Amir Taheri pens a long article whose central thrust is that Islam and democracy are incompatible to their core. He backs it up with some very worthwhile linguistic analysis, and makes a number of good points even if one decides to disagree with his analysis. There's no question that freedom as we understand it has had a difficult and often abortive history in Muslim societies. Taheri hits many of the key idea barriers, and while he sees some hope, it's very tempered.
I wonder how this fits with his recent article re: "The Promise of Iraq" and how its system is evolving? Does he see Iraq as a society with many of the key elements in place, an imminent failure, or a situation that's still too close to call?
Orrin Judd, on the other hand, argues that Taheri is wrong. Islamic democracy is possible, he says, as he points to a number of his own past works on the subject to back up his claim and offer a reasoned defense of hope. "The End of History," he writes, "won't be making exceptions."
Read them both, and decide for yourselves. Chalk this debate up to another fine tip from uber-reader Mike Daley.
Not only do I disagree with Taheri's argument, I think the analysis is pretty sloppy too. It has one massive hole in particular.
As far as I can tell, the basic thrust of his argument is that, under Islam, God knows best, and therefore is expected to rule. People simply are not cut out for the task or, at least, not as good as God at the task.
I've not studied the Koran or Islamic history in depth, but I'm sure that it does say all these things. In that sense, the argument is right. Islam - as it is interpreted at this exact moment is incompatible with democracy.
But - and this is where the argument falls down -if you look at Christian Europe before democracy you see exactly the same thing. God was there to rule, because us mere mortals couldn't do it. European Kings were God's representatives on earth in broadly the same way that the Saudi Kings or Iranian Clerics are today.
Taheri has failed to do a simple investigation into how democracy developed in Europe and note that it developed because of changes. Changes in attitudes and, especially, in changes to how the role of the power of religion versus the power of man were perceived.
And, of course, he has completely neglected to mention Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia, all of whom are currently democracies. In fact, the majority of the world's Muslims today live in democracies. No, they are not all very stable democracies (with the exception perhaps of Turkey), but then, nor are many Christian democracies, such as Ukraine, or Russia.
No-one ever said the transformation to democracy was always going to be a bed of roses.
I don't know Andy. I'm not only not an expert on Islam, I know very little about it. I do, however, know a bit more about European history. And even in the Middle Ages, Western culture had within itself the makings of democracy. We had the example of ancient Athens and the Roman republic. There is a certain egalitarianism inherent in the idea that Christ, born a mere carpenter, came to save all mankind. Theologically, the idea that God himself became one of us mere mortals sanctifies all of us. There are, to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, no such theology in Islam and no such example in Arab, Persian, or other Islamic cultures. In fact, while the Athenians were electing their leaders the Persians were worshiping theirs as gods. While the Christian West was developing institutions that would later become democratic, the Turks were brutally oppressing a huge empire. I don't deny that changes in Western culture led to democracy, but those changes were not as radical as you seem to think. They were natural outgrowths of existing elements of Western culture.
I already tackled Taheri's essay on my blog, but for the sake of those who don't read it (most of you), or who don't want to wade through my long-windedness, I'll cut straight to the chase: Taheri sounds like he's arguing that Muslim societies are incapable of democracy, but all of his arguments point instead to a similar, but distinctly different conclusion: Islamic theocracies are incompatible with democracy.
As a resounding "well, duh" is heard from the audience, allow me to point out that the same can be said for just about any religion. It's the difference between "for the people, by the people", and "for God, by the clergy".
Just as there's nothing inherent in Christian cultures that prevents them from developing into a liberal democracy, so neither is there anything inherent in Muslim cultures. There are challenges in both, and they are different challenges--Taheri correctly points out many of the ones that exist in a society for whom Islam is formative and definitive. But the key to both is a healthy respect for the separation of church and state. Taheri even acknowledges this in his closing paragraph, although I don't think he realizes it: Eh. So much for not being long-winded. But there you have it.Fred, I think you are right in that democracy is an outgrowth of existing elements of Christian culture. But I'm sure that you will also agree that there are some branches of Christian culture that didn't survive (and which could be classified as anti-democratic). We tend to look back at Christian development and assume that democracy was the logical progression - the 'End of History', and therefore I think we also tend to over-emphasize the importance of particular aspects of Christianity. Who knows what would have happened had the communist revolutions of the early 20th century spread?
The same is true in Islamic culture. There are some ideas in Islam that seem very democratic and, of course, others that do not. As Catsy says, there is nothing inherent in Islam that will prevent them from developing into democracies. And, with luck, a couple of hundred years from now, historians will be looking back at Islamic culture with the same rose-tinted glasses that we use to observe our own history, and they will be telling how democracy was the enivitable conclusion of Islamic development. Sure, it took them longer to get there than others, but they still made it in the end.
(Yeah, I know. I'm an irrepressibe optimist at heart).
Another point I think really needs to be strongly emphasised is the success of Islamic countries like Turkey. They are developing democratic institution right now. Even if we dispute whether democracy has strong cultural roots in Islam, it is impossible to deny that democracy is taking root in many Islamic countries throughout the world.
Andy, I'm wid you, but for a different reason. It may be possible that democracy is incompatible with Islam in Islam's present form, but, if I may cite the second pillar of Twisterellaism: Everything Evolves! (props to Andrew.. :-))
The changing environment is causing adaptive change in Islam, we're changing it! How quickly depends on how clever and dedicated we can be. I guess we could argue about long the process will take, but it is truly inevitable.
Linguistics? Most Muslims don't speak Turkish, Persian or Arabic. Most Muslims aren't Arabs!
So it would seem that the only ways to achieve democracy are to impose the Christian model of separated Caesar and God, as Turkey did (it remains to be seen how stable that situation is); or to develop a more flexible sharia which admits classes of activities that God doesn't worry about, and slowly expand those classes.
