Too bad Islam and Democracy are mutually exclusive.

I'm glad you know more about the matter than actual Muslims do, Mark. Perhaps you should spread your message to the Turks, the Malaysians, and the Indonesians.

Since you obviously know more than this guy and this guy and this guy, just for starters, I'm sure you'll have a huge impact on the Muslim world.

I had a private email correspondence yesterday with a former "warblogger" (now of the Rittenhouse crowd, which in degree ain't so much a change in position as it is a Patty Hearst-like brainsqueegy-ing), and s/he seemed to suggest the same sentiment as Mark (above).

The gist of the complaint: Iraq is the new Gaza, the US has no exit strategy, Muslims will be Muslims, and won't change (except to become a Shiite fundamentalist government,etc.).

In a strange way, I knew where she was coming from; after all, constant reports citing instances of what can most delicately called ingratitude do wear on you after awhile -- though how such things would convince you to do a 180 and align yourself with the BushLied™ crowd I'm not sure. Still, sometimes one despairs over the lack of more vocal moderate Muslim groups, so the fact of this group's very existence is, as you note, quite heartening.

Well, we really got this discussion off to a good start, didn't we? Having lived in, and traveled to, several Arab and Muslim countries, and having made friends with Muslims over the years, I am well aware that the average man in the street does not want to exist under the yoke of oppression. However, for Democracy to flourish in the Muslim world, we will first have to reverse a fourteen-centuries-old warlord mentality and expect even differing factions within Islam itself to put aside their differences and work together towards a free and democratic ideal. This will involve changing the mindset of Arab and Muslim governments to allow free and open elections. So far, the very notion of Democracy in the Muslim world has proven to be non-existent, so I stand by my original statement. Would I like to see Democracy take over in the Muslim world? You bet. Will I bet my bottom dollar on it? No effing way! Not even my top dollar. Sorry, with my experience, and from what I've seen, I am willing to say that I think the experts are wrong. Just my opinion. Last, read your Qu'ran. Any religion that espouses violence against "infidels" - specifically Christians and Jews (both groups are actually named in the Qu'ran), in the book that is the core teaching of that religion, has a long hard row to hoe before they will ever hope to co-exist peacefully and Democratically with the rest of the world. Those in charge in the Muslim world simply aren't, and never will be, willing to place power in the hands of the common man. I expect that Afghanistan and Iraq will be no different once we're gone. By this I do not necessarily mean I see a return to the Taliban and a Saddam-like dictator, but they will be theocracies. I have no doubt of this.

I am glad you posted this as too many people are still ignorant of the Muslims and do not understand them. It would be advantageous for us to understand their past, and their hope to bring about a better life for themselves.

Also, Dean, Timmerman, in his interview, seems to be echoing some of my conmcerns. The people in Iraq are opposed to the US trying to bring democracy and freedom to them. As he says, they hate our freedoms and our values. Why? My take: Because the people of Iraq, like most people in countries like Iraq, have been, (or are continuing to be), kept in the dark and been fed bullshit by their leaders for so long that they honestly believe what they are told. They have no other information sources with which to compare it. Yes, there are some in Iraq who are desperately trying to bridge the information gap (including some excellent Iraqi bloggers, as you are no doubt aware), but it just isn't ENOUGH! A healthy dose of cynicism will keep us wary of our Muslim neighbors and perhaps serve to prevent another 9/11. I think it is way too early to stand up and applaud our efforts to bring democracy to Iraq, or any other Islamic nation, for that matter. Complacency is what brought us to 9/11 in the first place. Let's not get all pollyanna about the issue now. However, my message to the CSID is this: Please, for G-d's sake, prove me wrong!

Radwan Masmoudi is a learned academic with good cause for hope for the Muslim world, but academics need to make a clear distinction between theory and practice. In theory, Masmoudi is right in his assertion that: “the sooner democracy is established, the sooner Iraq will become a reliable ally of the West.” But Masmoudi is wrong in the reality of that statement. Were he to open a Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in Baghdad or Damascus he would be out of business rather soon. As an example, the leadership under Yasser Arafat has been a nightmare policy of veiled advances toward democracy, acceptance of US dollars and paralysis in illiteracy for his people not to mention the real birthplace of terrorism for the last 40 years. So, I agree with Mark Firestone on this issue, that,
“… the very notion of Democracy in the Muslim world has proven to be non-existent…” And that is long term non- existence.

Democracy is not the only hope. The real hope lies in education and employment.

