Democratizing Islam^*

Professor  Paul Eidelberg

Democratizing Islam^*

Professor  Paul Eidelberg

*Published by Nativ: A Journal of Policy and the Arts 

(November-2002)  ?????????????                                     

A generation of Muslim children will have to be re-educated.  Anti-Jewish and anti-Christian verses in the Qur’an will have to be neutralized by contrary verses and commentaries.  

censored the demoncratic way.

The principle of Jihad will have to be eliminated from the four schools of Islamic law. 

Non-Arab states should follow the example of Turkey and remove Arabic from public documents and public education.   This will diminish pan-Arab as well as pan-Islamic sentiments in these countries.

Various Islamic concepts such as “consultation” and “consensus” should be reinterpreted to prescribe a non-secular form of constitutional democracy.  Civil society—private and social institutions—must be developed to counter the authoritarian tendencies of Islamic culture.   A market economy and the formation of a middle class will hasten this development. 

Decentralization and divisions of power are essential.  In Islamic countries with large ethnic minorities, it will be necessary to establish a federal system of government based on territoriality.  Bicameral legislatures should be established to protect minorities. 

A 1998 fatwa proclaimed, “one billion Muslims are capable of turning their bodies into bombs which are equal in force to all the weapons of … mass destruction possessed by the Americans.”[v]  Having suffered scores of suicide bombers, people in Israel take such fatwas seriously.   Former Knesset Member Moshe Shamir warns: “the Arab-Islamic world sees itself as the only legitimate part of humanity and has placed Islamization of the world as its highest aim.”[vi]  He fears, however, that despite September 11, America lacks the moral resources to honestly define and confront mankind’s greatest enemy, which, he says, bears a striking resemblance to Nazism.  He fears that because of its economic interests in the Middle East, America may sacrifice Israel on the altar of Islam.  Hence this essay.

 When a Talmudic Jew opens his mouth to speak the exact opposite of what he says is the Truth.

Part I.  Defining the Enemy and Ourselves

No less than Winston Churchill referred to Mein Kampf as “the new Qur’an of faith and war …”[vii]  Apologists nonetheless select passages from the Qur’an that prescribe Islam’s “pleasant and peaceful ways,” while ignoring those that inspire Islam’s hate-filled and murderous fanaticism (22:39-41; 2:190). 

Much like Talmud Bavli

 In a mosque sermon in Qatar on June 7, 2002, the imam prayed to Allah “to humiliate the infidels… destroy the Jews, the Christians, and their supporters…make their wives widows, make their children orphans, and make them a prey for Muslims.”  Islam is anything but a religion of love.

In Talmud Bavli, especially Zohar the Book of Spendour, pit the Arabs against Christianity, so the jews, little zionist gods rule mankind after the other anhilate each other.

One simple fact dispels academic obscurantism and “political correctness”:  Islam’s most distinguishing and historically dynamic principle is jihad (holy war), and all four schools of Islamic law (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi’i, Maliki) refer to jihad as a commandment to wage offensive war against infidels for the sake of Allah.  Consistent therewith, Muslims have plundered, butchered, subjugated, and degraded countless Christian and Jewish communities from the time of Muhammad to the present day.[viii]  That they exult in this history of savagery in the name of Allah — we saw them rejoice throughout Islamdom in the destruction of the Twin Towers — is all the more reason why certain Arab and Islamic regimes must be conquered, just as Nazi Germany had to be conquered before it was democratized.

We saw 5 Israeli Mossad clap, give high five's to each other while filming the Mossad WTC massacre which brought the Homelandt Sekurity and which brought us to this current understanding of the zionist conspirators.

America’s war against international terrorism is in truth a war against Arab-Islamic civilization.  

Amerika, the Pimp of the Great Harlot.

This war dwarfs all others.  Muslim-Arabs, who have no regard for the sanctity of human life, are accumulating weapons of mass murder. 

Whereas, Judaism have set the Universal Laws of Noahidism to decapitate any who oppose their New World Order.

 Muslims commit atrocities around the globe.  The recent bombing of a nightclub in Indonesia, in which at least 187 people were killed — Australians ands other foreigners — is a lurid case in point. 

