairo, the nation of Egypt is held together by its military. The army in Tunisia guaranteed the removal of the autocratic Zine el Abidine ben Ali. The question exists as to what militaristic force eventually will dominate tribalized Libya that only gained its independence from the monarchy of King Idris in 1969 by the action of the young officers under Moammar Gaddafi.
There is no cultural tradition of democracy in the Arab and Persian Middle East, perhaps with the exception of Israel and the European-fabricated and religiously divided Lebanon. Islam as the principal religion and culture of the region does not necessarily welcome such a form of governance.
It is true that there is continued debate even though a 2007 University of Maryland poll in Egypt and Morocco indicated 71% of respondents would require “strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country.” While some Koranic scholars hold that Islam actually necessitates democracy, this view is effectively countered in practical application by the strong contemporary political role of clerics in both Sunni and Shia contexts.
The famed historian Bernard Lewis has written, “The emergence of a priestly hierarchy and its assumption of ultimate authority in the state is a modern innovation and is a unique contribution of the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to Islamic thought and practice.” Yet long before the Shia leader Khomeini came on the scene, Islam in countries with Sharia as its law demanded its ascendancy in both civil and criminal matters. So it has been in strictly Sunni Saudi Arabia.
This leads one to speculate that any Islamic nation, by definition, must recognize the primacy of Islamic law over any so-called democratic principles. And here is where the Islamic world has divided in practice. The work of Toni Johnson and Lauren Vriens for the Council on Foreign Relations conveniently divides the application of Islamic law in conjunction with secular law into three general categories: (1) The dual system exists where believers can choose to bring familial and financial legal issues to Sharia courts. (2) Islam as the officially recognized constitutional religion of a country and “sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws.” (3) Secular Islamic countries often have Sharia influencing local customs but civil and criminal matters are adjudicated strictly under secular laws.
On reflection all three of these categories inhibit directly or, as in the third category, indirectly the consistent application of what the non-Islamic world would call “democratic principles.” The most telling argument for the predominance of Islamic legal concepts is made repeatedly by both Sunni and Shia scholars arguing “moral degeneracy and consequent weakness of Western civilization,” i.e. democracy.
A nation, predominantly Islamic in culture and religion yet democratic in aspiration, presents an inbred conflict that has tended repeatedly toward the solution of military or civilian autocracy. Western democracy in the modern sense may not be compatible with Islam except as a convenient device to provide a structure for governance rather than a philosophical commitment to the equality of its citizens. Following that same logic, to judge any Islamic nation along Western democratic criteria would be an exercise in non sequitur.
It may well be asked exactly for what were the hundreds of thousands in Cairo and elsewhere protesting. Certainly there appears to be a consensus on a desire for “a better life.” This apparently has had more to do with economic life and political reform than a deeper commitment to the equities of democracy as the West knows it.
All of which introduces the question as to whether it is the arrogance rather than altruism of the non-Islamic West that is the real stimulus for European and American involvement in the Middle East and North Africa’s current political explosion. Or is the prime minister of Turkey correct when he charges that intervention by the West is motivated simply by the region’s oil reserves and access to them?
Vladimir Putin said he considers Western intervention in the region akin to the specious justification of the Crusades. His “partner” Dmitry Medvedev sharply disagreed and suggested such a statement was historically incorrect and “absolutely wrong.” In an odd way they both may be right. The question, however, really remains whether secular democracy and Islamic theocracy can be successfully melded or they represent irrevocably conflicting ideological choices. The battle will continue long after this round of fighting ends.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
gsr| 3.23.11 @ 6:18AM
Those of us who have spent at least a little time studying Islam can tell you - Islam and constitutional government DO NOT MIX. They are antithetical to one another.
After 9/11, Muslim immigration to our country has actually gone up and gone up rapidly. Is that smart? We now are seeing the introduction of Sharia Law into many towns, large and small. We now have regular jihad/terror incidents. We now have had a few honor killings of wives and daughters, something never seen before in this country. Where has this come from?
Immigration.
J.C.Eaton| 3.23.11 @ 1:14PM
No my frind, it is not smart. I'd trow that it's even sane. Democracy and Islam IS incompatible. I doubt that serious numbers of Islamists could even "make it" in a genuine representative republic were they not subsidized, coddled, and underwritten with guaranteed jobs, funding, and other support. The way of thinking between the two types of societies is simply too disparate.We offer too much freedom, individual choice,self-determinism. Like that. That's the way of it.
