Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Section 1.
A critique of cultural preservation for preservation’s sake
Before going further with this comparison of Islamic governance to Free Democracy, there is an important issue that deserves attention: cultural preservation.
When a Westerner sees Islamic cultures, a common impression is that they are foreign and exotic but not necessarily harmful. This view is encouraged by a wide variety of media sources, such as the movie Kingdom of Heaven,[1] and publications such as The National Geographic. The problem with these sources is that they are not objective. Some are obliged to flatter the nations or groups that gave them access. Others have an intrinsic bias, which can be summarized as: Different cultures are like diverse living species: they need to be preserved and not contaminated by perverse Eurocentric Man.
In both cases, biased stories are almost unavoidable. In the first, media sources know that their doors of access may slam shut if they offend their hosts. In the second, sources tend to be sociologists or anthropologists. These researchers have devoted their lives to studying other cultures and generally believe that societies can only be understood after accepting them on their own terms, not judging them according to Eurocentric standards. To them, morality is relative, and other cultures use belief systems that Westerners are in no position to judge.
Such motivations and world views incline these sources to present their subjects as those subjects see themselves, and to portray us as the subjects see us. The images we see tend to display other cultures at their best, while leaving their unpleasant aspects on the cutting-room floor. A favorite tactic is to present Westerners as crude, or even murderous, invaders who victimize innocent and peaceful natives. For example, historians often focus on Spanish brutality during the conquest of the Aztecs, but breeze over the fact that those Spanish, whose numbers were very small, succeeded because of alliances with native peoples. Why did those natives join the Spanish? Because they were being preyed upon by the Aztecs as sources of daily human sacrifices. Similarly, researchers may write articles about the gruesome gods of living Mayan tribes that preserve ancient beliefs, but they rarely reflect on the disturbing moral ramifications of those beliefs. If morality is relative, then how can anyone claim that ritualized murder is wrong?
People marvel at the achievements of ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt, but often forget that they were built on slavery and the looting of foreign lands. They admire the grandeur of southern antebellum mansions, but ignore the fact that they were products of slavery. And they commit the same error when they admire the great architectural achievements of Islam’s heyday, while failing to note that they were built with war booty and slaves.
Two aspects of Western culture worth passing on to our children
After the enchantments of mystery and nostalgia are taken away, every culture, including our own, leaves much that would offend an objective observer. If a culture hopes to leave a better world for its children, it must learn to view itself with a critical eye and seek to understand both what helps it and what harms it.
Among the ashes of harmful institutions that all of our ancestors have lived by, there are some beautiful gifts that Westerners can be proud to bestow upon future generations. Two of these gifts are the institutions of Free Enterprise and Free Democracy, which developed over a period of several hundred years in Western Europe. These institutions are largely responsible for the economic and social advancements seen in “Westernized” nations.
What do the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” mean?
Until now, we have used the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” without really defining them, because most people in the West have an intuitive understanding of their basics. However, to go further in this discussion, we need to say exactly what they mean.
Free Enterprise is a very simple concept. It is the notion that any group of two or more people has the freedom to negotiate trade and business agreements without the outside control of some higher authority. While Free Enterprise can have pathologies, [2] it is remarkably efficient at providing people with the goods and services they need, at prices they are willing to pay. Governments that promote Free Enterprise try to minimize their involvement in commerce, and regulate it only when the pathologies of Free Enterprise create significant problems.
Democracy is a system of government that allows Free Enterprise to flourish. By providing citizens with the right to vote, Democracy makes it possible for people to influence the laws they live by, empowering them to limit the pathologies of Free Enterprise. For example, if pollution becomes a problem for people, they can support politicians who promise to regulate polluters. This may be an imperfect system, but it is better than any system where rulers are not accountable to their subjects through elections. As Winston Churchill famously said: [3]
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
While Democracy supports Free Enterprise, it is much more than a “capitalist tool.” [4] It allows people to influence government decisions in all areas of life.
Democracy is a force for empowering people in their relationships with government. It gives people a right to participate meaningfully in debates on important issues that can cover everything from slavery to capital punishment and abortion. But herein lies Democracy’s own pathology, known as “the tyranny of the majority.” [5] As a wit once said: “A democracy is three wolves and two sheep – voting on what to have for dinner.”
