Islam and Democracy...contradictory terms??

Islam and Democracy...contradictory terms??

After 9-11, historian and author, Larry Garza was asked by Congressman Nick Lampson to write a report that he could present to the Foreign Relations Committee, Congress, and President Bush. In his report Garza warned that Islam is a religion of violence, war and terror, and that we should position ourselves for more of the same.

That wasn't the first time the Islamic expert warned to the dangers we face from Islam. In 1998, Garza predicted, "The 21st century will bring the greatest conflict the world has ever seen; Islam against the United States and Judeo Christians." He went on to say that there were Islamic extremists living among us here in the United States, and that there was a high probability that they would attack us when we least expected it, taking lives of thousands." Unfortunately he was correct, and many needlessly died when the World Trade Center was attacked.

More recently Garza has been speaking out about alarming dangers that surround the Houston ship channel, where he worked for 10 years. The Exxon facility is the world's largest oil refinery, and here's what he had to say on a recent radio interview.

In his newly released book, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VEIL OF ISLAM, Garza explains some of the fallacies surrounding Islam. In his book he covers "The many misconceptions that most people have regarding Islam."

Democracy in the Arab Nations

Garza says:

"Democracy cannot be established much less survive in any Arab nation without the abandonment or dissolution of Islam. In order to understand why, we must realize basic assertions of Islam that are contradictory to our Western civilization and the role of democracy.

The Western mind views 'Theocracy' as primitive, even though basic moral laws are expected from the government. The common expectation is that government left unchecked will always infringe on personal rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are seen as basic liberties. To Islam however theocracy has always been a main objective. Mohammed was a militarist, statesman, judge, and apostle of God. Throughout the Qur'an, Mohammed extols violence to subdue the non-believer this activity is called Jihad.

Moslems view the establishment of the Islamic political state as missionary activity. The very term Islam means submission in Arabic. The establishment of Islam as political law is called Shar’ia law. “In classical form the Shar’iah differs from Western systems of law in two principal respects. In the first place the scope of the Shar’iah is much wider, since it regulates man's relationship not only with his neighbors and with the state, which is the limit of most other legal systems, but also with his God and his own conscience.”

Encyclopedia Britannica defines Shar'ia law as follows:

This means that in Islamic nations you are legally punished for not obeying the Islamic religion. Iran has executed Moslems who converted to Christianity and in Moslem nations adulterers are stoned to death. The Quran is practiced as secular law whenever Moslems become a political majority. Mohammed from the very beginning founded the Mosque as a place of military, political and religious activity.

Our misunderstanding of the role of the Mosque in Arabic society was problematic in our invasion of Iraq:

Some were shocked to learn that militants were hiding within these Mosques in Fallujah, where the military also discovered stockpiles of weapons. It is an excellent example of our misunderstanding of Islam. When American military commanders finally got tired of rocket attacks, and murderous fire coming from the Iraqi Mosques they began invading. The Western mindset of our military felt it was wrong to attack a house of worship. Moses in the Old Testament instituted cities of refuge under the administration of the priesthood where criminals were given immunity. The house of God was a refuge. This dates back to the European idea of sanctuary and even before, if a criminal made it to the church the political authorities could not go in after him.

Mohammed conducted 74 military campaigns and many assassinations, and the mosque was where they were planned and carried out. Every Moslem nation in the Middle East today is a result of military invasion.

Regarding America's efforts in Iraq:

Democracy is possible, but not without years of confrontation from die-hard insurgents who are fighting to keep their radical Islam beliefs alive. The majority of the Iraqi people are cultural Moslems - a peaceful people, who do not adhere to the Quran or follow the teachings of Mohammed.

In summary:

Democracy and Islam are contradictory terms. They have never developed together, nor will they ever be compatible.

It's difficult (to understate things) to accept the statements of this Larry Garza person without knowing more about his background as a "historian." Where did he get his education and degrees? What have been his areas of specialization? That would help us evaluate whether these purported musings are the work of a serious historian or just another graduate of the "Mail In This Matchbook Cover and You, Too, Can Be a Historian" school. . . The material posted makes me think that Garza is a recent graduate of that school.

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is a vast and complex faith that includes many strains of thought and belief. There are extreme fundamentalists and there are progressive humanists within Islam, and just about everything in between. In fact, it could be argued that there is no such thing as "Islam," because there is no hierarchical, centralizing system to codify and discipline belief for all Muslims. It's probably closer to the truth to say that there are many Islams, just as there are many Christianities and many Judaisms. They share certain core beliefs (in the case of Islam that G-d is one and that Muhammad is his last and greatest Prophet) but disagree profoundly on many other essential matters of interpretation, practice and theology. The differences between Sunni and Sh'ia belief, for example, are probably greater than those between Catholicism and Protestantism. These are subjects that aren't suitable for the Reader's Digest condensation technique.