Alan Brooks| 3.23.11 @ 11:58PM
"Military rule is about the best one can hope for."
What do you expect from superstitious third world cesspools? Do you think Latin America- our backyard- is much better off?
Brian Mc| 3.23.11 @ 6:45AM
There is no peace without Islamic peace. So the jihadists would have us believe-and so, the "struggle" is inevitable. The damage, (immigration) is done even if we were to slam all the doors shut, so to speak: nobody in or out.
The prophet of Allah was a demon from hell and we are beginning to suffer the reaping of his whirlwind that will not subside unless we westerners take drastic measures to impede its vicious progress. Draconian measures are required. These Islamo-idiots will never 'accept' us, no matter what we do or say short of submission. So, in response, they set off a bomb to get their way, we blow up a mosque to get our way. We wanted no war with them, they have brought the war to us.
gsr| 3.23.11 @ 7:44AM
once again though, they have brought the war to us through ----- immigration. The 9/11 jihadists were here on visas - they were not American born; not even immigrants. They were here on tourist and student visas.
There is no way to separate "moderate" Islam from "radical" Islam. The two are too deeply intertwined. Muslim immigration, which has gone up sharply since the mid-1990's, is the reason why "the war" is here on our land. It is why we discuss and debate is 24/7. Islam is here now.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.23.11 @ 7:11AM
Mr. Whitman your first paragraph provides the most concise distillation of Middle East strife to appear on these pages.
Dixie Pixie| 3.23.11 @ 7:33AM
Welcome to the front line in the "Clash of Civilizations".
The battle is about who's "Rule" will prevail.
Will it be Rule by Mullah through "Sharia Law" or will it be Rule by the "People" through "Democratic Law".
The battle has been joined throughout Islam and a long and bloody battle it will be.
Unfortunately our leadership believes there is a possibility of a compromise position between the two alternatives.
There is not one and it is folly to try to find one.
All American American| 3.23.11 @ 8:10AM
Ummmm, duh???
GavInTucson| 3.24.11 @ 3:57AM
And they're saying, "Duh!!! Winning!!!!)
Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 12:24PM
Spam
Dee See| 3.23.11 @ 8:44AM
---Sensing this piece is itself a piece of predictive
programming ----for US.
"The US has one final task before its own collapse
is finished and RED China's brought in as the
Globalist's 'World Enforcer' ---and that's to 'bring in' (i.e. franchise slum) the recalcitrant Middle East."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)
----HUAC meets NUREMBERG ---now more than ever...
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 3.23.11 @ 8:47AM
Death and destruction follows this so-called religion, wherever it takes root, ideas, innovation, inspiration, and freedom disappear overnight. The followers of Islam always like point to this "supposed" Golden Age of Islam, when they were the leaders of the World in Art, Mathematics, and Science, but it's not true, it's a lie, it never existed. When you take over a Society "by the sword", you cannot take the credit for the innovations of the People you just suppressed, and then call it your own. The Koran doesn't allow for free thinking, therefore it stifles imagination, and invention, which might explain the lack of patents coming from this part of the World in recent history, they don't have new ideas in Islam. Should we be next? I don't think so!! Let's keep this religion out of the U.S., stop it's spread now, before it's too late!!
Ret. Marine| 3.23.11 @ 9:01AM
The enemy (democracy, the left in this case) of my enemy (islam-so called the religion of peace) is not my friend nor, shall it ever be. Our Republican form of Governance will never be aligned with the 7th century barbarians theocracy. Those of us who are paying attention told the rest of our readers of the muslim brotherhood's involvement when the riots and mayhem started in Egypt, only to be shouted down by the left and beaten over our heads with the same old tired and misleading of their version of democracy, whoa and behold I just re-read osama bin laden's manifesto from the year 1996, and reconfirmed the fact of this being a three part stage strategy to form a renewal of the lost caliphate the world witnessed in the early 20th century. It is no accident the left continues to frame this in the wrong message, they are in on the set-up for our form of governance to be taken down by any and all means at their disposal. Don't listen to the politicians, they have to be the dumbest set of educated idiots this country has ever witnessed, for supposedly being "so smart" they are really being taken for the literal fools they are.
GavInTucson| 3.24.11 @ 4:02AM
Ret. Marine, it's starting to get a little scary.
As we speak, there are now judges popping up on the radar in Texas and Florida, willing to accept tenets of Sharia Law when ruling.
I'm not making this up! And here I thought this type of idiotic nonsense would limit itself to Europe.
Think about it... TEXAS???????
Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 12:26PM
Spam
WeeWillie| 3.23.11 @ 9:54AM
Americans, both from the left and the right, are harming America and others by their distrust and hatred of Monarchy as an institution. A glance at the world of Islam shows that the populace were much freer before than after the overthrow of the Monarch. Likewise, consider that the United States can not plan for the future. The present debt problem could have been foreseen and prevented. Only a monarch can think in terms of ones Grandfather and considers ones grandson. From most elected in democracies, the future in the next election.
YeloStalyn| 3.23.11 @ 1:36PM
That is true, to a point. But it is also an argument of pragmatism (it works more effeciently... Hobbes' Leviathan) over moralism (is it RIGHT to reign over other people?)
America was founded on the idea that as equal creations under God, one does not have the right, authority, or justification to rule over another. Even the President is not supposed to be a leader, so to speak, but rather a representative of the true wielders of power... the people both individally and as a whole.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.23.11 @ 2:03PM
Well Wee Willie your screen name sure does fit your thoughts.
May your chains rest lightly on your neck and hands. I am a freeman. I will remain so until the moment I die.
John| 3.23.11 @ 11:08AM
At the heart of the Islamic sharia is the protection of life, property, liberty. through the principle of Ijtihad - interpretation- Muslims have the power to renew themselves. I don't doubt that there are conservatives who don't want change - but its obvious they're a busted flush. Islam has renewal built into it. Some things will never change - five pillors: monotheism, the five daily prayers, fasting one month every year,giving at least 2.5% of wealth each year to the needy, the once in a lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca. Everything else is up for grabs. American constitution , political structures are 100% compatible with the sharia.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 12:27PM
F.O.S. You figure it out.
YeloStalyn| 3.23.11 @ 1:52PM
Sooo.... when you have competing "protections" who wins? The man's right to property (his wife... maybe his daughter?) and his right to do as he sees fit (honor killing)... OR... the wife and/or daughter's right to life?
What about liberty? Does Islam respect those who freely choose to leave it or are they apostates who should be killed (what about the protection of the "apostate's" life?)?
What about the liberty of non-Muslims to not convert to Islam? Are they to be respected, along with their religion, ideals, principles, etc?
I know it's not fair to paint a relegion with the brush of its rank and file followers (how many "Christians" are a good example of Christ?).
But... it is somewhat reasonable to look at it's leaders (they often attain that position for being good adherents to the doctrine and their exemplified understanding of it). When you do that... find about 3 types of Muslim clerics.
1- The radicals who do not exhibit any of the moral characteristics you say exist in Islam. This seems to be a rather large faction.
2- The silent types on all of the atrocities in the name of Allah. This is nothing more than tacit approval of the 1st group and is probably the largest group.
3- Those who attempt to discourage the atrocities carried out in Allah's name. There's probably 4-5 in the whole world (sacrasm... but probably not by much).
So, from the example put forth by both the people (yes, a bit unfair) and the leaders of Islam of what Islam really is... it don't look so hot to me.
Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:45PM
Dear John: Is there ever a time you say anything that bears any resemblence to truth in ANY dimension?
B. Lindstrom| 3.23.11 @ 11:17AM
My, how the times change. I recall when AmSpec commenters were, by and large, passionately behind Bush's delusional, Trotskyesque plan to spark a "global democratic revolution".
Remember? Anyone?
Anyone recall the vitriol directed against those who held the realistic position that so many here have come to adopt, now that The Revolution is being spread by someone with a different letter (D) next to their name? Does anyone remember the bile and venom spat at we who pointed out that Bushbama-style projects to Democratize the middle east were idiotic and insane? No?
Anyone remember this:
In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)
The speaker is George W. Bush, warrior-god to 90% of the commenters here. The applause, though, came from most of you. And when others on the Right questioned the wisdom of spreading democracy to the Muslim World, you applauders abused them and called them traitors.
Now that Obama has adopted and is advancing the Bush/Cheney policy of spreading Global Democratic Revolution to the liberty-loving Muslims whose yearning to breathe free so many here found well worth the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, suddenly you've all come around.
I guess my question is: Why not just admit that you only care about supporting the GOP and opposing the Democrats, and nothing else? Bush's Dukakisian spending and Great Society-expanding and Global Democratic Revolution-spreading were AOK with most here. Now we are expected to believe that you earnestly oppose Obama's Dukakisian spending and Great Society-expanding and Global Democratic Revolution-spreading, and that it's the policies you oppose, rather than the party enacting them?
