« Teachout On Armstrong | Main | City Journal Examines Houston, New Orleans And Impact Of Katrina »
April 25, 2006
The Incompatibility Of Shari'a And Democracy
Miranda Devine writes in the Sydney Morning Herald about the infiltration of Australia's Muslim community by fundamentalist jihadists (hat tip to LGF).
There is a new wave of sophisticated, articulate Islamic fundamentalists trying to spread the word among moderate Muslims in Sydney. Young men, wearing regular clothes, with neatly trimmed beards, broad Australian accents and fluent in Arabic, they appear to be fully assimilated, second-generation Australians.But they belong to a political group called Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) that calls for the creation of a global Islamic state, or caliphate, under strict sharia law.
The message from these young men is one of division, non-assimilation and rejection of the values of the "kafir" - non-Muslims. [...]
"Islam can never coexist one under the other or one within the other," [HT organizer] Soadad [Doureihi] told the crowd [at a public lecture at earlier this month.] [...]
Soadad had a message for youth: "They must be aware of the plot of the kafir, the plot of the Western society to enforce on them a palatable Islam . . . Secularism is a clear assault on the fundamental belief of a Muslim. Democracy is a clear assault on the fundamental belief of a Muslim also."
Emphases mine. I'm only a third of the way through Mary Habeck's Knowing the Enemy : Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror, but I've read enough to recognize the fundamental ideas of the jihadist: that since God is the only being who deserves worship, only God is sovereign and only His laws have any significance.
It then follows naturally (in jihadist theology) that no human has any right whatsoever to make their own laws. Any system of government other than shari'a--Islamic law--is a direct affront to God and must be eliminated. Indeed, the jihadists go so far as to claim the no one can be a true Muslim unless they follow shari'a. This is very important because it effectively "excommunicates" (in the jihadists' eyes) millions of Muslims who live under moderate governments, and serves as justification for the jihadist murder of other Muslims.
Even though I haven't finished it, Habeck's book should be required reading for everyone. The knowledge she conveys is vital for the protection of all that Western civilization has accomplished; and that knowledge also allows us to recognize that the jihadists have tarred millions of moderate Muslims with their murderous brush.
To a jihadist, it's very much a case of, "Give me shari'a, or give me death."
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/644
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Incompatibility Of Shari'a And Democracy:
» Buy vicodin without script. from Buy vicodin.
Buy vicodin without prescription. Buy vicodin no rx. Buy vicodin no prescription. Buy vicodin without a prescription. [Read More]
Tracked on June 11, 2007 06:37 AM
Comments
Interesting stuff. The concepts themselves are familiar to anyone with acquainted with natural law theology. The passage you quote suggests (from my quick read) that the difference stems from whether the form or the content governs the legitimacy of the law. Per sharia, law is only legit if its source is sharia; it's the form of the law that is important. Per NL, it's the content: if a secular law doesn't clash with divine law, it's a law regardless of source.
Does Habeck discuss Catholic theology? How far back, historically, does this sharia NL theology go?
BTW, it sounds like a very interesting book. Does it have a political slant (ie, is it put out by WND publishing or something? It sounds like I'd enjoy it, but not if it's a political barn-burner)
Posted by: jpe at April 26, 2006 10:15 AM
Her book is published by Yale University Press--that may have connotations to you that I'm missing, but she seems pretty fair minded. She has not addressed or proposed any military or political actions here in the West. So far she has addressed the lineage and evolution of jihadi theology, especially the where they differ from both the Western tradition of liberal democracy and also traditional Islam. She has not addressed Christianity in any kind of depth.
More later.
Posted by: Jeff at April 26, 2006 11:54 AM
From looking ahead I can see that her last chapter deals with "Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror"; from a quick scan it appears that she hews close to her main thread of examining the jihadists in the context of long-established Islamic teaching. It does not appear that she is interested in hashing out the partisan battles of the US political scene.
It also looks like she has placed outside her scope any discussion of concepts of natural law, etc. I gather that the concept is utterly foreign to the jihadists anyway: the Koran and hadith is the law, period. Habeck:
[If it is true that, as the Qur'an states, only God is deserving of worship then] humanity needs to recognize Him as sole master and ruler, argued Mawdudi, and to see themselves as the slaves of God bound by their very nature to obey Him.
I think it's fair to say that reason is not in their approved-ideas list. Habeck, further on:
[The founding theorists of jihadist belief] mention other issues (especially imperialism, nationalism, and socialism) but from a purely religious viewpoint, and they draw conclusions about how Muslims should respond to them from the Qur'an, hadith, and the life of Muhammad.
The three primary jihadist thinkers (al-Banna, Mawdudi, and Qutb) were all born at early in the 20th century, but others like Wahab lived in the 18th century and Taymiyya lived in the 14th.
Needless to say, the origins of these guys originated long before there was an Israel; of course the earlier guys predated even the United States. Kind of reminds me of how the German industrialists had rearmament plans up and running in the 20's, when Hitler was still in Landsberg.
Interesting stuff, indeed. She makes the point early on that we do them, and ourselves, a disservice by not taking them seriously. I think this echoes Churchill's futile warnings about Hitler in the 1930's--he'd read Mein Kampf and took Hitler at his word.
Posted by: Jeff at April 26, 2006 11:39 PM
Thanks, Jeff.
Posted by: jpe at April 28, 2006 03:43 PM
