Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (II)
Chapter 7: What next?
One normally expects a conclusion at the end of a book, but that is not what you will find here; in fact, you probably now have more questions than answers.
My goal has been to share a framework for understanding the resurging conflict between the House of Islam and the West, and reveal the causes of Islamic rage that have been concealed for so long by Western ignorance and mistaken assumptions. This framework provides answers to the question that rang out after September 11’s attacks: “Why do they hate us?”
Islamic terrorism cannot be blamed on a single person, like Osama bin Laden, or a single group, like al Qaeda, or a single nation, like Iran. Instead, it emanates from one root source: Islamic holy scripture. This scripture embodies a political philosophy that directly opposes Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, and commands Muslims to resolve this conflict through intimidation, terror, and conquest.
It is now apparent that Islam joins religion inextricably with governance, and opposes Free Democracy’s separation of Church from State. Its tight union of religion and law causes believers to rebel against what they view as Free Democracy’s sacrilegious disregard for Shari’ah. While some Muslims assault Free Democracy with terrorist attacks, others do so more subtly. Leaders of oil-rich Islamic nations use their wealth to spread propaganda and thereby undermine the Free Enterprise system that provides them their luxuries. Muslim immigrants, claiming to seek Western freedoms, use population growth to turn Majority Rule into a time bomb that will destroy those freedoms, as they vote Free Democracy out of existence.
These more subtle revolutionaries, whom we mislabel “moderates,” seek to transform Free Democracies into Islamic Democracies, where only Muslims hold political power. In an Islamic Democracy, the goal of legislators is to refine and update Shari’ah through a legislative form of ijtihad. They do not to represent the will of the people, and they specifically exclude non-Muslims.
Also, we can now see that the choice between Free Democracy and Islamic Democracy, or any other form of Islamic government, really does matter. The tenets of Islam damage society in a number of ways that are subtle but devastating:
Poverty. Islam’s prohibitions against what it calls usury and gambling, as well as other constraints to trade, lead Islamic nations into severe economic declines unless they happen to be blessed with vast natural resources. These declines are exacerbated by the forms of corruption fostered by Shari’ah’s shortcomings in corporate, municipal, and criminal law. These hindrances warp the economies of Islamic nations and cause them to fall substantially behind Free Democracies
Repression. Shari’ah represses non-Muslims and Muslims alike on multiple fronts:
It deprives non-Muslims of political voice by disallowing criticism of the state religion and excluding non-Muslims from government.
It burdens women with institutional disadvantages regarding work, independent living, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and legal testimony.
It condones slavery, especially the enslavement of non-Muslims. To the extent that slavery has been eliminated from the Islamic world, it has only been a response to outside pressure from Free Democracies, and slavery is still being practiced in some Islamic countries.
It muzzles free speech in ways that Westerners can hardly comprehend, let alone believe. Denmark’s cartoon fiasco revealed only one facet of this repression.
Strife. Muslims believe that the Koran is the perfect and eternal word of God Himself. They also believe that Muhammad led an exemplary life in all ways, as recorded in the Hadith. These two articles of blind and unquestionable faith combine to produce a form of absolutism that leads to bloodshed, because the Koran has numerous interpretations, and there are rival compilations of hadiths. When Muslims bicker over Allah’s will, they go beyond simply calling each other wrong; they actually accuse each other of perverting Allah’s holy word.
Islamic scripture does more than sow seeds of conflict between factions. It also provides scant guidance on trust-building and prescribes violent approaches to conflict resolution.
Additionally, because the Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah developed in a tribal context, their guidance on corporate and municipal matters are woefully lacking. However, because the Koran is considered perfect, it is also considered complete. Therefore, devout Muslims believe Islamic Law needs no supplement. Because Shari’ah cannot legitimately extend beyond the bounds set by the Koran and the Hadith; Islamic Law does little to prevent widespread corruption. In fact, it institutionalizes tribalism in ways that encourage nepotism and other abuses.
Scientific and technological stagnation. Islam knocks out scientific and technological progress with a combination of powerful punches:
It represses free speech, and therefore free thought, on multiple fronts.
It claims to have jurisdiction over all aspects of life. This claim gives Islamic scholars authority to scrutinize all inventions, innovations, and ideas, and decide whether they should be permitted. Today, many of these scholars rant against Infidel inventions such as photography, television, and democracy, which they obviously would have outlawed if they had the power to do so.
It claims to have all of the answers. Therefore, it turns scientific research away from practical tests of theories and toward Islamic holy scriptures. If the Koran and the Hadith have all of the answers, why look anywhere else?
It prohibits lending at interest, making it difficult to finance large-scale research.
It opposes insurance, making it difficult to protect research institutes from loss.
Almost invariably, new technologies in the Islamic world have been imported from the West. Not only has the Islamic world not given birth to these advances, it struggles to simply accept them.
In short, Islam tends to return Muslims, along with their “protected” Infidels, back to the days of medieval Arabia, with all of its injustices, ignorance, slavery, polygyny, and backwardness. Without the continuous influx of Western money, technology, and political philosophy, the Islamic world would rapidly revert to its ancient condition.