Masmoudi is right in that, “freedom of religion and freedom of conscience therefore is a prerequisite for human life and human dignity. That is why Muslims, Christians and Jews have lived peacefully for centuries in the Middle East.” But he did not mention that this is a function limited to democratic nations only.

We know that a majority of Iraqis do in fact want democracy, Mark. We also know that there is more than one Muslim democracy anyway. So that's two statements right there where reality contradicts you.

Mind you, I have always believed it would take a long time to accomplish. However, Iraq is the most ripe nation: a large middle class, an educated, pro-Western populace, enough differences in religious outlooks to make it hard for any one strain of Islam to take hold, a neighboring democracy (Turkey), a population already used to living in democracy (the Kurds), and a population so liberalized that a majority of them attend religious services only once a week or less.

I assume it is going to take us a decade or more to bring real stability this way. I also believe it will get easier as time goes, with the occasional setback. In the meantime, we have a base of operations smack dab in the middle of Terrorist Central (i.e. The Middle East), and are in a position to scare the crap out of all the other regimes in the region.

Win/win/win all around. But it's obviously going to take time. But you simply cannot say democracy is incompatible with Islam, because not only to many Muslims disagree with you, but there are democratic nations with majority Muslim populations that already prove you wrong.

As for as "read the Koran" goes--when you tell me you ahve read it cover to cover, I will be impressed. Picking a single Sura or series of Suras out of a massive book, which countless anti-Muslim bigots do, doesn't much help. I can show you similar verses in the Bible, yet Christians were the ones who started Democracy in the West. I can show you verses like that in the Torah too, yet somehow no one says "Judaism is incompatible with democracy."

Let's get a grip. We cannot make broad-sweeping statements like this, especially when empirical fact already proves that there are Muslim democracies. Right now we have no ARAB democracies--but we're getting closer all the time.

Dean - FYI - I am currently in the process of reading the Qu'ran cover-to-cover, albeit very slowly as I have too many other interests that occupy my time. However I have yet to find anything so far that poreaches tolerance of Christians and Jews. Also, if you have not read it cover-to-cover, then how do you justify defending it to me, and comparing me to anti-Muslim bigots? As far as the Torah goes, I challenge you to find one single passage that preaches violence against Christians and Muslims, neither of which existed at the time that the Torah was written. Further, there may be passages that refer to G-d's vengence against the Israeites' enemies, but we are very stringently admonished that vengence is G-d's, and G-d's alone.
Last, i do not believe that my posts are in any way anti-Muslim. They are pragmatic statements about the way in which Muslim governments have ruled, and abused, their people for centuries. As I said, I hope to Christ I am wrong as I would love to see Muslims prosper under a Democratic system. And the "democracy" extant in countries like Turkey pales by comparison to ours.

"Masmoudi is right in that, “freedom of religion and freedom of conscience therefore is a prerequisite for human life and human dignity. That is why Muslims, Christians and Jews have lived peacefully for centuries in the Middle East.” But he did not mention that this is a function limited to democratic nations only."

Correction: But he did not mention that this
is a function NOT limited to democratic nations only. i.e. there were prior centuries of peaceful existence.

Mark: No, I haven't read the Koran cover-to-cover, but I've read books by devout Muslims who have, and by non-Muslim scholars who have, who refute the easy notions about what Islam "really" believes when it comes to these things. The best is Stephen Schwartz' "Two Faces of Islam"--and since Schwarts is, as it happens, a Shi-ite, I'll take his word about his faith over people who dont' know it but attack it.

There are parts of Torah and Tanakh which talk about how to deal with idolaters--which would mean Hindus, Buddhists, and others. I don't have them off the top of my head but you know they're there and if you insist I'll find them. The thing is that centuries of interpretation have changed how such things are viewed.

Look the bottom line empirical fact is there is more than one Muslim democracy already. That is simply so. Are they perfect? No. But they are not threats to us, either, and they are not the breeding grounds for terrorism that the thug-regimes are.

As I say, I expect it to take time. We agree more than we disagree. [shrug]

Like Mark D Firestone, I too have lived in the middle east. In Israel and mostly in Jerusalem, not far from the old city with its large moslem Arab neighborhood. There, as chance would have it, my wife and I interacted as much with moslem Arabs as with jewish Israelis. (But rarely with local christians as opposed to missionaries, because there were and are few of them left in the middle east.)

