Reuters gives this story the headline, "Pakistanis want Islamic democracy, distrust US -poll," and the story itself speaks of Islamic democracy, which for most Americans would be as meaningless a phrase as Methodist democracy or coconut democracy. Few realize that the Sharia institutionalizes discrimination against women and non-Muslims, such that an "Islamic democracy" would involve enough head-counting to satisfy the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world, but would hardly bode well for anyone who was not male and/or not Muslim.
"Pakistanis want Islamic democracy, distrust US -poll," by David Morgan for Reuters (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
WASHINGTON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - Most Pakistanis want their country to be a democratic Islamic state but are deeply distrustful of the United States and its war on terrorism, according to a poll released on Sunday.Funded by the U.S. Institute of Peace, or USIP, the poll was taken in the nuclear-armed nation before President Pervez Musharraf's six-week state of emergency and the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last month.
The results, released about six weeks before elections scheduled for Feb. 18, show that a large majority of Pakistanis see democracy as fully compatible with Islam, the pollsters said. Democracy ranked especially high among the 60 percent of respondents who wanted Muslim-based Sharia law to play a larger role in legal affairs.
"It shows there is no major Western-oriented secular sub-group in Pakistan. People want more Islam. They don't think Pakistan is pious enough or that Islamic values are adequately expressed in daily life," said Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, a non-profit group affiliated with the University of Maryland that conducted the poll for USIP.
[...]
Kull said a large moderate middle-bloc of voters could be seen in the 64 percent of Pakistanis who said they support government reform of religious schools known as madrassas, which have been blamed for spreading Islamist militancy.
The poll showed that 59 percent of the public want to hold the line against the encroachment of conservative Muslim mores known as "Talibanization," he said.
SUPPORT FOR BIN LADEN
But the results also indicated support for Islamist militant groups including al Qaeda among substantial minorities of Pakistanis, and illustrated the huge challenge facing the Bush administration as it pursues relations with its key ally in its war on terrorism.
Over two-thirds of Pakistanis said they do not trust the United States to act responsibly in the world, while 70 percent believe definitely that it is a U.S. goal to weaken and divide the Islam [sic].
About half disapproved of Pakistan's relations with the United States and said Washington was in control of most or nearly all major events inside their country.
At least 60 percent of respondents agreed that al Qaeda and Taliban activities pose a threat to their country's vital interests over the next 10 years. But more than 80 percent said the same of the U.S. military presence in Asia, including Afghanistan.
Thirty-one percent expressed a positive view of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, while another 19 percent had mixed feelings about him. Nearly 40 percent opposed capturing bin Laden if he were discovered inside Pakistan.
Fewer than one in four said Pakistan should use military force in the remote Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a region analysts describe as a refuge for the Taliban and al Qaeda and a hub for militant attacks in Afghanistan.
Forty-six percent of respondents instead favored negotiating with the Taliban, while 12 percent said Pakistani forces should be withdrawn from the region.
More than three-quarters said foreign troops should not be allowed to pursue al Qaeda or Taliban fighters inside Pakistan.
Thirty percent of Pakistanis approved of Taliban attacks on NATO troops in Afghanistan while another 18 percent had mixed feelings. Fifteen percent disapproved.
Nine percent said the current Afghan government had the best approach to governing Afghanistan, while 34 percent preferred the former Taliban regime.
Islamic democracy? Is that like democratic totalitarianism?
Talk about an oxymoron.
So, why in blazes are we giving them so much of our money??? huh?? Someone PLEASE 'splain it to me.
Polls like this push me into the Ron Paul camp of isolationism. I wouldn't consider it a "retreat" kind of withdrawal, but more of a "screw you!" isolationism. Close our embassies, too. Enough of this crap. George Washington warned us about this.
Robert, what's your take. Would you say Musharaff is our best and only bet? But the size of his security indicates that the contract is out and the country is a bullet away from a full blown theocracy. When that happens, we have effectively the Taliban with a mature nuclear arsenal.
I hope if Musharaff predicts his demise, like Bhutto did, he hands over or destroys the keys to defang the arsenal just before he goes under.
Robert, let me digress. I see a co-relation between radical Islamic resurgence worldwide and a weak Israeli government. A hardy no-nonsense Israel has always been an excellent deterrent.