Mossad

 Throughout its vast domain Islam nurtures and provides havens for thousands of highly skilled terrorists committed to the destruction of Western civilization in general and of Israel in particular.  Many of their leaders have been educated in the West and are familiar with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.  They are motivated not by a righteous desire to alleviate the poverty of the Muslim world, but by a satanic hatred of the non-Muslim world.  As Lewis has warned, the suicide bomber may become the metaphor of the Middle East.  Never has mankind been so menaced.[ix] 

Islam has already invaded Europe.  Its goal is nothing less than conquest.  And Europe, rotting in nihilism, hedonism, and anti-Semitism, is allied with its grave-diggers.

The one country that stands in the way of Islam is the United States.  Needless to say, the U.S. cannot wage war simultaneously against some fifty Islamic regimes.  Accordingly, intrepid commentators like Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute would have America proceed incrementally, beginning with the elimination of Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein.  Baghdad would be first, followed by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.[x]  

of course from the Nile to the Euphrates, at the command of the Neo-Cons, Talmudic Chabad Lubavitch jews who run the Whitehouse.

From the demise of these and perhaps one or two other Islamic tyrannies (Libya and the Sudan), a chain reaction will supposedly follow and transform Islamdom.  These commentators urge an American crusade to democratize the Islamic world.  Predictably, they conceive of this crusade in purely secular terms.  They ignore not only the fanatical devotion of the Muslim masses to Islam, but the unappealing aspects of the secular democratic world which, as eminent western scholars admit, is steeped in moral decay.  Democratizing Islamic states might not be an unmixed blessing for the 1.2 billion Muslims that inhabit this planet.

If the war against Islam is to be won, the partisans of contemporary democracy will require a deeper understanding of what makes democracies preferable to Islamic (and other) tyrannies.  These partisans invariably emphasize the freedom and equality enjoyed in democracies but absent in Islam.  

Demonicrazy, like the Talmudic Communistic Socialism of Apartheid Racist Israel?

They overlook the fact that, unlike in former times, democratic freedom and equality lack ethical and rational constraints.  Moral relativism infects the democratic mind and saps the will to overcome the absolutism of the Islamic mind.  Lovers of democracy need to ask:  What is there about democratic freedom that would prompt a person to restrain his passions, to be kind, honest, just?  What is there about democratic equality that would prompt him to defer to wisdom or to show respect for teachers or parents?   Are such qualities conspicuous in the secular democratic state?

No, see Israel.

The partisans of the secular democratic state need to recognize that the freedom and equality they exalt are pure potentialities — neither good nor evil — hence morally neutral.  In the war against Islamic barbarism democrats need to see that the sanctity of human life and the decency and civility still visible in contemporary democracy have nothing to do with democracy itself.  They are rooted in the Bible of Israel and in Greek political philosophy.  Waving the flag of freedom and equality American style will not purge Islam whose believers are willing to die for Allah.  If, however, freedom and equality are derived from the Jewish conception of man’s creation in the image of God — which alone can provide democracy with an ethical and rational foundation — and if democracy, so conceived and so proclaimed, rallies a hundred million Christians in America, so many of whom look to Israel for light, then it may be possible to illuminate and transform the Islamic world.  But this means that America needs Israel in the war against Islam. 

This viper is about to close in for the Talmudic Judaic kill.

Unfortunately, the Government of Israel is not equal to the task.  Its ruling elites have embraced contemporary democracy as their religion, despite its moral failings.  The egotistical pluralism of democratic politics has fragmented the nation and made Israel another secular democratic state.  Such a state, devoid of Jewish wisdom and vision, cannot possibly inspire America in the war against Islam.  Israel’s pedestrian leaders can speak of nothing more than “peace and security,” for which they are willing to sacrifice Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people.  This not only diminishes American respect for Israel.  It also arouses the contempt of Muslims, a contempt magnified by their awareness that Israel has the military power to conquer the land occupied by Arabs but refrains from doing so. 