Without special protections for minorities, democracy can and has led to abuse. For example, in the United States, a majority once decided that African slaves had no rights, not even to live with their spouses and children. In 1934, Hitler held a plebiscite that gave him a 90% approval rating, even though his hatred for Jews and other minorities was well known. In the years that followed, German “Aryans” participated in a systematic campaign to dehumanize and murder Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, and others, all within the bounds of their fascist version of democracy. Similarly, communist nations also consider themselves democratic. For example, the official name of North Korea is The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Obviously, a government must be more than democratic if it is to protect the rights of all. It must institutionalize the belief that every human being has fundamental rights that governments cannot take away. This concept was first proposed by John Locke in 1690 as Life, Liberty, and Property. [6] It was echoed in the opening lines of the U.S. Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It was given a legal framework in the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. And it was deftly supplemented by Franklin Roosevelt in his January 6, 1941 Address to Congress, in which he outlined his “Four Freedoms,” just months before the Pearl Harbor attack. Those Four Freedoms were: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear. This combination of fundamental rights and freedoms is the basis of Free Democracy. [7]
Before moving forward with this discussion, it is important to note that this book uses “Free Democracy” for a concept that was originally known as “Liberal Democracy.” The term “Free” is used because “Liberal” is now associated with ideas that have nothing to do with the “Liberal” Democracy’s original intent.
When the term “Liberal Democracy” was first coined, “liberal” implied a form of government in which people were not restrained by authoritarianism. [8] Therefore, it opposed strong central governments. In today’s world, however, “liberal” often means “generous,” [8] and implies generous social programs provided by strong central governments.
Now that we have reviewed some of the principles that shape Islamic nations, as well as the basic concepts of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, we are prepared to discuss how Islam opposes Free Democracy and Free Enterprise.
Islam opposes Free Democracy and proposes Islamic Democracy
The dual institutions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise evolved over hundreds of years in the West, and continue to evolve today. However, in the Islamic world, the story is quite different. Not only did Free Democracy and Free Enterprise not evolve there, they fail to survive there, despite dozens of working examples in other parts of the world.
Why do Islamic nations fail to adopt the principles of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise? Because these institutions conflict with Islam’s core beliefs, which include institutionalized Muslim superiority and contempt for both interest-bearing loans and financial speculation.
In the House of Submission, when something conflicts with Islam, Islam wins. As stated in The Koran for Dummies: [10]
Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals who try to promote certain ideas, such as democracy, tolerance, and so on, must make Koranic teachings a focal point of their argument. Similarly, any ideas that intellectuals want to discourage, such as unjust violence, must be proven to be antithetical to the wording or spirit of the Book [Koran].
Even those who aspire to an Islamic form of democracy envision something very different from Free Democracy. Again, The Koran for Dummies provides insight into what a pro-democracy Muslim seeks. After declaring that the Koran’s system of governance is not a theocracy, this book describes a Koranic government that has some democratic attributes, but absolutely is a theocracy. Moreover, it is a theocracy that specifically excludes non-Muslims: [11]
The Koran does not believe in establishing a theocracy on earth. Rather, its system of governance focuses on the following three concepts:
Unity of God [Allah]: God’s Oneness brings together His attributes of Creator, Sustainer, and Master, which make God sovereign over all His creation (23:116; 57:2; 7:54; 10:31). As such, God has the primary authority to create personal and social laws that govern human life.
Prophecy: Prophecy communicates and presents the modeled life and path built on divine laws and guidance (4:79-80; 7:157-158).
The role of mankind as God’s vicegerent on earth (2:30; 6:165): A religious elite or a single religious figure does not claim ownership to this role – it belongs to the entire [Islamic] community that lives under divine laws of rights and responsibilities…
Men and women, as a collective body, must nurture God-conscious civilizations that enjoin moral good and social benefit and struggle against moral evil and social harm (9:71; 22:41). As new legal issues arise for the ever-progressing community, the community must actively take part in an intellectual struggle (ijtihad) to determine God’s Will.