Consider, also, that the simple-minded stuff in the posting, with minor changes, could just as easily justify destroying the Catholic Church, for essentially the same reasons: it tries to control the thoughts and beliefs of its members (and of all humankind, when you get right down to it), it is utterly anti-democratic, it has gone to war repeatedly against unbelievers and it has tortured and killed millions of innocent people in the name of its Holy Truth, etc.

I just saw Garza being interviewed the other night on one of the news shows and I thought he made an interesting argument. I don't know about his background/education, but he didn't come across like some nutjob and his focus was really the compatibility of Islam with democratic principles. I'm not sure of the extent to which I agree with what he says on the subject because I haven't read his book.

It's true that Islam doesn't believe in a separation between religion and state, which makes it difficult to promote real secular democracy in Muslim countries, but Christianity doesn't believe in it either. Otherwise, it would never have expended so much effort to become the established church in so many countries.

In spite of that, Turkey has managed to build a secular democracy in the Muslim world, and most "Christian" nations, these days, are also secular democracies. So it's possible, in spite of countervailing forces within the faiths.

Islam's real problem is that it has never undergone a reformation and subsequently been transformed by the Enlightenment, as Christianity and Judaism have. Christianity and Judaism didn't undergo those processes voluntarily, by the way. They were thrust upon them by the unstoppable tide of changing circumstances that made it necessary either to adapt or perish. Those changing circumstances (i.e., modernity) have been very much delayed in reaching large parts of the Muslim world, and especially its most influential Arab heartland. To a very great degree, what we're seeing now in the Middle East and across the Muslim world is truly a culture war. However, the war is actually WITHIN Islam, with the West only involved in a relatively peripheral way. We're witnessing the beginnings of an Islamic reformation forced by the need of Muslim believers to reconcile their beliefs and traditions with the shock of modern science, knowledge and technology, which came very late to their part of the world.

The Reformation wasn't a pretty process in Christianity, let us recall, and there were bloody wars and hideous acts as the forces of reaction tried to hold back the tide and preserve orthodox belief. It's taken Christianity nearly 500 years to accept the effects of Reformation, and there are still pockets fighting for a return to the Middle Ages! Just look at the U.S. in 2005 to see how virulent and persistent the forces of religious reaction can be!

The process will be no different in Islam. Challenges to deeply held beliefs generate strong responses. But the march of history is inexorable, and if humanity doesn't blow itself up or irreversibly poison the Earth first, Islam, too, will emerge from its Dark Ages. Thanks to modern communication technology, it'll probably take less time than the Christian Reformation did, but it will still take several generations for a more modern Islam to emerge. None of us will live to see it, though. We're seeing and feeling its birth pains. As the old Chinese curse goes, we've been condemned to live in "interesting times." 200 years from now, Islam will probably look quite a lot like contemporary Christianity and Judaism. But not until the "old believers" and defenders of orthodox theology die off and become insignificant or irrelevant minorities in the Muslim world.

>

>Islam's real problem is that it has never undergone a

>reformation and subsequently been transformed by the

>Enlightenment, as Christianity and Judaism have. ....

> ....

>It's taken Christianity nearly 500 years to

>accept the effects of Reformation, and there are still pockets

>fighting for a return to the Middle Ages! Just look at the

>U.S. in 2005 to see how virulent and persistent the forces of

>religious reaction can be!

> ....

A big part of the peril the world is now facing is that the radical fundamentalist islamists are now being faced by the radical fundamentalist christians. Since both are absolutists who worship an all-powerful god, neither can ever admit any doubt, nor is there any reason for either to try to live with the other because each "knows" that "we" are going to heaven and "they" are damned to hell.

This situation differs from what has existed on the fringes in the past in two very important ways. First, both sides can now get access to wmd, and second, the christian side no longer comprises just "pockets fighting for a return to the Middle Ages." Rather, the "pockets" now include the White House and the Pentagon.

>This situation differs from what has existed on the fringes in

>the past in two very important ways. First, both sides can

>now get access to wmd, and second, the christian side no

>longer comprises just "pockets fighting for a return to the

>Middle Ages." Rather, the "pockets" now include the White

>House and the Pentagon.

So, is it fair to say that you think that George Bush is the Christian equivalent of Osama bin Laden; that the United States is the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda; and that the U.S. bombing of, say, Afghanistan, was the Christian equivalent of the 9/11 attacks?

I appreciate honest leftists who aren't ashamed of what they REALLY believe, deep down, and are willing to say so, rather than hide those views and pretend that the ones they hold are more acceptable and less repulsive.

Looks like I found one here.