Dean, Mr Firestone's perceptions about islam, formed in his travels, are far more correct than what you have picked up around metro Detroit and the undoubtedly americanized -- or americanizing -- Arabs you meet and greet over there. That, reinforced by the tendency that shows in all your posts to find silver linings in every cloud that is pouring rain on top of your head.

As for the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, it might have sounded a lot more useful to me as a vehicle for promoting islamic democracy, had I not noticed that its chairman is professor Ali A Mazrui, a leading apologist for the Arab terrorists who have made life a living hell not only for their Jewish neighbors as well as for the families of hundreds of thousands of local Arabs who have never been given a chance to live in peace with those neighbors. I have heard him on public television, celebrating what can now be seen as the end of nascent civilization in Africa, and comparing it to the struggle against "the zionists".

Therefore, so much for islamic democracy, as promoted by mouths and minds such as the chairman of CSID or any other front organization set up polish the skin of the rotten islamic apple for the benefit of credulous westerners.

Moreover, if and when democracy ever comes to the Arab world, or to most other islamic societies as well, they will have to pick and choose between living as individuals -- meaning unlimited individual rights -- or living as members of their islamic herd, the umma. Professor Mazrui has never addressed that, and certainly, neither have any of the Arab Mazruis actually living in the middle east.

Because just like marxist-leninism, islam falls apart in the presence of unlimited individual rights.

Finally, a bright and discerning guy like you, as shown in almost every topic on Dean's World in recent years, ought be be able to spot the difference between democracy as something that is home grown within a culture, as opposed to the "democracy" that a country like the United States imagines it is force-feeding a population temporarily under their control. The former condition has serious hope of lasting; the latter condition is something with little substance, that blows away with the next hamsin (sandstorm).

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I can only repeat things I have observed before:

1) It is an empirical fact, not subject to debate, that Muslim democracies already exist. They are of course not perfect but all a good deal more stable and functional and free than any of the thug regimes and theocracies of the middle east.

2) I have more than once recommended books by scholars who have lived in the Middle East, some of them actual Muslims and some not, who simply disagree with this "Islam is incompatible with democracy" business.

3) The United States has happily and successfully installed democracies by force of arms many times in the past, and has succeeded at this more often than it has failed whenever it has tried. I therefore cannot accept the notion that democracy must be "home grown."

All that said, if we cannot even agree to stipulate certain basic facts, we cannot have a discussion: if one side or the other will not recognize facts, the discussion merely becomes word games, does it not?

Center for the Study of Judaism and Pork?

Until there is a Muslim Martin Luther and there is a Muslim civil war to determine if Jihad and Dhimmitude will remain part of the theology, Islam isn't safe for coexistence with modern civilization.

Methinks the nice Muslims you know are nice despite their faith.

The appeal and growth of Islam has little to do with theology (ever try to read the Koran?) but everything to do with its original appeal of 1400 years ago... power and conquest.

Until you see anti-despot protests in Muslim countries, you're pipedreaming.

Until there is a Mecca Tourism Board and no restriction on Jews touring Saudi Arabia, optimism is not a suitable sentiment.

Again, as long as the dogma of "dhimmi" remains in the Koranic canon, there can be no hope of co-existence by definition.

It feels like arguing with anti-Bush folks about the necessity and morealitiy of the Iraq war.

How many times do I have to point to examples of Muslim democracies before you folks will stop claiming that they cannot possibly exist?

Muslim democracies already exist. Muslims in non-democratic nations say they want it. These are facts. Can we start by acknowledging these facts? If we can't do that, then we have no conversation.

Daniel Pipes has a few things to say about the CSID:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3583

Dean,

I used the URL supplies by Bill Dooley and checked out Daniel Pipes' website, especially the hard information on the CSID operatives who celebrated the Arab moslem destruction of the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon, and the intended destruction of either the White House or the United States Capitol, on Sep 11, 2001.

"Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy" indeed. You got suckered in by a pack of scheming liars, pal. But don't feel bad about it. These bastards are experts in dissembling to the world, and they've fooled some of the best-intentioned people around the world.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

As I've noted before here from time to time, the word "democracy" is very slippery. During the Cold War, both East and West Germany called themselves democracies. Dean and everyone else in this thread are using the term in the mid-20th century sense to refer to the Constitutional republics and monarchies of the West, or the more popular elements (e.g., elections) in Western governments.