While an Islamic state follows divine laws [Shari’ah] , humans must determine and implement those laws, which takes place under a system of mutual consultation, known as Sura[12] (42:38). Here, an elected body of legislators (such as members of parliament or congress) debates and decides affairs of the state in light of the Koran, [Islamic] prophetic teachings, and other sources of [Islamic] sacred law.
Key differences exist between a Western-style democracy and an Islamic democracy. Western democracy places the sovereignty or authority of rule in the people, who form the constitution to determine rights and responsibilities for citizens. An Islamic democracy places sovereignty or rule of law in God [Allah] , Who places rights and responsibilities on the people (4:1).
From this description, it is clear that Islamic Democracy is not democratic at all in the Western sense. Its legislators are not intended to represent the will of the people, but to interpret the will of Allah. People who do not subscribe to Islam’s interpretation of God are completely excluded from political office and the legislative process. If non-Muslims were to be disenfranchised in this way, other abuses would naturally follow.
One of the most disturbing aspects of Islamic Democracy is that it becomes another instance where Muslims and Westerners refer to the same term, “democracy,” but mean entirely different things. Muslims often say they are pro-democracy, and in doing so lull Westerners into thinking all is well. What these Westerners do not realize is that the Muslims are pro-Islamic Democracy, not pro-Free Democracy.
Islam’s silencing of non-Muslims in the realm of politics is only one of the important ways in which Islam opposes Freedom of Speech and represses non-Muslims. We are about to uncover others.
Islam opposes Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship
The concepts of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship are so intertwined that the easiest way to understand Islam’s relation to them is to look at both together.
The following words come from an on-line tourist magazine for the nation of Qatar, [13] which is 95% Muslim: [14]
The official religion of Qatar is Islam, and the vast majority of Qataris are Sunni Moslems…
…
During the Holy Month of Ramadhan…, Moslems are required to fast between dawn and dusk. Non-Moslems are expected to conform to this in public, and respect the prevailing conditions…
…
It is expected that non-Moslems resident in Qatar should respect the laws and customs of the religion. This means adhering to modest standards of dress and behaviour in public, in addition to not mocking or denigrating Islam in any way.
At first glance, these rules, which are enforced by law, do not appear unduly harsh. A deeper look, however, reveals how repressive they really are:
Non-Muslims are legally required to observe Islamic practices, at least superficially.
It is impossible for anyone, whether Muslim or not, to have a free-ranging conversation about religion. In addition, people of other religions are forbidden from evangelizing, because doing so would imply that Islam is incorrect, a form of denigration.
A sad result of these constraints is that, by preventing Muslims from debating faith, Islam deprives them of opportunities to convince others of Islam’s virtues. If a religion can only defend itself by declaring religious debate illegal, it betrays a fear that Islam cannot bear such scrutiny. Moreover, these constraints on free expression cause intellectual stagnation, leading to the lack of innovation, invention, and new ideas that Islamic nations have suffered for ages. In a nutshell, Islam shuts down the free marketplace of ideas.
While one would expect an Islamic Nation’s official website to present its laws as benignly as possible, a more objective source unveils the true effects of Islamic Law on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. For example, the 1995 Human Rights Watch World Report reveals Islam’s dark side in its section entitled Iran-Human Rights Developments[15]:
In a population of sixty-two million, Iran’s religious minorities include 3.5 million Sunni Muslims, 350,000 followers of the Bahai faith, 80,000 Christians and 30,000 Jews. Tens of thousands of Christians, Jews and Bahais have fled Iran in the past fifteen years. During 1994 the government mounted a fierce campaign against the small Christian minority. Churches have been shut down, scores of young Christians – many of them converts from Islam – have been imprisoned and tortured…
Three leading Evangelical Christians were killed in suspicious circumstances. In January, Bishop Haik Hovasepian Mehr, who had come to international prominence leading a campaign for the release of Pastor Mehdi Dibaj, was murdered. Mehdi Dibaj, who converted from Islam to Christianity about forty-five years ago, had been imprisoned in Sari, northeastern Iran, from 1983 to 1994. In late June, another evangelical minister, Tateos Michaelian was shot and killed. He was acting chair of the Council of Protestant Ministers in Iran, a post he assumed following the murder of Bishop Hovasepian Mehr. Pastor Mehdi Dibaj was killed a week later in early July.
