It has rightly been said that Islam is a murderous totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.
That fact makes an “Islamic democracy” a contradiction in terms. You simply cannot have both. If you want a democracy, you cannot have Islam; if you want Islam, you cannot have a democracy.
If you have a large population of Muslims living in a country, there are only two alternatives for governing that state: a totalitarian dictatorship, which is what we essentially have seen in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, or a religious theocracy such as we see in Iran today.
Even alleged counterexamples, such as Turkey, are transforming. Turkey is steadily becoming “less Europe, and more Islam.” And I believe – primarily as a student of Bible prophecy – that Turkey will ultimately end up in the Islamic column. It will ultimately be one of the Islamic nations that attacks Israel in the last days.
Jordan, which is at least less thuggish than most other Islamic countries, is reaping the whirlwind of Islamic unrest just as Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Algeria.
Democracy becomes nothing but a tool for radical Islam – which itself utterly despises democracy. Tayyip Erdogan compared democracy to a bus, saying, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”
Other Muslims are even more crystal clear: Tarek Ramadan states:
“We must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals. Our Prophet Muhammad … and the Quran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah. Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on. The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharia’s.”
Imams in England say, “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.” And Mohamed Akram says of America, Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” While Omar Ahmad says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant … The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
For the record, I found all the above quotes from Tulsaworld.com. And of course there are a million more where those came from.
We have a problem. We want the world to benefit from democracy. We want to spread the superiority of democracy as a political system. We want to benefit from the fact that no democracy has ever once attacked another democracy.
But Muslims take our democracy, pervert it and exploit it for their own ideological advantage with a very radically different political system in mind. And we tolerate this why?
One of the things that makes Islam so dangerous is that it puts itself and it’s prophet Muhammad above and beyond questioning or criticism. As a case in point, the Danish cartoons revealed that the entire Muslim world will go berserk and literally become murderous over even the slightest “slights.” Compare the Danish cartoons to the routine insults suffered by Christianity, such as placing a crucifix bearing an image of Christ in a jar of urine and calling it “art.” That mindset represents the death of even the possibility of a free society.
Liberalism and secular humanism merely weakens our own society and makes us more ripe for the picking: to begin with, liberals react through their cultural relativism (e.g., “pluralism,” “multiculturalism”) by essentially saying, “We must not offend.” And they proceed to actually help the radical Muslim extremists impose their system. Liberal media routinely attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, but they are only all too willing to self-censor themselves when it comes to Muhammad and Islam.
And yet Christianity brought us the democracy liberals claim to love, while Islam is antithetical to it. Liberals are literally helping radical Muslims poison the tree of democracy and freedom.
There’s more. One of the reasons we so frequently see liberals enabling radical Islam is because it turns out that liberals and the sorts of radical Muslims I have already introduced share the same tactics.
Case in point: three quotes from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
- The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37
- …The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
- …the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
You look at what the Muslims are saying above, and you look at what liberal Saul Alinsky is saying here, and they are advocating identical tactics, with basically the same goal in mind: Muslims want sharia, with total power over a government that itself has total power; and liberals want control over a big government system which extends over every sphere of life. And both say, “make the enemy live up to their own rules.” Let’s take advantage of their morality and use it against them as a weapon.
And, of course, when Muhammad was weak (e.g., his Mecca phase), Islam was tolerant and peaceful; when Muhammad’s forces became strong (his Medina phase), Islam suddenly became profoundly intolerant, determined to impose itself and determined to use as much force as was necessary to attain its ends. That is exactly what the American political left says. And the only thing that that American liberals are truly intolerant of is Christianity and political conservatism.
And what is even more frightening is that America today actually has a president who actually lectured and taught from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a community organizer. As Discover The Networks points out, “For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).”
Part of this idea of using your opponent’s own morality against them turns into the strength of radical Islam and the weakness of liberalism when the two confront one another. As one example, think of Jimmy Carter undermining the Shah of Iran – who clearly was a dictator, but a pro-American dictator. Carter allowed the Shah to be deposed, and got as his reward the Ayatollah and an Iranian theocratic regime that undermined and ultimately deposed Carter via the hostage crisis that played out day after day through the Carter presidency.
And here Obama is apparently doing much the same thing: we find out that Obama has secretly been backing rebels of the Mubarak regime from the Wikileaks papers.
Barack Obama invited the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood when he gave his speech in Cairo – the very same group that is poised to wreak havoc in that same city today. And Obama – who is on the record siding with the Egyptian demonstrators against secular tyrant Mubarak – was pointedly absent from siding with the Iranian demonstrators against theocratic tyrant Ahmadinejad. That contrasted with Obama making statements against Mubarak’s regime such that the Egyptian foreign ministry says Obama’s words actually “inflame the internal situation in Egypt” as the situation turns increasingly deadly and more and more signs are being written in English for American media consumption. Bizarrely, it is almost as if liberals prefer Islamic theocratic tyrants over secular Muslim leaders.
It’s very easy to pooh-pooh thugs like Mubarak or the Shah and denounce their despotism. But if you take away the thug, what else is there to control a people who will ultimately insist upon an Islamic theocracy? You roll the dice and take your chances. And in Islam, the “chances” have a pronounced historic tendency to become anti-American theocracies. Which become even worse dictatorships then the ones that bleeding-heart liberals decried in the first place.
Liberals decry religion as being anti-democratic, never realizing that it is they – rather than religion – who are profoundly anti-democratic. A few quotes from the founding fathers whose vision created the first sustained democracy:
“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796
“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778
“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
– Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789
“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
– Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800
“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
– Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III
The Egyptian crisis reveals the problem of Islam: You cannot have a nation of Muslims without tyranny. It is only a matter of which form of tyranny you prefer. Conversely, the same crisis is also revealing the problem of liberalism. Because as they weaken our Christian religious foundations, the same liberals who would undermine Hosni Mubarak also undermine the very pillars that would enable us to resist the conquest of democracy by Islam. And they further erode our once great democratic system by employing the very same tactics that our Muslim enemies are using against us.
Tags: Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah, big government, Cairo speech, Danish cartoons, democracy, dictator, egypt, founding fathers, Iran, Islam, Jimmy Carter, liberalism, Mubarak, multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, Obama, pluralism, political ideology masquerading as a religion, relativism, religion, saul alinsky, secular humanism, self-censor, Shah, sharia, tactics, theocracy, totalitarian, Turkey