Of course, democracy isn't a goal but a means to liberty and good government. I don't see any current versions of sharia providing either one, but that's a different issue.
Taheri's observations are sobering if true. It implies that there really only two alternatives approaches to Islam open to a West interested in self-preservation: quarantine or obliteration.
Fortunately, with characteristic optimism Americans will require more proof before they'll pursue either of those alternatives.
Dave, there are not two options. Quarantine is merely a holding action. It can not last.
As for Judd, he has made a critical mistake: He thinks that History will end, and that it shall not do, unless man were to end as well.
twisterella,
Everything Evolves!
But does it do so in time?
I've not studied the Koran or Islamic history in depth, but I'm sure that it does say all these things. In that sense, the argument is right. Islam - as it is interpreted at this exact moment is incompatible with democracy.
But - and this is where the argument falls down -if you look at Christian Europe before democracy you see exactly the same thing. God was there to rule, because us mere mortals couldn't do it. European Kings were God's representatives on earth in broadly the same way that the Saudi Kings or Iranian Clerics are today. . .
Apparently you have not studied the Bible nor Western history either, Andy, because it does not say that God should rule. That was a perk given by the Church to itself. It took Martin Luther and others to point that out. Democracy of some sort or another was always present in the West; Rome and Greece are good examples as are American Indian cultures. Islam, OTOH, cannot be reformed because the Qur'an is considered the immutable word of allah. Unchangeable–as Taheri says, as the Islamic clerics say, as the Qur'an says, as the hadiths say. Islam cannot be changed or it will not be Islam.
Taheri's analysis, far from being "sloppy," is right on. Islam is incompatible with democracy. Given that Taheri is a well respected Iranian-Muslim intellectual, he might know.
". . . Islamic theocracies are incompatible with democracy. . ."
According to Islam there can be nothing else but an Islamic theocracy—a caliphate to rule the whole world.
". . .Just as there's nothing inherent in Christian cultures that prevents them from developing into a liberal democracy, so neither is there anything inherent in Muslim cultures. . . "
Catsy, of course there is—Islam! The is no such thing as equality in Islam. Men are superior to women, to animals and to non-Muslims. Humanity cannot make its own laws. Laws must be made by allah. And, these cannot be changed.
"the key to both is a healthy respect for the separation of church and state. "
There can be NO separation of mosque and state under Islam. That is the "beauty" of Muhammad's hegemonic, Islamic empire. Islam must rule. Politics and Islam are inseparable.
". . .Another point I think really needs to be strongly emphasised is the success of Islamic countries like Turkey. They are developing democratic institution right now. . . "
Andy, Turkey is NOT a democracy! If it were not for the foresight of Attaturk, and his having the military keep the semi-democratic institutions in place there would be sharia law very soon in Turkey.
". . .It may be possible that democracy is incompatible with Islam in Islam's present form, but, if I may cite the second pillar of Twisterellaism: Everything Evolves! (props to Andrew.. :-)) . . "
Islam will not evolve because Islamic law is written in a way to prevent that. Either Islam will wither because of education and exposure to the civilized world or it will stay in the dark ages. Muhammad was a clever man.
I thought you were reading the Qur'an in Arabic Twisty? Don't you know that Islam cannot be changed!
"Taheri's observations are sobering if true. It implies that there really only two alternatives approaches to Islam open to a West interested in self-preservation: quarantine or obliteration."
I have advocated "quarantine" for a long, long time, Dave. There is no way to "fix" or change Islam. Muslim themselves have to let it fade away or forever stay in the dark ages.
It always fascinates how it is that Westerners who (admittedly) know little to nothing about Islam or even its history—insist that Islam is compatible with democracy.
It is not! Islamic-democracy is an oxymoron. We neglect to believe that at our peril.
You've proposed this quarantine idea many times. Can you please flesh this out some? I can't see how it could possibly work. We weren't able to effectively isolate Saddam. How is it supposed to work with all of Islam?
Lili, I have two responses
First, Turkey is a democracy. It is not as secure, or as developed a democracy as those in the United States or Western Europe. It is a democracy under the potential threat of a military coup. This, of course, places restrictions on how democracy works in Turkey, but over time the threat of a coup and the political restrictions that come with that are reducing. The situation is broadly comparable to that in Latin America, where the threat of a return to military dictatorship also exists, but Islam does not.
Second, I'm not going to get into a theological debate on the exact wording of the Bible. We'll both tie each other into knots - it's that kind of book. However, suffice to say that there are passages in there saying that 'God Rules', just as there passages which support your point of view. (Question: Was the Bible the John Kerry of its day?) There are also the absurd, but oft quoted, passages in the 'Dear Dr Laura' email. The key is not in what is actually written in the Bible, but in how it is interpreted. As you rightly point out, the Church interpreted it one way, and Luther another. The same is true for Islam. Today's interpretation of what the Koran says is different to yesterdays, and tomorrow's interpretation will be different again. This has nothing to do with theology, and everything to do with politics.
Finally, I'd like to echo Luker's question - what is "quarantine" (I notice you put it in quotation marks - why?) to you, and do you have any practical ideas as to how it would work in todays interconnected world.
". . .Turkey, but over time the threat of a coup and the political restrictions that come with that are reducing. The situation is broadly comparable to that in Latin America, where the threat of a return to military dictatorship also exists, but Islam does not. "
I am sorry, Andy, but you are wrong. Turkey is a pseudo democracy under constant threat of take-over by the Islamists. Last election brought them to power. It is the military who keep that from happening. There is a reason that the EU is scared sh**less of permitting Turkey into the fold. Other Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia et al. consider Turkey an apostate state.
Turkey is in no way or fashion comparable to Latin American. Religion is not involved in the dictatorships there. The populations, for the most part are Catholic, although, Islam is gaining a slight foothold and the border between Mexico and the U.S. present an Islamic terror danger.