There was no evidence of a thorough official investigation into the killings, and Christian sources held the government responsible for the deaths. Iranian officials claim that evangelical churches have political agendas besides worship.
There was also no let up in the persecution of the Bahai minority, which is…referred to as a heretical sect.
In February, a judge released two Muslims who had killed a Bahai, citing a religious authority to the effect that Bahai blood may be shed with impunity. The judge based his ruling on the late Ayatollah Khomeini‘s fatwa (edict) that a Muslim will not be killed for killing an apostate.
…Haji Muhammad Ziaie, a Sunni Muslim leader from Bandar-Abbas, known to be critical of government policies, was found dead in suspicious circumstances in July. He had been summoned for interrogation by security forces…and he has never been seen alive again.
This Human Rights Watch report does not imply that all Islamic nations are like Iran. However, cases like those described above are not isolated, and, to the extent that nations adopt Shari’ah, such cases become more common.
Constraints on freedom of speech and freedom of worship exist throughout the House of Submission. Even Islamic nations with Western frameworks of government face strong pressures to enact Shari’ah in its entirety. These governments are constantly on the defensive against Islamists who try to overthrow them and lock Shari’ah’s shackles firmly into place.
For example, Nigeria has a democratic government but has recently experienced the ascendance of Islam and Shari’ah in several of its states. This rise of Shari’ah is being accompanied by losses of freedom in a genuine culture war. This war has produced several fiascos, including chilling death sentences for pregnant women accused of adultery. Freedom of speech has also been assaulted, as Deroy Murdock, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, describes in his Op-Ed piece The Islamofascist Agenda: [16]
Islam may be a religion of peace, but many of that faith’s remarkably thin-skinned fundamentalists evidently missed that memo. At least 220 [people] were murdered, over 1,100 wounded and some 12,000 rendered homeless in recent riots that began when Muslims in Kaduna, Nigeria, burned down the offices of This Day, a Lagos-based newspaper. It published Isioma Daniel’s November 16 article on the recently relocated Miss World pageant [relocated out of Nigeria due to protests from Muslims].
“What would Muhammad think?” Daniel asked. “In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among” the contestants. For four days…, This Day published front-page apologies about the article. It also described its staff as half-Muslim.
None of this mollified militant Muslims in Kaduna…Muslims rampaged against the paper once Nigeria’s Supreme Islamic Council declared that Ms. Daniel’s article “declared total war against Islam” and urged Muslims to respond violently.
After torching the daily’s bureau, mobs ignited 22 churches and attacked Christians. They, in turn, retaliated, setting eight mosques alight. The mayhem eventually reached Abuja, Nigeria’s capitol, where machete-wielding Muslims chanted: “Down with Beauty.”
Meanwhile, the Zamfara state government met with at least 20 Islamic groups…and issued a fatwa ordering Isioma Daniel’s murder. Zamfara’s deputy governor…said: “It is binding on all Muslims wherever they are, to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty.” Ms. Daniel has resigned from the paper and is in hiding.
“If she (Daniel) is Muslim, she has no option except to die,” Zamfara’s information commissioner, Tukur Umar Dangaladima, told the Associated Press. “But if she is a non-Muslim, the only way out for her is to convert to Islam.”
Muslims tell us, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Koran, 2.256). They should try to explain how this motto applies to the case of Isioma Daniel.
This is not an isolated incident. Similar terrorism was recently waged against the Miss Universe pageant in Iraq:
Miss Iraq goes into hiding from militants
Associated Press, MSNBC News, April 12, 2006
AMMAN, Jordan – Iraq’s newly crowned beauty queen has gone into hiding, fearing she will be targeted by Islamic militants who reportedly threatened to kill other women who participated in a Baghdad pageant last week.