Thank you for sharing this article with us. Personally, I rarely listen to anyone who makes sweeping generalizations about a group of people. The article makes claims that simply do not add up. You cannot lump all Muslims into this extreme category.

What concerns me mort is that his article stops just short of stating that Islam is the neatural enemy of Democracy. If we are indeed the leaders of free world, then we must distance ourselves from anyone who suggests that their is only one right way to be or believe. We must celebrate people's right be Muslims and even have a theocrative State. As long as it is their choice, then we should encourage it.

To suggest that we should be against Islam or that it is wrong for everyone is fundamentally opposite of what a free world stands for. If the Catholic zChurch had their way, every nation would be a Catholic State.

All Muslims are not terrorists or extremist. We should fight the battle against terror, but we should not take the short cut of wiping out an entire people or their beliefs to get there quicker.

Beware of anyone who claims an entire group is a threat to society. It is the exact rationale behind the anti-gay marriage ammendment.

>So, is it fair to say that you think that George Bush is the

>Christian equivalent of Osama bin Laden; that the United

>States is the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda; and that the

>U.S. bombing of, say, Afghanistan, was the Christian

>equivalent of the 9/11 attacks?

No.

>So, is it fair to say that you think that George Bush is the

>Christian equivalent of Osama bin Laden; that the United

>States is the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda; and that the

>U.S. bombing of, say, Afghanistan, was the Christian

>equivalent of the 9/11 attacks?

Amazing how one of our resident sheepledog, Doug, can take any conversation down to the gutter. George Bush is in no way equivalent to bin Laden. bin Laden has a brain and doesn't have Dick Cheney's hand up his ass. And despite being the worst president in American history, Bush is not a terrorist, though he has been one of the most effective terrorist recruitment tools for Al Qaeda, however inadvertent.

The Christian Equivalent of Al Qaeda would be groups like Westboro baptist Church, Focus on the Family and the 700 Club. People like pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are equivalent to the intolerant mullahs preaching hatred in the Muslim world.

The Christian equivalent of 9/11 was called the Crusades. Try reading some history some time.

>I appreciate honest leftists who aren't ashamed of what they

>REALLY believe, deep down, and are willing to say so, rather

>than hide those views and pretend that the ones they hold are

>more acceptable and less repulsive.

Perhaps one day, you will break your link to the Collective and start thinking for yourself rather than have karl, Sean, R_xush and Missy Ann tell you what your opinion is.

>So, is it fair to say that you think that George Bush is the

>Christian equivalent of Osama bin Laden; that the United

>States is the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda; and that the

>U.S. bombing of, say, Afghanistan, was the Christian

>equivalent of the 9/11 attacks?

The parallels aren't exact, but by and large the answers are YES, KKKupkkkake! George Bush and a frighteningly large number of his followers (including you) believe he has been divinely anointed to lead KKKrischin AmeriKKKa into an apocalyptic war against the dusky heathens. Osama is evidently a lot smarter and more effective than Dubya, but they are equally fanatic and single-minded. They both see the world in terms of black-and-white, simplistic ultra-conservative theology and morality. Bush and bin-Laden actually agree on much more, in terms of values, than they disagree on. Both believe in theocracies; both want a return to older, "purer" religious (and in the case of Bush, economic) practices; both oppose rights for women and gays; both believe their ends justify their means; both are willing to torture and murder to get their ways; both are willing to slaughter innocent civilians to advance their cause; and on and on and on. . .

Bombing Afghanistan wasn't equivalent to 9/11, because it was a reasonable response to a direct attack on the U.S. that was directed from that country. Tossing in Afghanistan is an example of our resident fascist's favorite red herring tactics. It's intended to divert us from the fact that invading Iraq and destroying the country IS an equivalent to 9/11. It's worse, actually, when you consider the number of deaths and the scale of destruction caused by the war, both of which dwarf the effects of the 9/11 attacks. (And no, this isn't a defense of the loathesome Saddam. However, considering the number of other psychopathic, murderous dictators the U.S. has been cozily in bed with during the past century, there's no reason to say that Saddam was any worse than the others, or deserved a different fate at the hands of the U.S. Furthermore, Iraq hadn't attacked the U.S., it had no demonstrable links to al-Qaeda, and it didn't present a credible threat to the U.S.)

One hates to admit that one's own country has gone so far wrong, but thanks to Dougie it's been made clear that, viewed objectively, the U.S. currently has little more claim to the moral high ground than does al-Qaeda. Instead of leading from our highest democratic values and convictions (which helped unite America to win the war against Nazism and totalitarianism) we've chosen to sink to the level of our enemies. Unfortunately, Americans no longer have a sense of history so they're unable to learn from past experience. That means the U.S. will eventually learn the hard way that they're not engaged in some kind of a video-game against the Muslim Invaders, and there can be tragic consequences for making appalling choices.