Well the percentages speak for themselves, don't they. I don't need a Reuters spin on 'Democratic Islam' or 'Islamic Democracy'. It is either Islamic or Democratic as I understand it. The USA can keep harping on either Musharraf or the nukes mantra but it will find out there was never such a choice at all. As somebody said in the mail trail on a different topic, Sharia is the key for unravelling Islam. Keep pounding on what Sharia means both theologically and in practice all over the world and insist on its rollback and see the effect of that on Islam.
RT
Why should Pakistan secularize, when the US President is subsidizing their Islamofascism? The country had ZERO foreign currency reserves on September 11, 2001, and faced Waziri, Balochi, Sindhi, and Pashto revolt against the Punjabi master race. Now, the tribal areas is polluted with cell phones, as Bush Crime Family aid filters to the jihadis. Moreso, Pakistan now has in its perverse hands the most sophisticated security technology in existence, and technologists like AQ Khan are in position to modify it for use against its mortal enemy: The United States of America. And yet another faith-based jerkoff is poised to take the US presidency for the surrenderist class, while GWB awaits his Saudi financed library and oil-patch tithing.
Read the mind-pablum that fuels Muslim primitives:
Bizarre Hadith from 13th Century compiler, Ibn-Majah. His material is the 6th most "holy"
collection in the Muslim arsenal of deceit, even though Sunnis believe it is "Sunan" which
means less that confirmed ("sahih"). If I recall correctly, one of the Dawud Hadith says
that Satan enters one's nose during sleep and causes sinus congestion. Muslims are
forbidden from praying at night, in case they sleep during prayer; that enables Satanic
possession. Faith is BS.
Blowing your nose and menstruating are acts of Satan. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.969 p.87.
Sniffing water up your mouth and nose drives the sins out of the mouth and nose. Ibn-i-Majah vol.1 no.282 p.163
When ritually washing the hands and face, the sins fall from them to the ground. Ibn-i-Majah vol.1 no.283 p.163
Mohammed prayed to be purified of his sins. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.805 p.2-3
Mohammed asked God to forgive him. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.847 p.48
Mohammed asked forgiveness until his feet were swollen. A voice said his sins were forgiven. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.1419-1420 p.350-351
Ablution [washing] is half of the faith. Ibn-i-Majah vol.1 chapter 5 p.151
Mohammed was frightened during an eclipse. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.1262 p.252
Paradise: Above the seventh heaven is a river and eight angels who look like mountain goats. Ibn-i-Majah vol.1 no.193 p.109
Shooting stars are to hit [bad] angels before they spread what they heard. Sometimes they tell soothsayers before they are hit though. Ibn-i-Majah vol.1 no.194 p.110
When you recite the Qur’an you should weep. If you cannot weep, then pretend [fake] weeping. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.1337 p.294
A black dog or menstruating woman passing in front of a praying person makes the prayer void. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.949-953 p.78-80
Muslims should stand with their rows straight, or their hearts will be variant. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.976 p.91
A Muslim abandoning prayer is committing infidelity and polytheism. Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.1078-1080 p.144-145
A Muslim needs to pray an odd number of prayers Ibn-i-Majah vol.2 no.1169-1170 p.194-195
Hopefully this "tiny minority of extremists" will not distract the Democrats from focusing on healthcare, middle class tax breaks, global warming, or affordable college tuition.
"Funded by the U.S. Institute of Peace.."
In the past, having "Peace" in a title was dead give-away for a communist front group. I wouldn't be surprised if it's code for Islamist front group, these days.
This is right up there with the MSM interview with Mushyraf where he accuses Bhutto of suicide by terrorist.
Can we manipulate the elections any more? Come on guys we are simply not doing enough.
I didn't watch the debates over the weekend but did the ordeal of Taslima Nasreen come up?
Is not the plight of Taslima Nasreen* the root of the evil that brought us 9/11? I would love to know how the presidential contenders address this terrible truth. But will anyone even ask them about Taslima Nasreen? Ditto the Muslims that live in America. Can you find one Muslim cleric who has come to Taslima Nasreen defense? Do our elected officials even have the courage to ask Muslims in America if they will come to Taslima Nasreen defense?