Come on. Those who weren't suckered by left-liberal radical George W. Bush then will not being suckered now by his once-and-future worshipers. Let's be real: the next GOP president will spend like Bushbama, and Democratize like Bushbama, and every one of you will cheer your hearts out for him, and screech and shriek bloody murder at anyone who opposes his unAmerican policies - as you did for Bush.
You're the exact mirror image and moral equivalent of the now-nonexistent "anti-war" Democrats.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.23.11 @ 2:08PM
B. Lindstrom,
why don't you tell us how you really feel.
Heh, jackwagon.
Dai Alanye | 3.23.11 @ 2:26PM
Sharia-loving Muslims will eventually choose peace and representative government... Once we've knocked their heads together often enough. Lindstrom gives up too easily.
All American American| 3.23.11 @ 2:34PM
Not trying to pick a fight but this is so untrue as to be almost dangerous. If you understood islam you'd understand that NOTHING HAPPENS unless allah wants or wills it to happen. If allah wanted peace and representative govt he would have willed it but he didn't.
Please, educate yourself on islam.
Fred| 3.23.11 @ 3:26PM
Actually, B. there were many of us who supported the invasion as a punitive expedition and an example por les autres in the Middle East without buying into the lunatic notion that those savages are capable of democracy. I firmly believe that had we killed Saddam, set up Saddam lite, and got the hell out of Dodge, we'd be having far fewer problems than we do now. I said that in 2003 and I say it now. The notion of Arab (or Persian) democracy is insane whether it's held by one with a D or an R after his/her name.
Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:47PM
Fred,
You're too Sexy For Your Shirt. Dead on!
GavInTucson| 3.23.11 @ 8:38PM
"Does anyone remember the bile and venom spat at we who pointed out that Bushbama-style projects to Democratize the middle east were idiotic and insane? No?"
Quick question there, Lindy: How many national elections have the Iraqi people held? Two? Three?
I won't go so far as to call you an idiot or insane, but you were most certainly wrong. Incidently, planes dropping bombs aren't going to liberate a people. Boots on the ground do that.
simon templar| 3.24.11 @ 1:38PM
B.L.
You are speaking half truths. Your overall point I do understand, however. Conservatives as well as the GOP must have a clear, consistent vision and understanding before we commit to any action or philosophy. I do not remember this quite exactly as you have portrayed it. Our reasons for attack and invasion were many and many of those had nothing to do with spreading democracy. We had some very practical reasons and these two countries seemed to be a particularly eminent and troublesome threat. One was directly connected to the attacks on the Twin Towers and was a base camp country for training of terrorist and the largest international terrorist organization. The other invaded an ally country, fired missiles on another, attempted to kill our president, and threatened us with WMD for nearly 20 years. Yes, many of us were backing Bush. We were backing him for military and national security reasons. Yes, there was a lot of talk about and hopeful wishing that these countries could be free of these dictatorships as well and attempts would be made to assist these people in forming some form of democratic rule. This was not however the sole purpose of these military involvements. Many were skeptical as well and hopeful that "democracy" would take root to some extent and change would begin and spread. I do not think that there were many who were clinging to illusions that this would be easy and not very difficult but the attempt to at least try to establish democratic forms was seen as worth it. That's how I remember it. Well, we learned some lessons here since those days. Perhaps, more people should have listened more closely to those that you claim were warning everyone that democracy was impossible in the ME and perhaps the west should have taken greater creative measures then to deal with this aspect. I will give you that. To equate what Obama is doing now with our initial attempts to defend ourselves and fight terrorism in the beginning of this War on Terror is not acceptable or accurate. There is no coherent plan, objective, consistency, rationale at all or even an attempt to appear as having one. Bam changes it every day. Conservative criticism of this administration is not that we think its impossible to establish democracy anywhere in the ME per se and its not even worth trying to assist a real democratic movement. It is rather that this Left wing administration is claiming that this is all about a democratic movement in the ME when we can clearly see it is an islamic revolution. They refuse to admit this reality and want us to get involved in supporting this movement in this particular country. The recent Lybia involvement lacks coherence, competency, timing, effectiveness and has been handled with complete unprofessionalism, disrespect to the constitution, massive over reach, and complete denial of what is actually happening on the ground relative to all their rhetoric about democracy. If this is one of your goals, then fine, at least have it have something to do with reality and not be helping people gain power that want nothing of it and are actually your enemies. This is what we are objecting to....