Silva Shahakian, an Iraqi Christian, received the title of Miss Iraq when the initial winner [Tamar Goregian] stepped down after receiving death threats…
…
ABC reported that Goregian received threats by…religious extremists who referred to her as “the queen of infidels” for participating in the pageant…
In Indonesia, often trumpeted as the most populous Islamic nation, as well as a voice of moderation in the Islamic world, a toned-down version of Playboy magazine was shut down, not only by militants, but by the government itself:
Indonesia wants Playboy to postpone issue
Reuters, MSNBC News, April 13, 2006
JAKARTA, Indonesia – …About 300 hard-line Islamists vandalized the building housing Playboy’s offices…in a protest against its publication in the world’s most populous Muslim nation.
The protesters threw rocks at the front lobby, breaking windows of the building…several days after the magazine hit Indonesian news-stands for the first time. Police made some efforts to stop the attackers but did not arrest anyone.
“It would be better if there were a deal to postpone the second edition,” Jakarta police chief Firman Gani told reporters…
He said he planned to ask the publishers to meet with police to discuss the matter, but would appeal to higher authorities for support of a postponement if Playboy did not voluntarily comply.
The postponement would allow police time to investigate whether Playboy’s issue had violated any laws, Gani said.
…
He did not announce new actions against any of the militants involved in the Wednesday attack or the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), the hard-line group that organized the demonstration.
A similar report arrived recently from the newly “democratized” Afghanistan:
Editor of Afghan women’s magazine arrested
USA Today, Associated Press, October 5, 2005
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The editor of an Afghan women’s rights magazine was jailed after a presidential adviser accused him of publishing un-Islamic material — including an article critical of the practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes, officials said Friday.
Minority Shiite Muslim clerics in Kabul objected to that article and another in the monthly Haqooq-i-Zan — or Women’s Rights — that argued that giving up Islam was not a crime. Police arrested the magazine’s editor, Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, on Saturday.
…
…Under a revised March 2004 media law signed by Karzai, content deemed insulting to Islam is banned. Criminal penalties were left vaguely worded, leaving open the possibility of punishment in accordance with Shariah, or Islamic law.
Islam’s constraints on free speech are not limited to comments about Muhammad, the Koran, or Muslims. Islam generalizes them in its effort to enforce virtue through law. These prohibitions stem from two Koranic verses that may initially sound commendable:
[49.11]YUSUF ALI: …Let not some men among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed [i.e. after he has become a Muslim] : And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong.
[104.1] YUSUF ALI: Woe to every (kind of) scandal-monger and-backbiter…
The meaning of the latter verse is clarified in hadiths that record discussions between Muhammad and his followers on what qualifies as backbiting:
Sahih Muslim, Book 32, number 6265: [17]…(the Holy Prophet) said: Backbiting implies you’re talking about your brother [i.e. another Muslim] in a manner which he does not like. It was said to him: What is your opinion about this that if I actually find (that failing) in my brother which I made a mention of? He said: If (that failing) is actually found (in him) what you assert, you in fact backbited him, and if that is not in him it is a slander.
Unfortunately, the Islamic scholars who interpret the Koran and the Hadith decided to give these remarks the force of law, and use them to suppress free speech. The Koran for Dummies explains how: [18]
Islam recognizes freedom of speech, but that speech can’t violate the sanctity of another human being’s honor by use of backbiting and slandering. Tabloids, for example, would be a big no-no in an Islamic society.
With Islam’s prohibition against telling truths that hurt a person’s dignity, tabloids would not be the only victims of Islamic rule. Other big no-no’s would be the tools that Free Democracy uses to enforce honesty and fair dealing in government, such as investigative reporting on politics and many campaign activities. Thus, the prohibition against “backbiting” further encourages corrupt practices, adding to the problems described in this book’s section entitled Corruption.
This prohibition also makes it impossible for people to say critical things about Muslims without bringing self-righteous wrath upon themselves, and it discourages Muslims from reporting on the terrorist activities of other Muslims.
Another point to note is that, because these rules are designed to protect only Muslims, non-Muslims remain wide-open to both backbiting and slander. Inflammatory remarks made by Muslims against non-Muslims are perfectly acceptable, and the Koran itself does so repeatedly.
Furthermore, “big no-no” is an understatement meant to keep with the friendly tone of the “For Dummies” series. To get a better sense of what “big no-no” really means, consider the following formal statement issued by Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam) about Salman Rushdie: [19]
Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On The Rushdie Affair
By Yusuf Islam, March 2nd, 1989
Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.