Islam’s regressive impact is not restricted to the House of Islam. In fact, Islam’s destructive arm can wield its scimitar very effectively in lands where Muslims do not have a majority. Through international embargoes and terrorist acts, Muslims have the power to cow Western nations into submission despite Islam’s minority status.
Unfortunately, Islam is spreading right now because of a combination of factors:
There are longstanding “open arms” policies in the West for oppressed people.
The economic and political hardships that Islam creates have produced mass exoduses to the West.
Islamic nations with vast natural resources have used their wealth to underwrite efforts to propagate Islam internationally, through both peaceful and violent methods.
Islam’s followers understand how population growth leads to political power, particularly in democracies, and they are quietly using it to bring new nations into the House of Islam.
The spirit of religious tolerance fostered by Free Democracy has been interpreted by many Westerners as an endorsement of moral relativism, which they call inclusiveness. This version of tolerance mistakenly assumes that there is no such thing as a pathological religion and that tolerance will always be reciprocated. It has damaged the West’s ability to recognize that Islamic beliefs destabilize society and do not reciprocate Western respect.
As Islam spreads, its reversion to ancient ways will not be limited to the traditional Islamic world. It will also inflict its misery on nations that were once Western-oriented but are switching to Islam, such as Nigeria. If this trend continues, Free Democracies will no longer be able to limit Islamic ways. The concept of Free Democracy will become discredited, and derided as evil and Godless, while Shari’ah’s advocates impose their laws without constraint.
If this happens, we can look forward to a global death-spiral of living conditions. Without Free Democracies to prop up the economies of Muslim lands with aid and new inventions, the world’s economies would rapidly decline. Unfortunately, Islam’s blindness to its own faults would prevent Muslims from seeing that Shari’ah is the cause of this disaster. Instead, they would attack their favorite scapegoats, such as Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, and Hypocrites. Violence would also escalate as leaders clash over whose sect is the true “Congregation.” As conditions deteriorate, their battles to escape the crisis by implementing ever-more Islamic forms of Islam would become fever pitched, and continue even after society descended to medieval levels of chaos.
Hard to believe? Consider Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Despite the claims of those who want to blame all of the House of Islam’s troubles on Western colonialism, these nations were actually oppressive and chaotic long before the days of Western influence.
We have observed Islamic oppression in Shari’ah’s dictates on slavery, women, and Infidels. We have observed Islamic strife and chaos in the histories of Islam’s religious sects and the nations that have suffered under Islamic subjugation. We have also observed the major fault lines that crisscross Islamic nations even today.
Iraq has taught a hard lesson to those who believe in Free Democracy: Saddam Hussein’s despotism may have been a natural response to forces inherent in Islamic society. While it may be possible that a form of democracy may succeed in Iraq, we can now say with confidence that Free Democracy would not have evolved there naturally, given the human characteristics that Islam instills. An even more dismal realization is that our massive military operations, and sacrifice of lives and treasure, will at best produce a democracy that is anything but Free. One day we may awaken from our dreams of nation-building to discover that we have created another “democracy” like Afghanistan, capable of sentencing a man to death for his personal religious beliefs. Or, even worse, a “democracy” like Iran.
It should now be clear that it is not enough to deal with Islamic terrorism and warlike threats through police actions or disjointed policies toward individual countries. Doing so simply attacks Islam’s violent off-shoots while ignoring the root causes, which will only sprout new violence in the future. The uncomfortable conclusion we are left with is that, in the long term, we can only hope to preserve the liberties of Free Democracy if we address the source of Islamic repression and violence: Islam itself.
But how can we, the people who believe in Freedom of Religion, do such a thing? How can we take actions to preserve the liberties we cherish without destroying them in the process? How can we protect ourselves from violence without ourselves becoming violent?
Islam, with its religious belief that Shari’ah should be the law of the land, poses a particularly difficult quandary for those who believe in Free Democracy and Freedom of Religion. However, there are solutions, and I would like to share my thoughts on them with you.
At this point, you may have guessed why this series does not end with a conclusion: Dare to Speak is actually the introduction for another series, Dare to Act, which seeks solutions to the conflicts we face between Islam and the dual institutions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise.
I hope you now appreciate why this series is called Dare to Speak. Muslims are likely to be offended by what it says, and it is quite possible that I will have to go into hiding, like Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists, Isioma Daniel, Silva Shahakian, Abdul Rahman, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to avoid execution. I may also become a victim of Islamic hatred, like Theo van Gogh and Hitoshi Igarashi. However, I believe that the freedoms we enjoy as the beneficiaries of Free Democracy are so precious and irreplaceable that I would rather risk my life to preserve them than stay quiet in cowardice. Our children have the right to enjoy our freedoms, just as we have, and we have an obligation to protect those freedoms from Islam, just as our forefathers protected them from Fascism and Communism.
Compared to the great sacrifices of our predecessors, this series, written in the comfort of a safe and secure home, which is furnished with all of the benefits that Free Democracy and Free Enterprise provides, is no great act of bravery.
Recent Comments