Unlike Muslims, whose sense of cultural superiority is unequaled, Israel’s political leaders are devoid of Jewish cultural pride.  Consider their foreign policy, their pronouncements about the Arab-Israel conflict.  Not a sign of joyful confidence in the justice of Israel’s cause.  In the midst of war with Arab terrorists and suicide bombers, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon obtusely informed his countrymen that he had learned not to think in “black and white” terms![xi]  September 11 was not enough to dispel the moral flabbiness of Israel’s foreign policy and prompt the Sharon Government to eradicate the terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.  To the contrary, as may be seen in his Jerusalem Post interview of September 26, 2002, Mr. Sharon rejects a policy of zero-tolerance toward Arab terrorism:

Our policy is to prevent an escalation of terrorism and in fact to reduce it…. I have always acted to prevent escalation of the situation … [meaning escalation on Israel’s part as well as on the part of the terrorists]…. [G]oing in and destroying terrorism [as advocated by some Israeli politicians] is a wrong approach. (Emphasis added.)  

Yes, he demon-strated this at the Temple Mount July 2001

Clearly, Sharon’s military objective is not to eliminate Arab terrorism but to prevent it from escalating beyond a “tolerable” level.   More than 500 Jews have been killed and thousands wounded and maimed under Sharon’s policy, and there is no end in sight.

Thousands of Palestinians and Christians at the hands of the IDF

But even if Israel’s Government were headed by a wiser and more dauntless leader, how can a cabinet composed of ten rival and ridiculous parties pursue a consistent and resolute national strategy — I mean a strategy whose initial objective is to eradicate the existential threat facing the Jewish state?  On the other hand, what positive, what noble, what distinctively Jewish goal can inspire this state when cultural egalitarianism takes precedence over Judaism in the mentality of Israel’s political and judicial elites? 

Notice how the focus has gone from the US and the Moslems to the control of the zionist?

Thus, to say that America’s needs Israel in the war against Islam can only mean an Israel very different from the present one.  I have in mind a New Israel, one with a Jewish structure of government that inspires respect, and whose immediate goal vis-a-vis Israel’s enemies is not peace but conquest.[xii]  Only such an Israel, working with the United States, can bring about a structural transformation of Islam.

Part II.  How to Demon-cratize Islam

The year before he wrote his celebrated essay “The Clash of Civilizations?” in 1993, Samuel P. Huntington published an article on “How Countries Democratize.”   Between 1974 and 1990 more than thirty countries in Europe, Latin America, and East Asia shifted from authoritarian to democratic systems of government.  The regimes that moved to or toward democracy, says Huntington, fall into three groups: “one party systems, military regimes, and personal dictatorships.”[xiii]  Conspicuously absent from this study is any reference to the Arab-Islamic world, whose twenty-two regimes, unlike those mentioned by Huntington, may be classified as “theopolitical” despotisms. 

Clearly, Islamdom is less susceptible to democratization than those studied by Huntington, which included the former Soviet Union.  Unlike Soviet Communism, Islam is not a political ideology but a civilization animated by a religion that has imbued countless Muslims with aggressive pride.

what he means is not Talmudized like the Sofiet Bolsheviks.

  As indicated above, Muhammad and his successors established the most extensive empire in history.  Islam’s past greatness is more real in the consciousness of the Muslim masses than Islam’s present backwardness.  Western educated terrorists, who typically come from the middle class, disdain the blandishments of democracy.  Beneath the veneer of Westernization these Muslims have preserved their cultural identity in which they have been weaned.  Not only do they dream of Islam’s past glory, but their reveries inspire their hatred and contempt for Islam’s usurpers and drive them to suicidal murder.  

Muslim intellectuals, including those educated in at Harvard and Oxford, (Educated by the jews)  despise the moral and cultural relativism that permeates the mentality of the West.  I mention this because it would never occur to a relativist to refute Islam, which refutation may, in the last analysis, be necessary to break Islam’s hold on the Muslim masses.  Who indeed, in this age of theological egalitarianism, will question Islam’s deity, say by discrediting his prophet, Muhammad?  It was by destroying Zeus and Jupiter that Greek and Roman civilization were destroyed.  And then there was Hirohito, the god of Japan, whose demise preceded the democratization of Japanese civilization.