". . .The key is not in what is actually written in the Bible, but in how it is interpreted. As you rightly point out, the Church interpreted it one way, and Luther another. The same is true for Islam. Today's interpretation of what the Koran says is different to yesterdays, and tomorrow's interpretation will be different again. This has nothing to do with theology, and everything to do with politics. . . ."
For a Westerner who admits to not knowing much about Islam I find your claim that Islam can be "interpreted" rather astounding. Islam is NOT, NOT, NOT interpretable as is the Bible. The terrorists are following Islam to the letter! It is those who interpret who, according to "true" Islam are apostates and must be killed.
Clearly, those Islamists are doing just that. Today, another attack on "fellow Muslims" in Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps you should visit "Faith and Freedom International" or Ibn Warrack's web site and see what REAL Muslims have to say about being able to interpret Islam.
As to the "quarantine" issue. The Islamic world has been asking to be "left alone." I say we should do just that. Leave them to their allah. Those who want to come into civilization fine—under certain conditions such as the renunciation of violence, taqiyya and kitman (Islamic dissimulation and lying for furthering of the "faith.") Those who have oil cannot survive without selling same. The world can buy it. We can trade and exchange but no technology or modernity unless they behave!
Certainly isolating Saddam worked. All his so called WMDs were smoke and mirrors. It was an elaborate game of subterfuge. Saddam's scientists lied to him to keep their heads. Like the Soviet Union, the regime would have collapsed.
Clearly, the Islamofascists want to destroy the economy of the whole world and take us all back to the paradisical 7th century. They have said so. We need to get a handle on this. In my opinion, it cannot be done solely with a hot war.
We are creating more and more terrorists with this administration's methods. We need to work together with the whole world. This is not a unilateral issue. The Islamofascists are teaming up with the drug cartels.
Did you ever think that perhaps this is "God's" way of forcing humanity to get free of dependence on petroleum? It has occurred to me that a disaster threatening the petroleum industry would force humanity to develop alternative fuels.
In summary:
Nice people can use any religion to justify their niceness. Assholes can use any religion to justify their meanness.
Ancient Judaism preached ethnic cleansing and genocide. Are modern Jews (here "modern" means post-1000 BC) meaner and more vicious than members of other religions? Answer: NO! Some asshole Jews are in positions of power, and use their positions to hurt others. This isn't because they're Jewish, it's because they're assholes. There are plenty of other assholes with power who aren't Jewish, but try convincing some moronic anti-semite of this.
The same logic holds true with Muslims, Christians, Satanists, Buddhists, etc. Whatever is written in "the good book" of choice will be twisted by the bulk of the believers into justifying whatever the believers felt like doing anyway.
People interpret the teachings of Jesus to mean that it's ok to kill others and take their stuff. How screwed up is that?
To a considerable degree the same is true of political movements. Ex: John Rabe was a Nazi who saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
I don't presume to be God, but if I was running the show, and wanted the world to free itself of its petroleum dependence I'd make renewable energy plentiful and easy to produce, rather than spark a religious war that ends up with lots of dead people. But, that's just me. And I'm not God. So, who cares how I'd do things?
Okay, first up - Turkey. I think your observation that the last election brough an Islamic party to power is key. The very fact that democracy in Turkey hasn't been abolished speaks volumes for the fact that democracy has taken institutional roots in Turkey. I'm not saying that there aren't people in that party who want to end democracy - I'm sure there are. And I'm not saying that the military isn't a key factor in keeping Turkey democratic - it is. But, underlying that is a general consensus in Turkey (well, among the people I've spoken to, anyway) that secularism, and now democracy, is a really good idea, it has helped Turkey develop, and that it should stay. Any Islamic attempt to reverse secularism and democracy in Turkey would meet with massive public opposition. A coup could possibly achieve success in the short term (assuming that the military didn't intervene - big assumption). But I don't think it would survive long. Protests for democracy shook Iran earlier this year. Imagine how much more powerful they would be in Turkey, where democracy has a track record. People in Turkey like democracy.
Second - interpretation. You say that terrorists say there is no scope for interpreting Islam. Ok, fine. I can accept that. They read the Koran and apply it to the letter. But, really, how many terrorists are there out there? What about the rest of the Islamic population? Do they get a say?
Not every Islamic person believes that Islamic terrorists are right. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that a majority disapprove (to varying degrees) of the actions of the terrorists. Why is that? Could it possibly be that they think the terrorists 'interpretation' of the Koran differs from theirs in some respect? Or, do you have an alternative explanation?
On the whole issue of interpretation in Islam, there are lots of websites around. Here is a random site I found which has the benefit of being very short.
http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/islam/more_003.htm
And here is an even shorter quote from it:
"Many different interpretations have developed since the 7th century CE. Some are more literal, others more figurative or esoteric. Some are philosophical and others are mystical."
I'm not saying that what this person says is the be-all and end-all about Islam. But, whether he is right or not, he is interpreting his religion.
By the way - could anyone tell me how to use italics and such like in the WoC Comments? I stumbled on surrounding a word with asterisks to make text bold completely by mistake. But I'm stumped as to how to do anything else...
Makes me feel dumb.
Thanks.
Here you go... we've recently added a plug-in called "Textile 2" and applied it to the comments section - though HTML formatting also works. Note that all of these examples must have whitespace on both sides to work:
*strong*Translates into strong. In practice, most browsers display as bold.
_emphasis_
Translates into emphasis. In practice, most browsers display as italics.
**bold**
Translates into bold.
__italics__
Translates into italics.
"Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/
Translates into links - Text to display
You can also use html code for formatting at any time, and it will work. For instance, <strike>strikethrough</strike> creates strikethrough text... but only in some browsers, it seems.
Hope this helps.
Both, Judaism and Christianity have had a reformation. Islam will NOT have a reformation because it is NOT open to interpretation. Reformation is not allowed. If the violent, misanthropic passages are rejected there will be little to nothing left of Islam. Ask any Islamic scholar. Read the Qur'an and the hadith. Go to Muslim websites both apostate and fundamentalist and you will see that Islam is not open to interpretation as are the other religions.
