The West's Reaction To Islam (KingShamus)

Daniel Pipes ponders the notion of an Islam compatible with democracy.

Just as Christianity became part of the democratic process, so can Islam. This transformation will surely be wrenching and require time. The evolution of the Catholic Church from a reactionary force in the medieval period into a democratic one today, an evolution not entirely over, has been taking place for 700 years. When an institution based in Rome took so long, why should a religion from Mecca, replete with its uniquely problematic scriptures, move faster or with less contention?

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.  Pipes breaks down some of the massive hurdles Islam has to leap over in order to embrace democratic ideals.

A point Pipes doesn't touch on is how the modern Western world has treated the various Islamist movements it has run into over the last 50 years.  Since Sayyid Qutb gave birth to the modern jihadist movement, elements of the West have been bombarded by various facets of Islamic violence.  Whether it has come in the form of stateless entities like al-Qaeda, belligerent theocratic governments or a combination of the two is beside the point. 

So how have the elites in America reacted to the decades-long aggression of expansionist Islam?  Accomodation, moral equivalence and feckless dhimmitude.  Among other pathetic reactions.  Then we wonder why Islam continues to pick on us. 

Non-Muslims can't do much to reform to Islam.  As Pipes notes, that kind of wrenching cultural shift takes a long time.  Democratization is not something the West will be capable of accelerating very much. 

But that doesn't mean the West has to lay down and accept terrorist Islam's deranged premises about the separation of church and state, the role of women, property rights or religious pluralism.  Nor does it have to tolerate the violent acts of murder and mayhem the Qutbist keep throwing at us.  Instead of that, the West could decide to tell Islam--through words and deeds--that certain things won't be tolerated.  Like honor killings, imposition of sharia, the crushing of religious minorities or female circumsicion.

Would that turn Islam into a religion that welcomes democratic reform?  Probably not.  But it would probably be better than the subtle message of approval some in the West insist on sending to Islam. 

Comments

[Danny DeMichele Entrepreneur]

Stuff you share about Islam with us is great and I am unknown with this thanks to share with me...

[Appraiser Now]

This is my first read my life about Islam,jihadist movement,al-qaeda and I find in my self a interest to about it more...

[Jeff]

Christianity was not hobbled with the same level of dogmatic violence and required political interference as Islam.

To claim that Chritianity took 700 years to become democratic ignores the fact that Islam has not moved one inch towards democracy in those same 700 years ...

We in the west may want Islam to move towards democracy but guess what ... the great majority of Islamic males don't want it and that means it won't happen since all too many of those males will kill you if you push too hard ...

[Rome Vatican tours]

Islam has to leap over in order to became part of the democratic process, therefore they breaks down some of the massive hurdles to embrace democratic ideals, but it doesn't means that it has to lay down and accept terrorist Islam's.

[priscillajlaw]

Richard Dawkins says it outright. One wonders why so few other atheists are speaking out in the same way. Note that he does not hasten to qualify his comment by saying, "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam.

Anti Age HGH

[Mike Giles]

The only way Islam can be reformed, is by a defeat so utter it causes them to reexamine all their basic premises.

[DaveO]

I disagree with the author's premise, that Islam can be democratic. One can either do Islam, or do Democracy. One can not do both.

Islam can be layed over most economic systems without either the religion or the economy suffering. Islam can engage in free market capitalism without any repercussion.

Islam can not be layed over some political systems. The primacy of the clerics may permit elections of executives and legislators, but the clerics have veto power at all times.

Law, and it's implementation, is the biggest problem for Islam and democracy. Democracy requires a flexible body of law, which while have core principles does allow for some deviation. Sharia, Islam's legal philosophy/body of law, has no such flexibility. Further, no secular judge or court exists in Islam.

Sharia's stratification of people (Muslim men, other men, livestock, Muslim women, other women) is completely anti-democratic. Unless one is a muslim male, suffrage and the political ability to change a law or policy is non-existent.

Unless Islam does away with, or seriously reforms Sharia, Islam will not be able to be democratic.

[Sanity Inspector]

They hate each other as much as they hate infidels. Just look at the horrific massacre of the ahmadiyya Muslims in Indonesia two weeks ago, by a mob of orthodox Muslims outraged by the deviant sect.

[baldilocks]

See: Germany and Japan.

[Amy Laurent]

Islam can be layed over most economic systems without either the religion or the economy suffering. Islam can engage in free market capitalism without any repercussion.

[KingShamus]

Bingo.

The question is: Do we have the stomach for that? I just don't know and that makes me nervous.