"Democracy and Islam are contradictory terms."

As noted here, the commands of the Qur'an make it impossible for anyone but Muslims to enjoy the full rights of citizenship under Islam.

Jihad Watch has a link to an article that makes several of the most important points regarding the (largely unrecognized) threat of Qur'anic Islam: Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy.

Here's number five:

"5. Islam and Democracy are compatible.
Democracy and Islam are contradictory terms. The goal of Islam is Sharia law, the implementation of the Quran as the law of the land. What you see in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan is the Moslem global vision. The idea we express in a democracy, 'I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it' is not understood in Islam. There is no right to dissent. There are 16 Moslem nations in the Middle East; not one of them is Democracy."

Apology of Islam and its Theology of Power

"Apology" as in defense, not contrition.

Some excerpts from an article by a UCLA professor at Austin Bay Blog caught my attention. Here is my response:

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course, not.

As long as one person believes the Qur'an is the word of Allah (and therefore must be obeyed), there will be someone who believes it is his duty to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Regardless of the various tangents taken by Muslim schools of thought throughout its history, Qur'anic Islam requires war against unbelievers, "until all religion is for Allah."

Obedience to the Qur'an will eventually result in its adherents doing that which its god commands: converting, subjugating, or killing non-Muslims. (Indeed, it is a blessing that more Muslims don't actually do what its scriptures teach and what its founder practiced.)

That Khaled Abou el Fadl has to argue that various movements have rejected, strayed from, or re-interpreted "extremist" Islam is quite revealing in itself.

His comments never repudiate the fact that according to the Qur'an, violence for Allah against unbelievers who reject his message is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim.

In stating, "Muslim jurists reacted sharply to these [terrorist] groups, considering them enemies of humankind....Regardless of the desired goals or ideological justifications, the terrorizing of the defenseless was recognized as a moral wrong and an offense against society and God...," el Fadl appears to be implying that what we see from modern Islamists is against traditional, Qur'anic Islam.

While it may be true that some jurists reject terrorism as a tactic, it does not deny that Allah commands his people to subdue or kill the unbeliever who will not convert.

el Fadl appears to try to discredit militant Islam by using such loaded language (no pun intended) as: "...puritanical zeal...Wahhabism resisted the indeterminacy of the modern age by escaping...to a strict literalism...Wahhabism exhibited extreme hostility to intellectualism, mysticism and any sectarian divisions...any form of moral thought...as a form of self-idolatry, and treated humanistic fields of knowledge, especially philosophy, as 'the sciences of the devil.'"

Whether Wahhabism does any of these things is irrelevant; what matters is whether or not the violence done in the name of Allah is justified by the Qur'an or is in violation of it. If it is against the Qur'an, then there is hope that Islam can be reformed.

The disturbing fact is that such murderous behavior is not only justified, it is commanded.

el Fadl continues: "According to the Wahhabi creed, it was imperative to return to a presumed pristine, simple and straightforward Islam, which could be entirely reclaimed by literal implementation of the commands of the Prophet....Wahhabism rejected any attempt to interpret the divine law from a historical, contextual perspective...."

If any of the multitude of Qur'anic verses commanding violence against non-Muslims is not enough evidence that those verses should be taken literally, look at the "prophet" himself. Did his life give the impression that he was predisposed to hyperbole, or did he mean what he said? Obviously, Mohammed obeyed Allah's revelations.

In writing of the rise of Saudi Arabia, el Fadl writes, "The Wahhabi rebellions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were very bloody because the Wahhabis indiscriminately slaughtered and terrorized Muslims and non-Muslims alike." This is the manner in which Mohammed unified Arabia under Islam 1300 years ago.

Finally, we read, "In this sense, it is accurate to describe this widespread modern trend as supremacist, for it sees the world from the perspective of stations of merit and extreme polarization."

It is not a modern trend. This is how the Qur'an has taught its readers to see the world for the last thirteen centuries.

The problem with Islam is not defeatism, anti-intellectualism, or a misapplied literalism. The problem with Islam, if you are an unbeliever, is the Qur'an.