That was the cleverness of Muhammad and how he built his quasi-religious, political system to remain intact after his demise.
" Any Islamic attempt to reverse secularism and democracy in Turkey would meet with massive public opposition. . .
. . .People in Turkey like democracy."
I, and the EU, are not convinced of that. Turkey is constantly teetering on the edge of Islamism. If it had not been for the secular vision of Attaturk, Turkey would still be a threat to the world, particularly Europe. Now, Turks are a threat via immigration to the EU. The Arabs want to "retake" Turkey and make it an Islamic state again. There is constant infighting in Turkey regarding the place of religion. The Islamists are always gaining ground.
I can tell you that as a woman traveling in Turkey it is no pleasure. Turkish men, like all Muslim men, are predatory, convinced that every Western woman, no matter how modestly dressed, is a whore and fair game. Honor killings abound. They are now forcing the imams to speak of gender equality in the mosques. Turkey is NOT a democracy in the Western sense! There is no freedom for half of the population—women.
Turkey orders sermons on women's rights http://www.chicagotribune.com/
". . .You say that terrorists say there is no scope for interpreting Islam. Ok, fine. I can accept that. They read the Koran and apply it to the letter. But, really, how many terrorists are there out there? What about the rest of the Islamic population? Do they get a say? . . "
I don't say—the scholars say, the Qur'an says, Muslims who vote for jihad with zakat donations say. It is estimated that among 1.5 billion Muslims there are about 10% who are inclined toward Islamic terror and violent jihad. How many millions of people is that? Too many for me. :-(
It may even be higher now with the Bush doctrine.
"Not every Islamic person believes that Islamic terrorists are right. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that a majority disapprove (to varying degrees) of the actions of the terrorists. Why is that? Could it possibly be that they think the terrorists 'interpretation' of the Koran differs from theirs in some respect? Or, do you have an alternative explanation?"
When the world sees MILLIONS of Muslims marching AGAINST Islamic terror instead of demonstrating joyously for it—then perhaps I shall buy your argument. Who is funding the Islamofascists? Muslims! Muslims all over the world fund Islamic terror to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars.
"Many different interpretations have developed since the 7th century CE. Some are more literal, others more figurative or esoteric. Some are philosophical and others are mystical."
Andy, you need to study up on Islam. ANY Muslim will tell you that the Qur'an is the LITERAL word of allah and cannot be changed.
Why don't you visit these sites (both apostate and fundamental) to make things more clear. The Muslims there will help you to understand why Islam and democracy can never, ever be compatible:
http://www.secularislam.org/recent.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/
http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/
http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Sects/Shiite/Encyclopedia/Chapter_8_Part01.htm
There are dozens and dozens of books on Islam. Try: "Why I am Not a Muslim" or "Islam Unveiled" or "Leaving Islam" for starters.
Dreaming that Muslims are like us in their desire for freedom and that Islam is reformable is a recipe for suicide! Muslims are used to having everything controlled and preordained from how to cut their nails and hair, to how and when to pray, to how and when to have sex. That is why Islam has accomplished nothing in the last 500 years and prior to that it used the accomplishments of conquered peoples. Islam is a parasitic system that depends on the works, innovations and developments of others to survive. When there are no new peoples to conquer and subjugate Islam stagnates and goes backwards—as it has done since 1492.
You may want to check out some history on Arab/Muslim acomplishments here: "What Arab Civilization?":
http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
We are all trying to be PC and dare not mention the root of the problem of Islamic terror. The problem is Islam! Be forewarned, there are some horrific photos!
Islam is fascistic and induces psychosis:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12803
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=12803
Scroll down on the page to Ali Sina's post.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=993&start=0
(Sorry about the caps. Using these is faster than HTML tags.) :-)
Lili,
We've already been through this. All texts admit of interpretation. Islam is contained in texts, therefore Islam admits of interpretation. I would think the existence of various sects of Islam would convince you of this.
If you retort that there are no interpretations of Islam that are compatible with democracy, I would note that some interpretations demonstrably do allow for enough tolerance of dissent that democracy can exist. Please see Turkey, Kurdish muslims, Shia muslims in southern Iraq, students in Iran (or just about any other Iranian out of earshot of their clerical masters), etc.
Your attempt to identify all Islamic interpretations with a single anti-democratic interpretation is controversial and unfounded.
I just wrote a whole long spiel, then realised I was just saying what I'd already said. And that was stupid. So I scrapped the whole lot.
Instead, I'm just going to say "thanks, Joe, for the formatting information - I feel far less dumb now!"
And the rest I'll leave to that master of the feel good cliche - Bill Clinton ...
When I was President, a very prominent fundamentalist minister, whom I like very much personally, came to see me to reprimand me for my sins--not my personal sins, my political sins. I think he figured everybody was a personal sinner, but you didn't have to be a political sinner. That was somehow a matter of choice. So this fellow looked at me over--this is a true story. He looked at me over breakfast one day, and he was a very powerful person. He said, "I want you to answer this question yes or no. Don't give me some fancy political answer. Yes or no. Do you believe our Bible is literally true? Yes or no."
I said, "I believe it is completely true. But I do not believe you or I are smart enough to understand it completely."
Why does the Koran say, "Allah put different people on the Earth not that they might despise one another but that they might come to know one another and love one another"? Why does the Torah say, "He who turns aside a stranger might as well turn aside from the most high God"? Why does the Christian Bible say, "Love your neighbor as yourself"? This is the crux of this whole thing.
Lili, I don't mean to get into too many arguments on any one web site, but very little of the reformation in Judaism has deep textual roots. The Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., Old Testament) and the Talmud don't strike me as having much more natural affinity to democracy, at least as they were understood until recently. Moreover, Islam is no more demanding of when to pray or what to eat than "orthodox" Judaism.