On 21st February, I was speaking to a group of students at the Kingston Polytechnic, and in response to a question, I simply stated the Islamic ruling on the Rushdie affair. Suddenly, my picture was splashed on the front page of newspapers all over the world next to the headline: ‘Kill Rushdie says Cat Stevens’. It is very sad to see such irresponsibility from the ‘free press’ and I am totally abhorred.
…
…Under the Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfill their basic religious duties…If we can’t get satisfaction…like a ban on this blasphemous book, ‘Satanic Verses’…this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs. Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas…then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country…
…
…as far as…the implementation of [the] full Islamic way of life in Britain is concerned, Muslims realize that there is very little chance of that happening in the near future. But that shouldn’t stop us from trying to improve the situation…That is the duty of every Muslim…
Sad words to hear from the man who brought us “Peace Train,” “Moon Shadow,” and “Morning has Broken.” One shudders to think that the U.K. might someday heed the call of its Muslim citizens and change its laws so that people who insult Islam can be assassinated.
In his statement, Yusuf Islam asserts his right to speak freely, but supports Salman Rushdie’s murder for doing the same. Furthermore, Mr. Islam was “totally abhorred” at the press’s “irresponsibility” for reporting his statements. Perhaps he thought they were backbiting.
More ominous than Yusuf Islam’s words were the actions of other Muslims. Attempts to kill the Norwegian and Italian publishers of “The Satanic Verses” were made, and Hitoshi Igarashi, its Japanese publisher, was actually murdered.
At this point, it should be clear that Islamic Law opposes Free Democracy on multiple fronts: It excludes non-Muslims from the political process, it represses speech, and it represses religious expression.
The futility of seeking freedom and good will through Islamic governance
Given Islam’s opposition to Free Democracy, which devout Muslims portray as a Jewish, Christian, or foreign conspiracy against them, Muslims limit their options for governance to dictatorship or one-party rule. Muslims acknowledge this, but portray these forms of government as preferable, when tempered with the Islamic tradition of “consultation.” To understand their viewpoint, read what the website IslamForToday has to say on this subject: [20]
Islamic Government
…
From the first Islamic state in Medina…until just after World War One, there was a Caliph, the leader of the [Sunni] Muslims, and an Islamic government somewhere in the world. In 1923…, with the end of the caliphate, Islamic government ceased.
In Muslim majority countries, all of which were at that time under the influence or direct control of European governments, the legal and political systems introduced were modeled on those of the Christian states of the west. Various countries copied, or had imposed upon them, the systems of Europe…In nearly every country the institutions based upon the Quran…were abolished. Now in the last part of the twentieth century, the demand for the Islamic system of government is reviving.
…
Consultation has a high status in Islam. This is indicated by the name of surah…forty-two, “Consultation”. [21]…Although non-Muslims were not involved in consultation in the early period of the birth of Islam, there is nothing to indicate they cannot be included in consultation on national affairs or affairs not dealing with the beliefs of the Muslims. [22] However, as the head of state must implement the Quran and Sunna, it is necessary that this position should be held by a Muslim.
Islamic government…follows the laws and principles of the Quran and the Sunna of Muhammad. Government is the responsibility of all humanity, especially of those people who understand that they are the ‘caliphs’ of God [Allah] …
At best, Islamic Government is similar to the rule of a single party, the “‘caliphs’ of God.” At worst, it is rule by a single Muslim dictator. Any claim that this conclusion is tempered by Islamic “consultation” rings false when one considers that all dictators, no matter how despotic, consult with others. Consultation may simply be a way to gather information and form alliances.
While no one would be surprised to discover that Iran (discussed further in Chapter 6) is an Islamic Democracy, the list of Islamic Democracies in the world might surprise a typical Westerner. These include nations that are often portrayed as moderate, or that the United States and its allies actually helped establish. Consider the following excerpts from the constitutions of several such nations.
Constitution of Malaysia: [23]
PART I – THE STATES, RELIGION AND LAW OF THE FEDERATION
…
(3.3) …the [Supreme Head of the Federation of Malaysia] [24] shall be Head of the religion of Islam…
…
(3.5) …Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the [Supreme Head of the Federation of Malaysia] in matters relating to the religion of Islam.