Bearing the conquest and American occupation of Japan in mind, only if certain Islamic regimes are conquered and occupied, only if an entire generation of Muslim children is re-educated,(Noahide Laws)  only if political power is decentralized and political accountability replaces Muhammadan top-down leadership, can one speak sensibly of democratizing Islam.  Merely to eliminate Muslim despots and institute democratic elections will accomplish nothing enduring.

But by placing Rothschilds Voting machines the whole world can be Judaized........geav me amean, brutha !

*  *  *

Turning to particulars, it should be noted that contrary to the conventional view, ethnic and religious diversity is widespread in the Middle East.  In the 21 Arab-defined countries — this excludes Iran — there are approximately 250 million people, some 40 million of whom are non-Arabs ethnically or nationally, or non-Muslims religiously.  These 40 million inhabitants of Arab countries are not nationally or religiously affiliated with them. This substantial minority includes about 10 million Christians, particularly the Copts in Egypt, and large ethnic groups such as the Kurds and Berbers.[xiv]

The Iraqi Kurds are Muslims but not Arabs.  Like Iraq’s ruling Sunni Arab majority, they are citizens of the state.  Nevertheless, the Kurds’ ethnic loyalty is far more meaningful and stronger than their political loyalty.  Also, their ethnic loyalty is stronger than their religious identity, which is why they have been inclined to seek separate statehood vis-à-vis the Arab Muslims of Iraq.  Much the same may be said of the Druzes in Lebanon and Syria, the Baluch of Pakistan, and the Berbers of Morocco and Algeria. In contrast, the so-called Palestinians, far from being an oppressed minority, are part of the Sunni-Arab-Muslim majority which has ever aimed to smother the non-Muslim minorities of the Middle East.[xv]

In addition to ethnic and religious diversity, there is also political diversity. Although Arab regimes have always been authoritarian, they divide into two basic types: military tyrannies and hereditary monarchies in which the military sustains the regime.  Nevertheless, while some Muslim governments are conservative, others are revolutionary.  Some practice capitalism while others practice various kinds of socialism.  Some are friends or enemies of the United States, while others are more or less neutral.  And of course, there are enormous differences in the per capita income and in the education level of these various Arab and Muslim countries. 

Hence the type of democracy best suited for one state will not be equally suited for another.  Doctrinairism must be avoided.  A constitutional monarchy may be more appropriate in one country than a constitutional democracy.  Similarly, in some countries a presidential system of government may be preferable to a parliamentary one.  And wherever significant ethnic and religious diversity exists in a particular country as large as Iraq, a federal rather than a unitary system of government may be in order.  In such cases a bicameral legislature may be desirable, where one branch represents territorial divisions.  (See further on.)  Most important, the legal distribution of power assigned to the various branches of government must take account of the factual distribution of power in a particular country.  Indeed, it will be necessary to radically change the factual distribution of power of Islamic regimes if any type of democracy is to endure, and the changes must be institutionalized and supervised over a significant period of time. 

Finally, there inevitably arises the relationship between religion and state.  If Turkey is the model, separation of religion and state appears to follow.  But Turkey is contiguous with and closely linked to Europe, and it may not be an appropriate model for all regimes in the far-flung Islamic world.   Also, let us be candid and admit that the separation of religion and state or public law in the West has not been an unmixed blessing.  Separation surely was conducive to personal freedom and a more tolerant daily life.  But over the course of the last two centuries, as personal freedom and daily life became more and more removed from religion, or, conversely, the more religion became a Sunday or fringe affair, freedom became separated from morality.  The moral corruption now rampant in the West is a direct consequence of the separation of church and state. 

Why they inculcated satan and church, HJR 104, Public Law 102-14, and planned the Judge Roy Moore Scheme to undermine legislation for the superior Noahide Courts of Justice.

 I hasten to add, however, that this separation was not unrelated to the church’s own corruption.  Hence we must avoid both secular and religious dogmatism when addressing the problem of democratizing Islam.