Theocracy is incompatible with democracy, but I don't think from this one could conclude you can not have a democratic majority-Muslim state.
Mark, I suggest AGAIN that you complain to Islamic scholars and people like Taheri (who wrote the article as the base for this thread.) It is MUSLIMS who say Islam is not reformable and not interpretable.
You seem to be missing the fact that of ALL Islamic lands, all 57 of them, there is not ONE (1) democracy.
Taheri writes: ". . . 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. . .
. . .Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book 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 the government of the people.
" . . .
. . .In democracy there is a constitution that can be amended or changed. The Koran, however, is the immutable word of God, beyond amendment or change.
------
"Your attempt to identify all Islamic interpretations with a single anti-democratic interpretation is controversial and unfounded. "
Your attempt to make Islam what YOU want it to be is wishful thinking.
"Theocracy is incompatible with democracy, but I don't think from this one could conclude you can not have a democratic majority-Muslim state."
Gentlemen, please! Islam cannot, CAN NOT, be separated from politics. According to ALL Islamic tenets and jurisprudence Islam must rule the state. There is no such thing as secularism in Islam. Any Islamic state that is "secular" (Turkey an apostate state) is only secular by the force of the military.
You all are arguing for what you want Islam to be. Not for what it actually is. The longer the "war on terror" goes on, the more you will see that Islam is not reformable.
I know it is hard to take. I used to believe that all we had to do was to work for a reformation in Islam just like those of Christianity and Judaism. But, it cannot be done. Because—they are completely different. C & J do not advocate murder of the "other" in hundreds of passages of the Bible—Old or New Testament. They do not advocate the conquering of the world by force. They do not advocate murder of apostates and so on. I really don't have time today to post a lot of substantiating passages from the Qur'an. There are hundreds of them—ALL misanthropic and misogynistic. The very last surah 5 "revealed" as # 114 to Muhammad is this:
(5:51) “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. . . http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051
(5:73) “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity”. . .http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.073
Don't forget, Muhammad fought for over 20 years—BLOODY battles for Islam. Those methods are all documented as "holy war" in the Qur'an.
Go study Islam and you will learn that. Talk to Islamic scholars. Write to Taheri et al. :-)
Islam is what Islam does!
"Why does the Koran say, "Allah put different people on the Earth not that they might despise one another but that they might come to know one another and love one another"? Why does the Torah say, "He who turns aside a stranger might as well turn aside from the most high God"? Why does the Christian Bible say, "Love your neighbor as yourself"? This is the crux of this whole thing. "
Andy, those peaceful passages are taken from Judaism and Christianity. The violent passages ABROGATE those. Muhammad could not convince the Arabs that they should accept Islam peacefully. He was driven to Medina because the Arabs did not want his religion. So he fought and FORCED Islam on the Arabs and all the conquered peoples of the Middle East and even into Europe.
Abrogation: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.106
002.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
-----
016.101
YUSUFALI: When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
PICKTHAL: And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.
SHAKIR: And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.101
-----
"Love thy neighbor," is not part and parcel of Islam. It is "invite" thy neighbor to become a Muslim or make him a dhimmi. If he refuses—KILL HIM!
Anyone who leaves Islam is an apostate, also to be killed.
Here is the key passage for all Muslims. Holy war, violent jihad is an obligation. Subjugation of all peoples is the goal of Islam.
009.029 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
----
Ask ANY Muslim what that passage means; ask CAIR or ANY Muslim cleric and they will explain that Islam should rule the world. They may hem and haw about violent jihad. But, you may ask them if they believe in the equality of women or if their zakat donations go to fund jihad or if they are using taqiyya or kitman.
Please, do yourself a favor and ask them. See if you get a satisfactory answer.
Lili - I think you are too willing to give up on Islam. What depresses me most is your unwillingness to even see a glint of hope, especially in the face of a mass of evidence that hope exists. There are plenty of people in Islamic countries trying to make a better, democratic future for themselves. What they have made so far isn't perfect - not by a long shot - but it is a start. It is a cause for hope. The honest efforts of these people are something to nurture, not denigrate.
I'd recommend, as a counterweight to the thoroughly depressing articles that you seem to spend far too much time reading, that you check out this Fareed Zakaria piece.
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3261
I especially like these paragraphs:
Tolerance...
Many scholars have pointed out that, until the 1940s, minorities — and particularly Jews — were persecuted less under Muslim rule than under any other majority religion. That is why the Middle East was for centuries home to many minorities.
Democracy and girl power...
It [Indonesia] has now embraced democracy — still a fragile experiment — and has elected a woman as its president.
Rejection of extremism/joy de vivre...
Although Osama bin Laden may have embraced the Taliban’s version of Islam, most Afghans did not — as was confirmed by the sight of men in post-Taliban Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif lining up to watch movies, listen to music, dance, shave — and fly kites.
Sure, its a rosy view. And for every good example I'm sure a negative can be found. But that isn't the point. The point is - the good examples exist. The potential exists.
Whoops - I missed off the last paragraph of Zakaria's article, which concludes nicely...
If there is a fundamental incompatibility between Islam and democracy, 800 million Muslims seem unaware of it.
". . .Sure, its a rosy view. And for every good example I'm sure a negative can be found. But that isn't the point. The point is - the good examples exist. The potential exists."
Rosy is not the word for it— fantasy is! LOL For every "good" example hundreds, thousands, millions of negative examples can be found.
Andy, Andy, Andy. You don't spend enough time reading about the realities of Islam. These articles and books are not depressing—they are enlightening! They tell the truth. Why is it that some people don't want to look at the ugliness of the truth of Islam?
Now, I don't have time to dig out much now, however, I would remind you of Muslim honor killings, of recent Afghan female suicides by petrol due to their circumstances, of murders ALL over the Islamic world for Islam—every day—including today in Saudi Arabia.