Constitution of Tunisia: [25]
Preamble
In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful, We…Proclaim the will of this people…;
…
– to remain faithful to the teachings of Islam…, to its membership of the Arab family, to cooperation with the African peoples in building a better future, and with all peoples who are struggling for justice and liberty;
…
Chapter I General Provisions
Article 1 [State]
Tunisia is a free State, independent and sovereign; its religion is the Islam, its language is Arabic, and its form is the Republic.
…
Section I The President of the Republic
Article 38 [Head of State]
The President of the Republic is the Head of the State. His religion is Islam.
Constitution of Afghanistan: [26]
Preamble
In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful –
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of Worlds; and Praise and Peace be upon Mohammad, His Last Messenger and his disciples and followers.
We the people of Afghanistan:
Believing firmly in Almighty God, relying on His divine will and adhering to the Holy religion of Islam;
…
Chapter III The President
…
(1) Presidential candidates should posses the following qualification:
— Should be citizen[s] of Afghanistan, Muslim, and born of Afghan parents, and should not have citizenship of another country.
…
(3) The provision of this article is applied to the Vice Presidents as well.
…
The President-elect, prior to resumption of his/her duties, performs the following oath of allegiance…:
“In the name Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
In the name God Almighty, in the presence of your representatives of the nation of Afghanistan, I swear to obey and safeguard the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam…
Constitution of Iraq: [27]
Preamble
We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization…; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed…
…
Chapter I: Basic Principles
…
Article 2:
1. Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam.
…
2. This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people…
Article 3: Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation.
…
Part III: The Judiciary
…
Article (90): …
2. The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law…
Some may claim that constitutions such as these do not lead to one-party rule because different Islamic sects can form their own parties, and Muslims can form parties regardless of sect. There is some truth to this claim, but it neglects the fact that non-Muslims are disenfranchised. If non-Muslims can vote at all, their votes are restricted to Muslims sworn to uphold Islamic Law, which is designed to discriminate against non-Muslims. Non-Muslims living in Islamic Democracies can never hope to have laws enacted that give them rights equal to Muslims.
To describe this situation in terms that Americans can relate to, consider what the U.S. would be like if only Democrats could be elected to public office. The Democratic Party might polarize into opposing groups, such as Union Democrats vs. Immigration Democrats, but Republicans and others would still be excluded from the legislative process. Similarly, consider a U.S. where only Republicans could be elected. The Republican Party might polarize into Fiscal Conservatives vs. Religious Conservatives, but Democrats and others would be excluded.
Sadly, the inevitable despotism of one-party rule and dictatorship creates more opportunities for blaming the West. For example, if Islamic governments bring oppression, then Western governments that deal peaceably with them are accused of supporting tyranny. As The Koran for Dummies[28] states:
…from my observations, Muslims…are frustrated by the failed regimes that rule over them. The citizens of these countries feel that their governments have allowed world powers to exploit their resources, while Muslims are left without jobs and other public benefits.
…many Muslims are angered by the perception that while world leaders talk about democracy and freedom, they sometimes support the very regimes that have crushed true Islamic movements based on democracy, freedom, and justice in the Muslim world.
But if Muslims are angered by Western nations that support oppressive regimes in the Islamic world, will Muslims welcome Western efforts to oppose those regimes? No. For example, after the U.S. and its allies removed Iraq’s infamous Saddam Hussein, and began to coordinate a transition toward a democracy heavily influenced by Islam, the U.S. faced rallying cries of “Infidel occupier!” and “Democracy doesn’t flow from the barrel of a gun.” [29] These cries reflected the fact that many Muslims neither understand nor trust democracy, and they mistrust any Infidel government that offers to help them establish one.
Therefore, it is futile for non-Islamic nations to seek amicable relations within the House of Islam. They will be either accused of supporting repressive governments, or of seeking to repress or occupy Islamic nations directly.