I believe that when the Muslim population in America reaches a critical mass they will attempt to impose Sharia on us. There can be no Freedom were Islam is supreme. There can be no security were good Muslims strive to make Islam supreme. If we cannot rid our land of all Muslims how about a leader who will kick out Muslim aliens and close the boarders to our enemies? After Pearl Harbor our leaders did not permit Japs to enter our country.
I believe that nukes in the hands of good Muslims are a mortal threat to are security. I believe we must do what ever is necessary to deal with this threat, whatever the price. Hoping for democracy in the realm of Islam will not save an American city from good Muslims armed with nukes. Who will lead the nation to do what must be done to keep nukes out of the hands of good Muslims? Four years after Pearl Harbor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were radioactive rubble. Please remember there was never a dog’s chance in hell of the Japs nuking us. Six years after 9/11 good Muslims will nuke us because they will have nukes.
Bring on a leader with the compassion of a Truman and let slip the dogs of war. I will follow such a leader to the gates of Hell, for surly Hell’s fires are lapping our shores.
What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?
*http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019459.php
"Most Pakistanis want their country to be a democratic Islamic state but are deeply distrustful of the United States and its war on terrorism,...."
....that is because they know, if the truth ever comes out...that they are the terrorists or terrorist sympathizers...and that they simply do not want to disable the terrorist networks, rather, they prefer to support the terrorist networks....
...ANd Muslims hate the truth, especially if the Infidels know it....
....one day they will discover Allah hates Muslims...he gives them poverty, dispair, hate, and death....
"Few realize that the Sharia institutionalizes discrimination against women and non-Muslims, such that an "Islamic democracy" would involve enough head-counting to satisfy the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world, but would hardly bode well for anyone who was not male and/or not Muslim".-Robert
Absolutely. There are maybe 15-20 "democracy" in the world and "democracy" is about more than head-counting. The concept of a democratic society, in each country, depends upon the powerful commitment of the majority to protect the expression of minority opinion-ideas. Without that, the concept of public opinion and "democracy" is a farce.
Free speech is about the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions, it does not involve incitement to violence, or even many behaviors or expressions that are not about ideas-opinions. (When that is the case, the courts have to determine if the "speech" is really an idea-opinion.) But merely being "offensive" is not evidence that the ideas-opinions being expressed are not profoundly truthful. Often such ideas-opinions (look at W.L. Garrisons' anti-slavery magazine) are offensive to majorities at first, but if they are truthful, and if the majority protects such speech, the truth has a good chance of finally prevailing and even being accepted by the majority.
Islam simply does not protect minority opinion-ideas that are critical of Sharia law. Islam is incompatible with "democracy". We have to accept reality on this.
The concept of "democracy" is a new idea in history-and it is under attack-even in the 15 or so countries where it has taken root. The majority must protect minority ideas-opinions. That will not happen in Islam. That's reality.
The manure pile gets higher and higher.
American democracy is geared for the rich and their oligarchy who manipulate the news and everything else.
The worker bees are poisoned from the air and the ground as well as from big Pharma a close bed mate of every good succesful U.S. politician.
I'm sure Roabert is an itch to their agenda ,but sadly the masses are putyy in the hands of these malovelent manupilating CFRites.
The lies from our politician's that Pakistan is our ally on the war on some kind of terror has been spoon fed to us for so long we swallow it.
Osama,Taliban and AlQueda are having a resnnisance in Pakistan and we have been told by Pakistan we will not be permitted to go in.
2008 is late to go in.
With corrupt idiots on the left and the right running this country to ruin better start learning to say yer prayers again cuas what lies beneath ain't pretty.
"Funded by the U.S. Institute of Peace.."
In the past, having "Peace" in a title was dead give-away for a communist front group. I wouldn't be surprised if it's code for Islamist front group, these days.
Posted by: Brett_McS [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 7, 2008 6:14 AM
Brett there is a group watch site available that will give you the lowdown on any of these groups.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
rocketman-
Your ideas and opinions noted, but not necessarily accepted.
We should wage war on Pakistan. Conquer the native Pakistanis and put them on reservations. Colonize the newly conquered lands and expand Western Civilization.
That's how we used to solve these kinds of "problems". But it looks like the Islamic Empire is the only real empire on the planet. All have fallen before Islam and few recover.