You have no clue as to the state of women in the Islamic world. They are PRISONERS, chattel, no more than animals to be used, abused and then thrown away! Divorced with text messaging in some of those "Islamic democracies" like Malaysia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1435647.stm
Go check out Amnesty International or follow a few of the links I gave above.
Sharia may be coming in Iraq:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/02/28/iraqis_divided_over_charter/
I respect Zakaria immensely. However, he is clueless about the 'potential" of Islam and his assessment is categorically wrong. Additionally, he is one, very Westernized, intellectual—a Bushie to boot. Scores of scholars and Islamic intellectuals say he is wrong. Try Bernard Lewis, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Tariq Ramadan, The Catholic Church (especially the Jesuits). I could list hundreds. But you get the picture.
Additionally, you need to read your history. It is a myth that non-Muslims were treated well under Islam. Try reading al Tabari at the very least and see from a well respected, Islamic historian how Islam treated non-Muslims.
Here is a link to an article on the History of Dhimmitude and Jizya
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/bostom.htm
Read Bar Yeor and her scholarly works of a life-time on dhimmitude.
Islam is NOT what YOU want it to be. :-) Look at the REALITY!
"Democracy and girl power—Joy de vivre" Now, those are things no one ever associates with Islam. The ayatollah Khomeini said, "There is no joy in Islam."
With all due respect, Andy, I'm splitting a gut here. ROTFLMAO!!!!! :-D
======Read this. (Sorry, I have lost the link):
Denying Islam's History [Democracy for the Middle East]
Denying Islam's History
In his critique of Stephen Schwartz' "The Two Faces of Islam" in NRO, Andrew G. Bostom observes that Schwartz' attribution of the problems of Islam to militant Wahabism obfuscates the violent and intolerant foundation of the religion. Bostom is right of course, and anyone still searching for the roots of the Middle East's problems need look no further. Today's genocide against Israel is the latest manifestation of a 1400 year old campaign of religious terror.
In his recent writings on NRO (here and here) and elsewhere, and in his new book, The Two Faces of Islam, Stephen Schwartz appropriately draws the attention of policymakers and the public at large to the dangerous, unsavory interactions between the Saudi royal family, Wahhabi Islam, and international terrorism. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Schwartz identifies Wahhabism as the source of all Islamic terror and injustice. He does not mention that the twin institutionalized scourges of Islam at the crux of the violent, nearly 1,400-year relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims — i.e., jihad and dhimmitude — were already well-elaborated by the 8th century, 1,000 years before Wahhabism arose in the 18th century.
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), perhaps the preeminent Islamic scholar in history, summarized five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.
In "The Laws of Islamic Governance," al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya). Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews and Christians wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement. Furthermore, dhimmis, including those living under "enlightened" Turkish and Bosnian Muslim domain, suffered, at periods, from slavery (i.e., harem slavery for women, and the devshirme child levy for Balkan Christian males), abductions, deportations, and massacres. During the modern era, between 1894-96, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 (dhimmi) Christian Armenians, followed by the first formal genocide of the 20th century, in 1915, at which time they slaughtered an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians. Contemporary accounts from European diplomats confirm that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. For example, the Chief Dragoman (Turkish-speaking interpreter) of the British embassy reported regarding the 1894-96 massacres:
…[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the "rayah" [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians…"
The scholar Bat Yeor confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their "legal status," which involved a "contract" (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers). This …breach…restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property…
Schwartz extols the ecumenism and tolerance of Sufi Islam. Sufism was derivative from Hinduism, in addition to strains of mysticism borrowed from Judaism and Christianity. However, Sufi Islam as practiced in the Indian subcontinent was quite intolerant of Hinduism, as documented by the Indian scholar K. S. Lal (The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India [1992], p. 237):
The Muslim Mushaikh [Sufi spiritual leaders] were as keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to be accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he belonged to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi groups. He wrote letters to the Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Babur, and Humayun to re-invigorate the Shariat [Sharia] and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and jizya. To Babur he wrote, "Extend utmost patronage and protection to theologians and mystics... that they should be maintained and subsidized by the state... No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the Diwan of Islam... Furthermore, in conformity with the principles of the Shariat they should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. They should be made to pay the jizya...They should be disallowed from donning the dress of the Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr [infidelity] concealed and not to perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely… They should not be allowed to consider themselves the equal to the Muslims."
Sadly, both Schwartz's recent NRO contributions and his book reflect two persistent currents widespread among the Muslim intelligentsia: historical negationism and silent hypocrisy. To these two trends, Schwartz adds a third: misleading reductionism. If we would only neutralize "Wahhabism," he claims — presumably by some combination of military means, promoting the "true Islam," and perhaps having the world switch to a hydrogen-based fuel economy — all Islamic terror and injustice will disappear. But the reality is that, for nearly 1,400 years, across three continents, from Portugal to India, non-Muslims have experienced the horrors of the institutionalized jihad war ideology and its ugly corollary institution, dhimmitude. Post hoc, internal disputes among Muslim scholars, including Sufi scholars, about the theological "correctness" of "lesser" versus "greater" jihad are meaningless to the millions of non-Muslim victims of countless jihad wars: Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists. What is important is that after well over a millennium, Muslims finally acknowledge the suffering of these millions of victims of jihad wars, as well as the oppressive governance imposed on non-Muslims by the laws of dhimmitude. Thus far this brutal history has been completely denied, and even celebrated, as "enlightened" conquest and rule.