Defining terms

I have taken to using a term I've not seen anywhere else, and that is Qur'anic Islam.

By this I am referring to the practice of Islam as commanded in the Qur'an and expressed throughout Islam's history, beginning with its founder.

This is the Islam that commands non-Muslims be converted, subjugated, or killed.

This is the Islam that justifies the slaughtering of innocents.

Incompatible with Democracy? Yes, and there's a reason for it

Consistently brilliant, Victor Davis Hanson writes about why Democracy could work in the Middle East, and why we should support it.

There are two points at which Mr. Hanson seems to be missing the mark. The first is here:

"In the case of the Muslim world, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Islam and democracy. Witness millions in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey who vote. Such liberal venting may well explain why those who blow up Americans are rarely Indian or Turkish Muslims, but more likely Saudis or Egyptians. The trick is now to show that Arab Muslims can establish democracy, and thus the Palestine and Iraq experiments are critical to the entire region."

It seems to me in those societies named there is insufficient public support for the implementation of Qur'anic Islam (though I do not doubt there are those working within them to move those societies into the "freedom" of Shariah).

The second point is here:

The Arab world so far has missed the bus of history. The success of democratic reform in parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia is a daily reminder of the decades lost in the Middle East, and how endemic Arab envy, jealousy, and excuses — which so repel or bore the world — can be ameliorated only by a new maturity and responsibility that are the wages of democratic government.

The reason the Arab world has "missed the bus of history" is because of Islam. It commands that non-Muslims be converted, subjugated, or killed.

Qur'anic Islam is inherently incompatible with Liberty.

Read it all here.

Saudis spread hate through U.S. mosques

But it's the religion of peace, and they're our friends, right?

Jihad is here, courtesy of one of our main allies in the Middle East. Read about it.

A site worth a look

Amillennialist Contra Mundum :)

Moral equivalence can kill you

This lack of judgment reminds me of a scene from the movie Independence Day:

"'With all the news from Iraq and Afghanistan and the 'war on terror,' a lot of people are really tuned into the news, and the major news sources have a Western bias,' Brandchannel Editor Robin Rusch said. 'I think people are tuning in to Al-Jazeera and looking at its Web site because it does offer another viewpoint,' Rusch said. 'For the global community, it's one of the few points of access we have to news from the region with a different perspective.'"

If you've seen the movie, you may remember when a crowd gathered atop the First Interstate building in downtown Los Angeles to greet a massive alien ship--just before the aliens opened up their big gun on them.

Al-Jazeera's perspective is different. It is different because Al-Jazeera is Al-Qaeda's media arm. If there is a "Western bias", I suppose it is because we believe that it is wrong to slaughter innocent men, women, and children.

Too many in the West are absolutely unaware of the danger already here (as I lamented in this post).

Apple edges Google as top brand.

Shouldn't 9/11 have been enough?

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course not.

As long as even one person believes their god commands them to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them... (Qur'an 9:5)," as long as one person believes the murderous Mohammed was the "perfect man" whose example should be imitated by the faithful, Jihad will not end.

Of course, the reality is much worse. Millions of people actually believe the Qur'an to be the word of their god; Mohammed taught that "war is deceit" and his followers in the West practice this; and many in the West are blinded by this Muslim duplicity and the lie of multiculturalism.

When you have the most powerful man on earth saying that the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are the same, when you have him equating the words of the Qur'an with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, when billions of American dollars are going to an enemy that believes those Americans are devils whose blood should be spilled, what hope is there that America will deal with the real cause of Islamic terrorism before it is too late?

How can one defeat an enemy it does not recognize?

People ignorant of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Islam's history will believe that Islam is another "one of the world's great religions." With jihadists in America using murder (New Jersey), the Intolerance Card, and the courts (thanks, ACLU) to try to intimidate into silence anyone who dares to tell the truth about Islam, it seems doubtful that our nation will wake up to the very real threat posed by Qur'anic Islam any time soon.

Do we need an even more devastating attack on our nation before we start telling the truth? Shouldn't 9/11 have been enough?

Is the "Greater jihad" really spiritual struggle?