Our Founding Fathers, by contrast, seldom used the term except in the classic, original, Aristotelian sense of the tyranny of the majority, which they abhorred every bit as much as that of a king. They were wise men of property who knew Latin and Greek -- and history. They established a complex system of checks and balances designed to ensure that no majority could get its way except after prolonged deliberation guided by wise men like themselves, and never at the expense of the inalienable rights of the smallest minority of all: the individual. They were elitists.

But, having said that, if you wish to use the term "democracy" as shorthand for individual freedom protected by Constitutional government, i.e., "liberalism" in the original sense, I won't quibble. Of Muslim nations, Turkey is free, Western, liberal in the classic sense. But Malaysia? Their President, Matahir Muhammad, is a vicious anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual monster who blames the Jews for such Western "abominations" as the concept of human rights, and has opposing journalists imprisoned for "sodomy".

Aaron: You make many good points, but I must disagree on one point. Islam has no need of a Martin Luther. It has already had its Luther, its Calvin, and its Cromwell all wrapped into one: the Prophet Muhammad himself. Oswald Spengler pointed out that Islam is much closer to Puritanism than to early Christianity.

What Islam needs is its John Milton, its John Locke, its Thomas Jefferson, its James Madison, and its George Washington.

I agree with Dean that Islam is not necessarily _inherently_ anti-liberal. If a visitor from another planet had stepped into Europe of the 16th century, he may well have concluded that Christianity could never coexist with freedom. But, now, after a long struggle, we find that it can be made to coexist with freedom. Indeed, some of the finest libertarians are Christians, their faith is the basis of their belief in freedom. In time, and after a similar struggle, we may find this true of Muslims as well.

The libertarian mind in most every individual enjoys taking an all or nothing stance when it comes to freedom (this is a Good Thing). Liberty or Death, basically. It also has a tendency to focus upon religion as the main threat to freedom, which is less of a Good Thing.

This also makes it hard for many people, including myself, to recognize nations such as Turkey as a complete democracy. However, it could be argued that Islam interferes in Turkey's democracy not unlike Socialism does in just about any European country. I'm not using any particular democratic metric of success for my opinion, but I still think it is a solid point.

While one nation's democracy may not wholly resemble ours, and may even be offer a degree of freedom that is categorically inferior to that of the United States, it is still a democracy of sorts. Even planting the seed of such a thing can be considered a success.

Iraq may not become a model of democracy. It may not even become a very good one, however it will still have exposed countless millions in the Middle East to freedom. I think that our war against Islamic Fascism will be much like our war against Communism. Freedom was a wonderful tool we employed during the Cold War, and the sooner and better we use it in our new war, the easier things will be for us in the end. As far as I'm concerned, waiting around for Theocracies to magically liberalize on their own is not an acceptable way to mantain American security.

Pardon me for injecting a bit of irrelevancy here, but I'm reading Dean's World on a Palm Tungsten T3 linked by Bluetooth to my PC and its cable modem.

The Blues Brothers is playing on the TV, and it occurs to me that Jake, in the car outside the orphanage, refusing to go in to see the Penguin, crossing his arms and saying, "No fucking way," bears a striking resemblance to Dean. But then, allowing for the fact that I'm older, taller, and rather more handsome, Jake could be me as well. :)

Washington Times (today's) excerpts:

"Arab leaders postponed indefinitely a summit scheduled to begin tomorrow because of disagreement over a plan for encouraging democratic reform in the Middle East, the Tunisian Foreign Ministry said."

"Arab League member states failed to reach a consensus on proposed political reforms that would serve as an Arab response to the U.S.-proposed "Greater Middle East Initiative," which aims to spread democracy in a region of authoritarian rule."

"The irony of democratic reform in the Middle East is that while ending the political domination of royal families, it could give power to fundamentalist Islamic opposition groups that are opposed to a Western-style secular government."

"Speaking to reporters yesterday, Mr. Moussa said that democratic reform in the Arab world would be linked to progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"There is a movement toward change. But this is linked to the stability of the region and the Arab-Israeli conflict," he said."

Yup, business as usual.

Steven Malcolm Anderson: You must have missed the elections in Malaysia. :) Abdullah Badawi was elected president by a wide margin. The people rejected the Islamists.

I agree with everyone including Dean which doesn't necessarily mean I hold conflicting opinions. I think the only thing that could harm democracy in Iraq is too many terror attacks breaking the will of the people and I honestly think that won't happen. Sistani still wants Sharia but he isn't going to get it. The polls say the majority of Iraqi's do NOT want sharia.

(I guess Mark Firestone has never seen a poll from Iraq. They overwhelmingly AGREE with our efforts to bring them democracy.)