Moreover, it is critical to understand that there were never organized, mass progressive efforts within Islam comparable to the philo-Semitic movement by European Christendom that lead to the emancipation of European Jewry, or the European Judeo-Christian movement that led to the abolition of slavery. Indeed, it took European military (primarily naval) power to force Islamic governments, including the Ottoman Empire, to end slavery at the end of the 19th century. Beginning in the mid-19th century, treaties imposed by the European powers on the weakened Ottoman Empire also included provisions for the so-called Tanzimat reforms. These reforms were designed to end the discriminatory laws of dhimmitude for Christians and Jews living under Muslim Ottoman governance. European consuls endeavored to maintain compliance with at least two cardinal principles: respect for the life and property of non-Muslims, and the right for Christians and Jews to provide evidence in Islamic courts when a Muslim was a party. Unfortunately, the effort to end the belief in Muslim superiority over "infidels," and to establish equal rights, failed. Indeed, throughout the Ottoman Empire, particularly within the Balkans, emancipation of the dhimmi peoples provoked violent, bloody responses against any "infidels" daring to claim equality with local Muslims. Enforced abrogation of the laws of dhimmitude required the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. This finally happened only after the Balkan Wars of independence, and in the European Mandate period after World War I.
Today, the Muslim intelligentsia focus almost exclusively on debatable "human-rights violations" in the disputed territories of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, while ignoring the blatant and indisputable atrocities committed by Muslims against non-Muslims throughout the world. The most egregious examples include: the genocidal slaughter, starvation, and enslavement of south Sudanese Christians and animists by the Islamist Khartoum government forces; the mass murder of Indonesian Christians by Muslim jihadists, with minimal preventive intervention by the official Muslim Indonesian government; the imposition of sharia-sanctioned discrimination and punishments, including mutilation, against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and northern Nigeria; the brutal murders of Copts during pogroms by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, as well as official Egyptian government-mandated social and political discrimination against the Copts; murderous terrorist attacks and the return of such heinous institutions as bonded labor, and punishment for "blasphemy," directed against Pakistani Christians by Pakistani Muslims.
There is a dire need for some courageous, meaningful movement within Islam that would completely renounce both dhimmitude and jihad against non-Muslims, openly acknowledging the horrific devastation they have wrought for nearly 1,400 years. Nothing short of an Islamic Reformation and Enlightenment may be required, to acknowledge non-Muslims as fully equal human beings, and not "infidels" or "dhimmis." It is absurd and disingenuous for Schwartz to pretend that Islam's problems are centered solely within Wahhabism.
— Andrew Bostom, M.D., an associate professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School, has spent the past 15 months researching the history of jihad and dhimmitude. He has written for NRO previously, coauthor of a piece with dhimmi historian Bat Yeor.
Lili, are you aware of the number of American Christians who claim the Bible is literally inerrant? And then watch their contortions over the conflicting Creation Narratives in Gen 1 and Gen 2, or incompatible geneaologies. They would be just as fanatical as any Muslim in holding for the inerrancy of the text. And, IIRC, it was some thirteen centuries before the monopoly of who interpreted the Christian Scriptures was broken—the similar time lapse in the Jewish tradition is perhaps longer, but less important.
As I asked on the other thread, if a visitor from Martian Democracy came to Earth in 1400 C.E., what would he write about Christianity distinct from your writings on Islam?
[As an aside: my visits to Turkey were both rather brief, but you are very badly underestimating how much the Turks, including the parties you refer to as Islamist, wish to be part of Democratic Europe. OK, maybe it's for the economic advantages; it's still nothing to sneeze at. The victory of the Islamists had a great deal more to do with flat-out corruption and intellectual exhaustion in their opponents than any surge of Khomeinist support. Did you see what the Islamist mayor of Istanbul had to say about the anti-Jewish terror attack there?]
"are you aware of the number of American Christians who claim the Bible is literally inerrant? . . "
Of course, Andrew. But, since the Bible, particularly the New Testament (which is the "Christian" Bible) does not tell anyone to go out and "kill everyone who is not Christian" it does not matter. Christians are not strapping on bomb-belts and catching a quick ride to cloud-nine.
As I asked on the other thread, if a visitor from Martian Democracy came to Earth in 1400 C.E., what would he write about Christianity distinct from your writings on Islam?
That Christianity is about love and a personal relationship with Christ as the "savior", while Islam is about subjugation, Hell fire, punishment and conquering the world via violence for Islam. (I am not a Christian, BTW. so I have no ax to grind here.)
". . .you are very badly underestimating how much the Turks, including the parties you refer to as Islamist, wish to be part of Democratic Europe. . ."
No, I don't underestimate it, Andrew. YOU, OTOH, very badly underestimate how much the EU does not want Muslims anywhere near it—no matter how PC they have to play it. The more Islamic terror attacks the tougher this dilemma will be. It matters not what the mayor says, it matters what Muslims DO. Many people by now have heard of taqiyya and kitman. As a result, lots of people don't believe a word any Muslim says.
Some will argue that if Turkey is permitted into the EU that it will temper radicals. Others will argue that if Turkey is let in they will be over-run by Muslims—and that there are already enough Muslims in Europe.
You call it.
I am still with Taheri, the Islamic scholars and the apostates— that Islam and democracy are antithetical and incompatible; that democracy in Islamic lands will never happen—not in our life times.
In the meantime, it's going to be a long, long century.
Lili, even if you are correct, I suspect we'd be better off acting as if you were wrong.
Because if you are correct, then we would then need logically to begin the Killing. We would need to get on with Wretchard's second conjecture early. We would need to offer all Muslims (ALL of them) the simple choice: convert, or die. ESPECIALLY the "fifth column" of US Muslims. Because if you are right, the US Muslims are all intrinsically treacherous, no matter how nice they might seem. Certainly all Islamic holy sites become should immediate military targets if what you claim is true.
I posit that being murdered by the Islamofascists would be better than this outcome. I personally would rather die rather than be drenched in the amount of blood that would be necessary to stop our enemies if you are correct. Others might make different choices, of course.
It's this kind of selection pressure that got us into our present situation.
I think you are going over the edge here, TJ! From one extreme to another.
I am not suggesting a blood bath. I am against this war in Iraq and I don't want another hot war. I am suggesting isolating Muslims.