Yosemeti Sam| 3.23.11 @ 11:52AM
Yo, doyennes of Leftoid media - aka PEN1:
Kouric, Mitchell, Sawyer, Madcow, Stahl et al:
Sharia Law - it's coming for y'all:
So, um, speak up!
LOL.
syd chaden| 3.23.11 @ 2:12PM
•The war in Iraq was termed a war against Iraqis to gain freedom for the Iraqis. The war in Afganistan was initially billed as a war to eliminate Al Queda, but more recently, it has been deemed a war to gain freedom for the Afgans. And now, the war in Libya is labelled as a war to gain freedom for the Libyans. Has anybody noticed? The Iraqis, Afgans and Libyans are all Muslims. The wars are all against Muslims, ostensibly to gain freedom for Muslims. But, the countries waging the wars to gain freedom for the Muslims are not Muslim countries. Why have no Muslim countries stepped forward to fight for freedom for the Muslims? When Sadaam Hussein, and the Taliban, and Qadaffi were killing their own Muslim brethren, there was no hue and cry for a Jihad against them. No Fatwas were forthcoming. It apparently is acceptable for Muslims to kill Muslims, and some consider that it is a Muslim's duty to kill infidels, but it has never been acceptable for infidels to kill Muslims. That results in Jihad, and Fatwas, and the countries waging the wars against Muslims to gain freedom for Muslims are infidel countries. Which infidel country would like to step up and be in charge?
All American American| 3.23.11 @ 2:30PM
Umm, I thought they're over there fighting for OUR freedom? That's what all the t-shirts and bumber-stickers say anyway. And come to think of it, I AM more free than I was on 9/10/01, ain't YOU?
Erik Osbun| 3.23.11 @ 6:16PM
Democracy and Islam are incompatible, because the former allows dissent and the latter does not. That's
it in a nutshell.
Dee See| 3.23.11 @ 11:58PM
MEANWHILE here at home
----"We must integrate North America by stealth"
HUAC meets NUREMBERG. Can there be any doubt?
Marc Jeric| 3.24.11 @ 12:08AM
There should be no confusion about Islam: it is not a religion but a political program, totally opposite to the western history. That program consists of
1) Conquest; the
2) Conversion; if resisted then
3) Slavery; if resisted then
4) Mass murder.
Rligion of peace? What a joke! All 13 centuries of Islam are consistent with the above. These "democratic" protests will inevitable end up with the mullahs and imams and ayatollahs in power, with al-Qaeda strongly represented.
C Smith| 3.24.11 @ 2:53AM
The impetus du jour is insurrection. Presidents and prime ministers and a far flung unity of nations are facilitating anarchy to their own ends. Facebook and Google are also complicit in fermenting rebellion. A plethora of "talking heads," like an aviary of parrots, mimic the refrain, obvious to reason. And "He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision" (Psalms 2:4).
As Libya continues to affirm national sovereignty i.e., not only her right but responsibility to repress anarchy, the US, France, and UK, by launching a barrage of missiles, have imposed a greater tyranny then that they profess to oppose.
Although Gadhafi may lack "international" graces, he is hardly to be compared with the Rome's Nero during an era when the Apostile Paul pinned these words affirming "civil obedience," rather than the always contemporary "civil disobedience":
"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher [civil] powers [be it Nero or Gadhafi or Mubarak]: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1).
"Therefore he that resisteth the power [be it Thoreau or Gandhi or Martin Luther King], withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment" (Romans 13:2).
"For he [Nero] is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4).
So as presidents and prime ministers and a far flung unity of nations perfect the art form of anarchy, there is an unseen reality "... we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....-jour.html
Intelligent Design| 3.24.11 @ 8:54AM
Islam is about the merger of state and religion under a dictatorship. Religious freedom is impossible. A "bill of rights" is impossible. Nothing could be more hostile to our Constitution, and freedom everywhere. Congress should identify Islam as a subversive political organization.
Cybergeezer | 3.27.11 @ 1:33PM
This "struggle" has been only going on for what, 1500 years?
Why doesn't Obama settle this once and for all?
He got elected for his promise to "change" things.
weddingdresses | 6.24.11 @ 2:10AM
There should be no confusion about Islam: it is not a religion but a political program, totally opposite to the western history. That program consists of
1) Conquest; the
2) Conversion; if resisted then
3) Slavery; if resisted then
4) Mass murder.
Rligion of peace? What a joke! All 13 centuries of Islam are consistent with the above. These "democratic" protests will inevitable end up with the mullahs and imams and ayatollahs in power, with al-Qaeda strongly represented.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:32PM
is good