We're not just setting up elections in Iraq, we've given them the institutions of a democracy including independent judiciary and a civilian controlled military, and separation of powers. Besides which all the little towns and villages are learning the process of involving themselves in decision making at the local level. Be part of the process and democracy means a lot.

Add a market based economy and property rights, and an educated populace (best in the region) and there's a lot of hope. Keep them busy making decisions (and money) and they'll reject the Islamists.

However, the incompatibility of Islam with individual rights is true. Who was it who said that the definition of a moderate muslim is someone who hasn't read the entire qu'ran? It's true. It's extremely easy for an Islamist to convince a 'moderate' to change his ways given the proper conditions. Note the young Palestinian woman who was unfaithful to her husband. Her lover and her husband backed by Yassin convinced her the only way to attone for her sins was to strap on a suicide belt and kill Israelis.

Islam now is where Christianity was about 500 years ago. Reform has to come and the push is on.
The other countries of course will fight reform. But Syrians and Iranians want it badly. One domino at a time. The strategy is to marginalize the Islamists and they know it...which is why they're desparate for us to fail in Iraq.

Syl:
"Steven Malcolm Anderson: You must have missed the elections in Malaysia. :) Abdullah Badawi was elected president by a wide margin. The people rejected the Islamists."

No, I missed that bit of good news. If they threw out Matahir, then there's hope. They may become free.

Catch 22 (quoting the Washington Times):
"The irony of democratic reform in the Middle East is that while ending the political domination of royal families, it could give power to fundamentalist Islamic opposition groups that are opposed to a Western-style secular government."

That underscores the point I made. We must be exceedingly careful in defining what we mean by "democracy". If we can't define what we want, we'll get what we _don't_ want.

CM wrote:
"The libertarian mind in most every individual enjoys taking an all or nothing stance when it comes to freedom (this is a Good Thing). Liberty or Death, basically. It also has a tendency to focus upon religion as the main threat to freedom, which is less of a Good Thing."

Yes, that first part describes me very well: Individual Freedom, all or nothing, Liberty or Death.

As for that last part: Religion is the main threat to freedom (if you include Communism as an atheistic religion, it certainly is), _or_, conversely, it can be the main foundation and bulwark of freedom. Religion is, always has been, and always will be, the most powerful force shaping human lives and history, because it is our view of ultimate origin, meaning, and destiny, it is the realm of ultimate values.

I must add that there are two elements in Islan's history and theology which will make it harder for Islamic nations to become free:

1) Unlike Christianity, Islam was politicized from the beginning. As I said, Muhammad was far more like Cromwell than like Christ. It was Christ, not Muhammad, who said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." and, further, "My kingdom is not of this world." Therefore, Christianity had within it from the beginning the seeds of the separation of religion from state.

2) As the great French reactionary Alain de Benoist has pointed out, monotheism, tending toward uniformity, contains within it the seeds of Leftism and totalitarianism. In Judaism, this monotheism is mitigated by its having been from the beginning national rather than universal, so that Jews tend to keep their religion to themselves and do not proselytise. In Christianity, this monotheism is mitigated by the doctrine of a Trinity (which, as G. K. Chesterton argued, makes it more like a Constitutional monarchy than an absolute despotism theologically). But, in Islam, it is pure, total, and universal, thus tending toward totalitarianism.

We will therefore have harder work to do in bringing about an Enlightenment within Islam. Not to say it will never happen, it is already beginning in Turkey and even Malaysia, but it may be harder.

Syl - I have seen pollsthat indicate that the majority of Iraqis want democracy. We are also seeing a fair amount of anti-US sentiment. Ultimately, the few who oppose us, I think, will prevail, and it will be business as usual in an Arab/Muslim country - i.e. a theocracy. What the majority want, and ultimately get, will be two different things. And after perusing the CSID website a little, I am suspect as well of it's real agenda. Sort of like Rachel Corrie's group, ISM, in that it is not what it is really presented to be.

Interesting point about Judaism, as well as about Chesterton's point, Steven Malcolm Anderson.

Christianity tends to become very much cultural and national as well. How Christianity is expressed and interpreted quite often is very cultural. There are no problems when that fact is admitted. If one took the practices of, say a Greek Orthodox Church dominated by Slovaks, they would look out of place if imposed on a church of Italian Catholics, would they not?

It is this search for religious purity, the distrust of any human traditions, that is the problem. I do not see why the followers of Islam cannot overcome such a difficulty.