I have elaborated on that before. So, I'll skip the details for now. It's late.
Here is a quote from Ali Sina regarding Islam:
". . .It is ironic that the people who think Islam can be reformed and modernized are only the non-Muslims. This view is not shared by any Muslim. Even the so called moderate Muslims who on the surface condemn the hardliner Muslims believe Islam does not have to be reformed but that people do not understand it properly. Incidentallythese people are the ones who have least knowledge of Islam. Those Muslims who understand the problem stop talking about reform and just leave Islam. Seyd Kamran Mirza, Jaml Hassan, AbulKasem, Aysha Ahmed, Ismahan Levi, Noni Darvish and Taslima Nasrin are just few names. Irshad Manji still calls herself a Muslim but frankly that position bewilders both the non-Muslims and the Muslims. . . .
. . . You think just because the Christianity was reformed Islam also can be reformed. Well that is your opinion and I happen to think differently. Here are my reasons. Read it and if you think I have made a mistake point it out. . ."
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina31119.htm
---
". . .It's this kind of selection pressure that got us into our present situation. . ."
No! Appeasement got us into the present situation—appeasement of Islamofascist dictators. Islam was born of the sword and they have always demanded either subjugation or appeasement of people they wanted to conquer. "Say we are the religion of peace or we shall kill you."
". . .We would need to offer all Muslims (ALL of them) the simple choice: convert, or die. ESPECIALLY the "fifth column" of US Muslims. Because if you are right, the US Muslims are all intrinsically treacherous, no matter how nice they might seem. Certainly all Islamic holy sites become should immediate military targets if what you claim is true. . ."
Why should we care what religion they chose? I don't give a damn if they believe in the tooth fairy, just as long as they leave the civilized world alone!
That is the choice they get or else! "Or else" does not have to mean war. There are lots of ways to deal with this.
It's time for tough love! We won't have a choice TJ.
And no, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim because Islam teaches that violent jihad is every Muslim's duty. Because Muslims are FUNDING jihad all over the world to the tune of billions of dollars.
The Euros already have 130 detention camps all over Western Europe including Russia.
"The real goal of the European immigration policy is, 'Not in my backyard'," says Perrouty. "You may have difficulties in your life, we are very sorry to hear that, but you'll have to find another place."
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22590
---
You may rather "die" than fight, but lots of people don't want to go that route. Some of us don't plan to roll over for Islamofascism.
I would bet that there will be more and more draconian measures coming down the pike against Muslims including electronic surveillance, videoing every Muslim cleric's sermon, loyalty oaths, deportations, jailings and so on.
The more terror attacks the more draconian the measures.
You might want to check out this article:
Tolerating Intolerance: The Challenge of Fundamentalist Islam in Western Europe
http://www.partisanreview.org/archive/2002/3/bawer.html
Chose your friends well. Your enemies will chose you!
Tahiri's article appeared in The Sunday Times (London) 23 May 2004 next to one on Samuel P. Huntington by sarah Baxter, "He predicted the clash of civilisations".
I consider Tahiris's essay the most important essay in the media on Islam and the Middle East this week, and am working up a response, point-by-point for
www.baghdadskies2.blogspot.com
but I don't want to make the mistake many of commentators above are making in claiming these are Tahiri's views. He is laying out the groundwork for a thorough-going debate/analysis.
I propose to argue that Islam - based on Tahiri - is fundamentally totalitarian. Bone up on The Totalitarian Temptation by Jean-Francois Revel,Secjer & Warburg 1977.
The point about Islam, though, is that most Arab and a few other non-Arab Muslim countries are run under western lines, despite the Islamic rhetoric used by local politicians in these countries - stoking up the masses by using the Islamic jargon and trigger words hide this truth.
States have no real option but to be western-style, even if they are not democracies like the USA, the UK, France or Germany.
Islam is strictly against interest, or usury (see Human Ecology by Robertson). But, strangely, these countries mostly operate typical banking systems because if they didn't they could not work internationally.
I bet most of the rich people in, say, S. Arabia, invest heavily in the stock markets round the world. Of course their portfolios are heavily weighted towards property and land because they want to appear to obey the Koran by being unusurious (if that is the word.)
In summary: (to be fleshed out on my websute in the next day or so) what Muslims say is very different from what they do. The Tahiri debate is almost as if we are discussing the new religion called Islam invented/discovered by a certain prophet in Mohammed last week.
The answer is to ban all religions - particularly those in the US which are as mad and fundimental as the fundimentalist Muslims, and move on.
"The answer is to ban all religions - particularly those in the US which are as mad and fundimental as the fundimentalist Muslims, and move on."
LOL!!!
And they say my "isolating" proposal is impractical. ;-)
That will never happen Andy. Your points above are well taken—but, also well known. Islam is a fascistic, imperialistic system seeking to control the world under 7th century Islam.
The sooner people admit that the better. When Muslims admit it—then things may change or not.
My two cents worth:
As one of those apostates from named by Ali Sina I'd like to confirm Lili's views. It is the terrorists who are the true Muslims. The so-called liberal Muslims are those who consciously or otherwise recognise the anti-humanity views of Islam and try to adhere to the gentler verses in the Quran.
Abrogation remains one of the greatest obstacles in Islam's path towards a peaceful co-existence with the rest of humanity. The more liberal minded, western educated commentator must always bear in mind that those verses (ayat) in the Quran which were delivered by Mohammed when he was weak at the beginning of his career were replaced by more strident ones as his power grew.
Thus we have the dichotomies inherent in the Quran.
As for the rest of the text, well...
Ismahan Levi
Dear Ismahan Levi,
I've gone through your debate with faithfreedom.com. It's brilliant. Previously a Muslim, I am now an apostate. I want to discuss with you over the topic of Allah's misguiding some people.
May I have your e-mail address?
Sincerely yours,
Asif Iqbal
asif_freedom@yahoo.com