"Over two-thirds of Pakistanis said they do not trust the United States to act responsibly in the world"
Given the US government's actions over the last few decades, what would any outside observer think. The US may not have intentionally created al Qaeda, but it did encourage use of Islamic militancy against Soviet Russia in Afghanistan. The US has acted without thought and planning throughout the region. Just look at the mess in Iraq. How could anyone justify US policies?
mike trivisonno-
The imperial-isms-empires based on "religion" or ideology are really nasty plundering-exploiting-sneering at indigenous cultures-genocidal (Spain in the New World, Islam in India, Nazis in Russia, etc.). Islam is just another "religious" cover for imperialism.
The more I compare this crap with the commercial imperialism-empires (Brits, e.g.), the more I realize that the commercial imperialisms are usually (but not always) more respectful of indigenous cultures and more "democratic". The commercial imperialisms will tolerate (Dutch style) anything that does not interfere with commerce. Islam is essentiallly the engine of Arab imperialism and it is supremacist ("best people" and all that crap) in its essence. It's Pizarro style stuff. It's not about money-commerce. That's for sure.
According to John McCain last night on the Fox News debate, he "knows Musharraf. I can solve the problems in Pakistan (I paraphrase)."
Exactly how, John? We have been unsuccesful for decades trying to buy the love of our enemies. We don't have the backbone to destroy completely our enemies.
Can't just one candidate be up front about the threat we face? Of course not, because so many people in this country are so dumbdowned that any negative comment about an "other" and immediately you're labelled some ist. Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemy.
Saw a story in the paper yesterday that said that we, the US, have give $10 billion to Pakistan since 2001 and that doesn't include money for any covert activities.
What is the administration thinking!?!?
What do you expect in a country like Pakistan where 70% are ignorant, illiterate, stupid and poor because of Islam? They have no choice because they are told they 'have chosen' already.
But a word of warning: the belief that US democracy is somehow superior shows that there is little substance to it, when you see your people follow a chimera like Oprah:
What you have here is the worst of schlock-TV: Oprah, queen of crap TV, a dimwitted black social riser, plays politics by enabling a dodgy character (Obama) to run for president in a popularity contest, not on substance or merit, just on platitudes like 'Change'- an incredible folly. But you believe that your system is the 'light upon the Muslim nations...'
I beg to differ...
One problem is that "democracy" is such an abused term, such a catch-all. Its meaning is lost in a fog of misunderstanding. Contrary to what most Americans believe, we do not live in a democracy, and thank heavens for that. The U. S. and most of the modern Western states that we call "democracies" (e.g. Japan, Germany, Switzerland) are democratic constitutional republics. Others, e.g. the U.K, Canada, and Denmark, are democratic constitutional monarchies. Democracy is only one part of the mix, and not the most important part. Our liberties and freedoms come from the constitutional part, which confines democracy within certain limits. The U.S. was the freest country on earth in the 1790's, despite slavery and the lack of female suffrage and denominational and property qualifications for voting in most states. Why? Because government was limited to a narrow sphere of activity; and because human rights were protected by law and the constitution: not just the rights to free speech and a free press, and the right to bear arms; but also the right to freely enter into enforceable contracts, and to own property.
An Islamic democracy would be an anti-constitutional one, where the Sharia replaces a constitution, and where the government is unlimited instead of limited. And there would be no civil rights for anyone.
"70 percent [of Pakistanis] believe definitely that it is a U.S. goal to weaken and divide the Islam."
--from the article above
It isn't, but it should be.
And since the majority of the world's Muslims, even at a time when the American government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep Iraq together, and to lessen, not widen the fissures between Sunnis and Shi'a, Arabs and Kurds, surely this goal should be pursued, without worrying about "how Muslims will view this." They already think we do this, when we don't. Their reaction cannot be worse than it already is. And besides, dividing and demoralizing (and possibly even diminishing, by causing non-Arab Muslims to leave Islam, now properly perceived as a vehicle of Arab imperialism) is exactly what the Infidel world, possibly led by the American government, should be doing.