To illustrate the problem, recall Algeria’s experiment with multiparty national elections in December 1991.  In the first round of voting the Islamic Salvation Front did well enough to prompt the military junta in power to cancel the second round and outlaw this populist party of unadulterated Muslims.[xvi]  The capitals of the democratic world breathed a sigh of relief at this failure of “democracy”!  But meanwhile Islamic terrorism continues to bloody Algeria. 

Another illustration: Democracy means popular sovereignty, which translates into the rule of the majority.  But the rule of the majority in most Muslim countries would result in the suppression of many rights associated with democracy.  Bernard Lewis put it this way at the AEI conference mentioned above:  “…in the Western world, we are accustomed to regard women's rights as part of the liberal program. In the Middle East, it doesn't work that way. The liberal program is giving people what they want and what the people want [in Arab-Islamic countries] is suppressing women, so that you find that women's rights [in the Middle East] fair better under autocratic than [they would] under democratic regimes.”  This is one reason why Lewis believes that constitutional monarchy, which would be more compatible with Islamic culture, may also be preferable  to unqualified democracy.

The above illustrations suggest that, given the religiosity of the Muslim masses, successful democratization of many Islamic regimes will have to be non-secular and moderately hierarchical.  Consistent therewith, Islamic law embodies certain concepts which may serve the cause of democratization, if these concepts are newly interpreted, taught in schools, and used to restructure the governments of Islamic regimes.  I have in mind four concepts which Muslim apologists refer to as having democratic significance, but which skeptics reject as illusionary.  Here is how political scientist David Bukay of Haifa University defines and dismisses these concepts:

An immense literature has been published under the rubric, “Democracy in Islam”.  It has several aspects: first, shurah consultation, as if it functioned as in the Western system of parliamentary power; second, ijma’, the consensus of the community, as if there were social and political pluralism with decisions based on a majority; third, ijtihad, innovative interpretation, as if there were readiness to absorb opposing values and positions into the functioning of the Muslim political system; and fourth, hakmiyah [as if it means popular] sovereignty …

Even in the conceptions of Islamic thinkers, shurah does not mean participation in political processes or politcal bargaining, including representation of pressure and interest groups … What they were referring to was an advisory council of experts in the moral field.  Further, ijma’ does not express consensus of the community.  Rather it is an accepted tribal framework made of the tribal leaders or the heads of the community, or a “council of wise men”.  Consensus was never a basis for general public expression.  The same applies to ijtihad .… there is no readiness to absorb the basic values of democracy, such as freedom of assembly and participation or individual rights.  These were the prerogatives of the ruling elites alone.  The people were never sovereign and were never asked its opinion on political issues. Sovereignty [of the people]  … cannot exist in an all-embracing religion like Islam.[xvii] 

Dr. Bukay’s skepticism regarding these concepts loses validity if key Islamic regimes are conquered and transformed (something he does not contemplate, perhaps because he does not identify “Islamic fundamentalism” with Islam).  Moreover, the characteristics he attributes to democracy apply priamrily to contemporary democracy, which is secular and devoid of substantive ethical norms.   The present author rejects contemporary or normless democracy, and proposes, for Islam — indeed, for the West as a whole — a normative or classical conception of democracy, which can be assimilated to Judaism (Talmudism) and Christianity (Judeo-Churchizionity) .  Bukay errs when he says that “any religion is opposed to democratic values in its conceptions and basic principles.”[xviii]  As I have elsewhere shown,[xix] Judaism provides a solid rational foundation and ethical content for freedom and equality.  

And if you Goyim's don't agree with that...off with your Chattel heads

Muslims will the more readily embrace these principles if they are derived from man’s creation in the image of God, and not from secular humanism, which, let us never forget, did not prevent Europe from collaborating in the Nazi Holocaust. 

(Did not prevent the zionist from hiring Hitler for the creation of the zionist Herzle's, Olam Ha Ba)

 Even now, Europe, the home of humanism, has succmbed to anti-Semitic support for Arab barbarism. 

Arabs, the Semites? Oxymoran..........

