| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| Sharia law thin edge of the wedge |
| 2008-07-13 |
| By SALIM MANSUR In How Democracies Perish published during the late Cold War years, Jean-Francois Revel, French political philosopher, offered a rich meditation that remains compelling in the post-9/11 world of Islamist terror and rampage against the West. Revel wrote about the paradox of democracy when facing an internal enemy -- as were the communists with their totalitarian agenda -- since his "right to exist is written into the law itself." This is how Revel explained the dilemma: "Democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's legitimate right to oppose and criticize the system." In the post-communist world of Islamist terror, democracy in the West also is threatened by the misguided view of those individuals indicating readiness to accommodate demands generally advanced by Muslim mosque-based organizations. The most recent example of such misguided view is the opinion offered by Nicholas Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, that Islamic law or Sharia could be introduced in Britain. Lord Phillips' opinion concurred with that of Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither of them, in offering their weighty opinions, took into account the reality of a large portion of immigrants, including many Muslims, making home in Britain after fleeing from Sharia-ruled countries of the Arab-Muslim world. Lord Phillips expressed his views at a Muslim Centre in East London where a sprinkling of Islamists would have been present. He probably would not recognize an Islamist apart from a Muslim, nor -- giving him the benefit of doubt -- would he have been likely informed that the demand for Sharia in Britain and elsewhere in the West originates with Islamists deceptively indicating this is a commonly shared request of all Muslims. Islamists residing in the West are agents of another totalitarian ideology -- Islamism -- that is more insidious than communism since it wears the mask of religion. Their push for Sharia is acceptable to individuals such as Lord Phillips and the Archbishop of Canterbury because, in upholding multiculturalism, they willingly suspend their critical faculties when it comes to dealing with other faiths and cultures, in particular Islam. Sharia is a legal system derived from the Qur'an and the traditions of Prophet Muhammad, and devised by Muslim scholars more than a millennium ago to dictate just about every aspect of individual living and thinking. It is a closed system disallowing any innovation based on a modern reading of Islam's sacred texts, and it is violently at odds with liberal-democratic values. The Islamist demand for introducing Sharia is strategically conceived to render Muslim populated areas in a multicultural Britain -- and similarly in other western democracies -- as Sharia-based enclaves set apart from the majority population. The evidence of havoc Islamists have wrought across the Arab-Muslim world is overwhelming, and since Sept. 11, 2001, this evidence is daily news. Yet a growing elite opinion in Britain, defying logic and history, has taken hold in support of Sharia while remaining unmindful of consequences and dismissive of the peril as Revel reminded of how internal enemies push their agenda to fatally weaken democracies. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #3 Tyrants can generate popular support. Hitler cultivated a personality cult, and people bought it. That is one reason why Nazism was outlawed under terms of occupation, after WW2. The use of civil means to address jihad terror phenomenon, is madness. Frankly, jihad suspects should be put in a show cause situation where they would have to disprove accusations. Financing, advocacy, participation, arming, etc should warrant the death penalty. However, I would create procedural safeguards so that convictions wouldn't be based on mere accusation. I would also allow infiltration of mosques, planting of wire taps and easy video gathering. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-07-13 16:17 |
| #2 'moose, you're close but have it backwards. "Democracy is not about freedom or liberty. They are just side effects. The biggest, most powerful, and undeniable advantage of democracy is efficiency." This is backwards. Democracy is the most efficient implementation or Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. IT is the effect of Liberty, not the cause. Individual Liberty by definition must be the foundation for a truly democratic system. Otherwise you get the GDR and that ilk. Freedom first, THEN democracy. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-07-13 15:42 |
| #1 The problem is not in democracy, but in incorrectly defining democracy. Democracy is not about freedom or liberty. They are just side effects. The biggest, most powerful, and undeniable advantage of democracy is efficiency. Democracy is more efficient than tribalism, Sharia Law, Dictatorship, Royalism, Socialism, Communism, Bureaucratic Rule or any other system. As a basic tenet, it assumes that among the people, many people will be better at things than the leaders. No leader can be best at doing it all. This means that it is the people that create, innovate, and adapt, and it is the leaders who must use their wisdom to manage what the people have done, for the benefit of the social contract. Problems develop in democracy only when leaders assume that they always know better, and there is a break in the communication and execution of ideas from the people. The resulting decline in efficiency makes other forms of government appear more attractive. Often this takes the form of factions that seek to usurp the voice of the people, and pretend to be their representatives to the elected politicians. In this way, factions strive to disenfranchise the public. Importantly, a multitude of factions is not such a threat, because they tend to work at cross purposes, neutralizing each others efforts to usurp the public voice. Ironically, democracy seems impossible, because it is decentralized authority. And proto-democratic systems can and do exist in other forms of government as well, which explains their durability in the face of democratic revolution. But make no mistake, democracy continues its advance in the world, even when not called democracy. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-13 12:14 |