Can anyone point out where the US Constitution grants the government the right to provide 'foreign aid', to any country? Foreign aid is the giving away without permission or compensation to the people, money and values that were created by the people, and owned by the people. We certainly did not vote for jizya payments. Bush has no problem giving huge chunks of our money to his friends in the MI, or those he is trying to impress. I don't doubt that there will be several bags of cash in the trunk of the Bushmobile for delivery to Abbas, (Abu Mazen)
the terrorist. Thats providing that Bush in all his macho bravado, does not get blown up. It only takes one well aimed or lucky missile hit from miles away to do it. Maybe Hamas will impeach Bush, so that the left does not have to do it...
VEGETARIAN DEMOCRACY .. NOW!!!!!
I daresay that Pakistanis have been so stripped of their identities by hardcore Islamic indoctrination that none of these people has the slightest idea of what it is they 'want.' Not that it would help them if they DID know what they wanted since they will never get it due to the fact that they inhabit a "fundamentalist" Islamic society that utterly denies their individuality and will continue to do so right up to the last breathe they take in their natural lives on this earth.
Pakistanis might just as well 'want' Islam, as Islam is the ONLY thing they will ever get in this life (except screwed on a daily basis by their so-called "religion").
Democracy loses all meaning and relevance in such an abject existence as that led by Pakistanis under Islam (but mostly these people will never realize that as they know virtually nothing else).
There is no Pakistani identity other than islam.
It has cost a lot of money to bring the great God JDAM to Afcrapistan.
As for that wonderful political slogan bandied about by some of our current contenders of high public office. One should take into account the real meaning of "change". That, what is given in return for Dollars.
A true Conservative would have been pointing that out by now.
Hey Mr. Spencer,
Which came first in America? Freedom from dictatorship or gender equality?
Just asking!
Bingo,
BINGO!! Ron Paul is drawing me in as well. I wouldn't call his policy isolationist. He wouldn't cut off all contacts with the world. We wouldn't become Albania. It's more a policy of disengagement. It's giving the world what they want.
You'd think we've learned to be careful what we wish for but too many people see the US as the greatest threat to world peace. So let's give them what they want. Our military withdraws from everywhere, including Europe and Korea. They go back to their original purpose: defending America.
After Constantinople was sacked in 1254, the Byzantines expressed a preference for the "Arab turban" over the "Latin miter". They got their wish, to their everlasting detriment.
Iranians expressed a preference for Khomeini over the shah. Ditto.
Time to re-read V S Naipaul - Among the Believers, and Beyond Belief.
In Among the Believers, discussing Pakistan, he makes this devastating remark, at the end of a chapter entitled, "The Disorder of the Law": the Pakistanis had taken the rule of law that they had inherited from the British, and replaced it with Nothing.
At the core of Islam lies an empty void - for it lacks the Golden Rule, it lacks Agreement and Reciprocity, replacing them with Suspicion and Aggression, and the absolute rejection of the Other.
All the myriad rules of sharia, however violently and obsessively enforced, cannot make up for that central void, into which the world of Islam is perpetually drawn.
Robert, let me digress. I see a co-relation between radical Islamic resurgence worldwide and a weak Israeli government. A hardy no-nonsense Israel has always been an excellent deterrent.
Posted by: Tom Peters
You've got to go back almost 30 years - when a weak and dithering President allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to walk all over him. From that day onwards, the Islamic world has perceived us as weak - something they hadn't done for the previous three or four centuries beforehand. And the 'religion of peace' mantra coming in the wake of 911 has only served to reinforce their view that we are weak and pathetic. Seven years after 911, the penny still hasn't dropped, because we have allowed ourselves to be duped by all manner of politically correct eejits. This is what has started and propagated the Islamic resurgence, and until we get leaders with brains and backbone, stop the stupid political correctness, stop giving aid to Muslim countries, describe Islam as it is, and deal effectively with groups like CAIR, we will end up being submerged under Sharia with all its horrors.
"Which came first in America? Freedom from dictatorship or gender equality?
Just asking!
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael "
...what is the name of the dictator you are referring to?....
"People want more Islam."
...not all of them....
We in the West should have no qualms about invading and conquering Iran. We will destroy the Islam that is present and free the oppressed individuals who have been suffering under Muslim rule for over 1,000 years.
Persia has suffered greatly under the yoke of Muslims and their culture of Islam. Why would we feel bad about reclaiming the lands invaded and bloodied by the enemy?
Persia: 1,000 years of Islamic Rule and Still a Craphole.