Islam opposes Free Enterprise
The manner in which Islam opposes Free Enterprise is subtle but very profound. Islam does not oppose the free trade of goods and services. In fact, at a superficial level, it appears that Free Enterprise flourishes in the House of Islam, especially when one visits the Middle Eastern souks, [30] well-known for their bargaining practices. However, as anyone who has tried to start a large-scale business may testify, Islam’s opposition to interest-bearing and speculative financial instruments can create major barriers. While some Muslims may have found ways to Islamicize aspects of the banking and insurance industries, by cloaking their use of interest and speculation, they are unlikely to be as successful with other important financial instruments, such as junk bonds and commodity futures. Moreover, even these free-thinking Muslims require religious boards for their banking and insurance industries, to verify that all transactions are halal (permitted by Islam). In countries with Islamic governments, similar bodies police all economic transactions to verify compliance with Islam.
This level of interference with people’s ability to engage in trade far exceeds anything seen in a modern Free Democracy, and the transactions allowed under Islam fall far short of what one would call Free Enterprise.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1:
[1] 2005, directed by Ridley Scott.
[2] Examples of pathologies that occur within the Free Enterprise system are monopolies and free riders.
[3] Hansard, November 11, 1947.
[4] Famous and facetious slogan of Malcolm Forbes (1919 – 1990), based on the sentiments of Economics and Philosophic Manuscripts, by Karl Marx, 1844.
[5] From a chapter title in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, volume 1, published in 1835.
[6] From Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government published in 1690.
[7] The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, is also an excellent and primary definition of the fundamental rights that protect minorities. I don’t list it in the main body of this text because it deals with some issues not directly related to this book’s topic (such as the right to bear arms) and because its interpretation regarding freedom of worship and freedom of speech have become convoluted by certain Supreme Court decisions in recent years.
[8] Not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms…Of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially: of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives. – Mariam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, 2005-2006 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
[9] Marked by generosity : Openhanded…Given or provided in a generous and openhanded way. – Mariam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, 2005-2006 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
[10] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Having room for interpretation, page 82.
[11] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 20, section entitled Debating the rule of law between citizenry and God, page 304.
[12] Also referred to as Shura.
[13] http://www.qatar-info.com/general/religion.htm.
[14] CIA: The World Factbook, 2006.
[15] Human Right Watch, 1995, Human Rights Watch World Report 1995.
[16] The Islamofascist Agenda, by Deroy Murdock, The National Review, December 3, 2002.
[17] A similar hadith can be found in Malik’s Muwatta, Book 56, Number 56.4.10.
[18] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Receiving the rights of citizenship, page 247.
[19] This statement can be found on the Cat Stevens website. See http://catstevens.com/articles/00013/.
[20] Islamic Government, By Bilal Cleland. See http://www.islamfortoday.com/cleland04.htm
[21] As in many of the Koran’s surahs, the title does not represent the theme of the chapter, but a single distinguishing sentence. What follows is everything that surah 42, Consultation, has to say about consultation:
[42.36] YUSUF ALI: Whatever ye are given (here) is (but) a convenience of this life: but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting: (it is) for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord:
[42.37] Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive;
[42.38] Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;
[42.39] And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend themselves.
[22] We have already seen how Muslims believe that Islam is “a way of life that encompasses all actions in social, political, family, and economic realms – or, for that matter, any other realms of activity.” Therefore, the possibility that non-Muslims might be consulted on “affairs not dealing with the beliefs of the Muslims” offers essentially no political power at all.
[23] Source: http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/constitution/malaysia/malaysia01.php.
[24] The Malaysian term used in its Constitution is Yang di-Pertuan Agong (also called the Raja Permaisuri Agong).
[25] Source: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/cafrad/unpan004842.pdf
[26] Source: http://www.embassyofafghanistan.org/constitution.html
[27] Source: MERIA (Middle East Review of International Affairs), Volume 9, No. 3- September 2005. See http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue3/Iraqiconstitution/constitution.html
[28] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 18, section entitled Looking at Jihad in Today’s World, page 282.
[29] Title of an article written by Chris Patten and published in the September 2003 issue of Foreign Policy magazine. It is a play on a quote from Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book: ‘Power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. From 1992 to 1997, Mr. Patten served as the last British governor of Hong Kong.
[30] Arabian term for marketplace.
Recent Comments