Returning to the four Islamic concepts in question, no doubt Professor Lewis had these concepts in mind when he said “there are these older traditions, I will not say of democratic government but of government under law, government by consent, and government by contract in the Islamic world…. And this I think holds possibilities for the future.”[xx]  Let us see how this can be done from a theoretical perspective.

Abstracted from the oligarchic power structure that dominated Islam in the past, “consultation,” “consensus,” “innovative interpretation,” and “sovereignty” may be construed to justify a classical, democratic system of institutional checks and balances.  “Consultation” and “consensus” can prescribe and describe the functional relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.  The Executive obviously consults the Legislature when submitting bills to that body.  Whether unicameral or bicameral, the Legislature, which in the West represents the diverse interests and opinions of civil society, deliberates and reaches an agreement (or consensus) to approve or reject or propose amendments to the bills in question.  The concept “innovative interpretation” may be assimilated to the function of a Supreme Court that can narrow or broaden the application of a law which citizens, in society at large, may challenge as violating a higher law, a constitution.  

Noahide Courts of Justice ran by the obedient "Goyim" Freemasons, and the elite elohim, little god's of satan's Illumination.

The principles of this constitution must not clash with Islamic law as qualified by the first three aforementioned concepts (and others to be mentioned further on).  As for the fourth concept, “sovereignty,” it must be limited to the majority of the people as represented in one branch of the Legislature if the latter is bicameral, as may be desirable in many Islamic regimes.    (I shall deal with minorities later.)   

Suggested here is a constitutional and somewhat hierachic system of government based on religious principles.  The constitution would prescribe, in addition to Islamic courts, an independent, unitary executive having the power to propose legislation, but which legislation would require the approval of a popularly elected assembly. 

jewish beth din

 This assembly need not have the power to initiate legislation.  In fact, it was not until the 17^th and 18^th centuries that representative assemblies acquired that function.  One can even go back to classical antiquity and find examples of popular assemblies whose function was not to make laws but to approve or reject proposed legislation submitted by magistrates.  (John Stuart Mill has said, a “numerous assembly is as little fitted for the direct business of legislation as for that of administration.”  The primary work of legislation must be done, and increasingly is being done, by the executive departments and administrative agencies.)  We want to interpenetrate democratic and Islamic values.

There are groups in Muslim states that would welcome such reform.[xxi]  Israel could indirectly encourage them by adopting for itself a constitution based on Jewish principles, such as that proposed by the present writer in Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fall.[xxii]   Not only Islam but modern Israel lacks a system of institutional checks and balances, such as that prescribed in the Torah. (Oral Toarh, Mishnah Torah of Tamud Bavli of the Pharisees, which make the WORD of God of none effect)  Suffice to mention the division of powers between the King and the Great Sanhedrin or Supreme Court, whose laws were not valid unless acceptable to the majority of the public.  (See Babylonian Talmud, Avoda Zara, 36a.)  

The Plot thickens, the Truth is about to come out of this satanic pond scum's mouth

Also necessary in Arab states (as well as in Israel) is decentralization of political power.  In large Arab states, as previously indicated, decentralization of power can be accomplished by federalism.  Again the Torah provides a model: each of Israel’s ancient tribal or territorial regions had its own governor and its own autonomous Sanhedrin, whose members were drawn from the region in which they resided.  (This is far more democratic than Israel’s existing system in which the Knesset, though popularly elected, is subservient to the Government, whose ministers, as a result of fixed party lists and the absence of regional elections, can ignore public opinion with impunity.)

Moving to the Talmudic Courts of Justice for all mankind.

*  *  *

Here a brief digression is in order.  It needs to be emphasized that the democratic transformation of Islam will not come about merely by economic and technological progress in the Middle East, the crypto-Marxist panacea of Shimon Peres.  Islamic despots are not interested in alleviating the poverty of their people but in maintaining Islam’s political-religious power structure.  Meanwhile, the cosmopolitan Internet, far from liberating the Muslim masses, has facilitated the transmission of anti-Semitism and the global communications of terrorists. 

If'n you aint wif us then you'un's must be aginst us. George W. Bush-ka