ecurity Information Publicly Disseminated

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Islamic Democracy or Anarchy

Islamic Democracy or Anarchy? is it possible to have a Islamic democracy, well we are seeing the results right now in Egypt. What is happening in Egypt today is the action of a society that has been freed from the constraints of a autocratic ruler that has suppressed the population for decades. This suppression has served to protect the nations minorities ensuring their security. Once the constraints were removed  the popular views of the majority took over in the form of mob rule or anarchy. The people of the Middle East are a under educated rabble equating anarchy with democracy in the fact that the majority rules and if the majority rules than anything that the majority participate in must be acceptable. And currently the temporary military government has condoned the actions of the populous by ignoring the sectarian discrimination and violence against the Coptic minority.

The American people have been convinced by their political leaders that a democratic Middle East is a step forward in the cultural ascension of the Islamic world. This so-called Arab spring democracy movement has done nothing for ascending the Middle Eastern populations, the contrary has been proven and digressed the populous deeper into their intolerant Islamic fundamentalist past . Americans equate Democracy with the ideals inherent in the society in which they live there lives. These fundamental human rights or  "self-evident" truths that Thomas Jefferson out lined in the Declaration of Independence are the underpinning of the tolerant American society. For a politician to infer that the people of Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya or Yemen are capable of understanding these unalienable rights is irresponsible and demonstrates their political incompetence. It is naive to think that a culture embedded in the principles of Islamic Sharia law can understand the simple concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What we are witnessing in the Middle East is a devolving population that is only capable of rudimentary social behavior and that is incapable of absorbing the basic values of modernism and democracy. For these reasons Arab and Islamic leadership are reactionary, neopatrimonial coercive, and authoritarian in order to keep control over the barbarous masses. Such basic principles as personal sovereignty, individualism, personal liberty and freedom of expression weaken the fundamentalist Islamic state. Individuals that are endowed with the rights and freedoms inherent in democracy undermine the cultist Islamic belief system that is rooted in fantasy and mysticism and is the basis of Sharia law.

The country of Turkey is a Islamic state however it is secularised  and the government may be influenced by Islamic values but is restricted in the interference into peoples lives, actions and thoughts. The personal freedoms afforded the Turkish citizenry are not typical of all Islamic countries. Women in Turkey have a much higher social and economic status than any other Islamic country. Turkish women are not dictated to by the government in terms of their activities, employment, dress or behavior. Turkey is truly a bridge between European liberal attitudes and the repressive societies of the Middle Eastern Islamic states.

Two of the countries in the region that have a chance at a western style form of government is Libya and the other Syria. The Libyan and Syrian people have had direct participation in the overthrowing and destruction of the dictatorial political machines through prolonged confrontation. Therefor each person feels as though they have made a difference in there own future and there countries destiny. Another reason is that prior to the revolt the standard of living and education among the general populous had been far better than their Islamic  neighbours. Regarding the radical Islamist elements, they are small in number among the many moderates that joined the uprisings against Qaddafi and Assad. It is noteworthy that both the Libyans and Syrians are generally moderate and non-combative with moderate views in the practice of Islam. With the ousting of Qaddafi in Libya the radical elements within that country have receded and are regrouping. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood traditionally have demonstrated restraint and patients and have been incremental in there influence over populations. In Syria with the Assad regime still firmly ensconced radical instigators are somewhat more verbose in there bloviations. The Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun, a Syrian state-appointed cleric and Assad loyalist, issued a clear warning to the Americans and Europeans recently by stating this to a gathering of Islamic women.

"I say to all of Europe, I say to America, we will set up suicide bombers who are now in your countries, if you bomb Syria or Lebanon,"
"From now on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
"Don't come near our country, I beg you,"

Why are so many American Democratic politicians willing to draw parallels between Islamism and democracy? The general political popularity of ones self within the Democratic political environment inclines the politicians to accommodate Islamism in an effort to be inclusive of all groups. Political correctness inhibits many politicians regardless of their country of addressing the detrimental aspects of foreign cultures for fear of being ostracized. Therefore it is considered palatable to prove the compatibility of Islam and democracy. Groups such as CAIR and the MSA will paint you with the Islamophobic brush and declare you a racist if you suggest the incompatibility of Islamism and the western civilization. The lawmakers in there respective political circles continuously seek to find common ground between the Islamic troglodyte and the educated constituent in an effort to unite the
two cultures. Ultimately this is not possible, the Muslim either refuses to accommodate an alternate point of view or does not have the intellectual capacity to do understand the concept of a modern culture that strives to work for the future. The Sooner the Western political leaders realize that they have made a mistake in accommodating the Islamic countries and there social policies the better off the world will be. The only thing that has dragged these Bedouin potentates out of the desert and into the halls of Princeton,Oxford and Harvard is the discovery of oil that the western countries generously helped them exploit. With the upper-class in the Middle East continuously repressing there underclass there will never be a educated populous capable of casting a educated vote. This will result in the perpetuation of religious persecution and anarchy.

No comments:

Post a Comment