| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer's column this week in Human Events takes President Bush to task for granting the possibility of an Islamic state in Iraq. Will Kerry do better on this score? Doubtful. One thing that is certain is that in 2005 the President will need to define the nature of the conflict more clearly, or the U.S. will be vulnerable in many areas unnecessarily.
What if, when they vote in January, Iraqis choose to institute an Islamic state? "I will be disappointed" if Iraq votes for an Islamic "fundamentalist" government, said President Bush this week, "but democracy is democracy."This marks a substantial retreat from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's April 2003 assertion that an "Iranian-style" state in Iraq "is not going to happen." The source of Rumsfeld's intransigence was revealed in a question he posted in October 2003: "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the clerics are recruiting, training and deploying?" He called then for a battle of ideas to combat the teaching of terrorism in Islamic schools and mosques worldwide -- a battle to be headed up by a new government information agency.
But after a rough year in Iraq, all that's left of that idea is "democracy is democracy." And of course, democracy is democracy, except when it isn't. If Iraq becomes an Islamic state, there won't be quite enough democracy to go around for women and non-Muslims. The nation itself, if the Shi'ites gain the upper hand, will democratically choose to be a client state of the Iranian mullahs. And the mosques and madrassas will continue to exercise their democratic privilege to act as poisonous wells of jihadism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism.
If President Bush was serious, his breezy "democracy is democracy" dismissal of an Islamic state in Iraq amounts to a capitulation of elephantine proportions. But it is not an abrupt about-face. The idea that Iraqis voting for an Islamic state would be an innocuous exercise of the right to vote is the perhaps inevitable consequence of the "Islam is peace" mantra that the Administration has retailed incessantly since 9/11. The State Department has steadfastly refused to consider the Islamic sources and motivations of international terrorism, not just since 9/11, but since the Ayatollah Khomeini first began to be a player in Iranian politics in the 1960s -- and before that. Given the prevailing wisdom at State and elsewhere in Washington, it is no surprise that Rumsfeld's "battle of ideas" never got off the ground. Since Bush can't acknowledge that any elements of Islam actually have anything to do with the global terrorist network, on what basis can he legitimately oppose an Islamic state in Iraq?
A true "war on terror" would never accept a Sharia state in Iraq, because it would recognize that Islamic "fundamentalism" is precisely what leads to "terror." Jihadists around the world make that abundantly clear every day. Just this week, Magdi Ahmad Hussein of Egypt's radical Muslim Labor Party declared on Al-Jazeera TV that "both the Qur'an and the Prophet's biography permit the killing of prisoners. This exists in our Islamic law and in the laws of all nations." He added: "Those who bomb Fallujah cannot prevent me from bombing Los Angeles." While Islamic clerics all over denounce the beheadings, they are doing little or nothing even to attempt to persuade people like Magdi Ahmed Hussein that their view of Islam is incorrect -- and in fact, the Magdi Ahmad Husseins of the world are operating according to broad and venerable Islamic traditions and teachings that go all the way back to the time of Muhammad, and which Muslim moderates find next to impossible to refute.
But all this is not even part of the public debate in this election season. Political correctness has taken it off the table. John Kerry promises to fight terrorism more effectively than has the President, but says nothing about the need to redefine the conflict -- and his overtures to Iranian mullahs and to European leaders who have kowtowed to dictators and Islamic radicals in the Arab League for thirty years indicate that a Kerry Administration would be a fate worse than Bush. At least the incumbent recognizes that there is a war that must be fought.
Whatever the outcome on November 2, terrorists around the world will continue to plot to murder innocent people in the United States and elsewhere. The sooner the occupant of the White House on January 20, 2005, recognizes that they are recruiting in mosques and Islamic schools and fighting to impose Islamic law upon an unwilling world, the sooner he will be able to act to cut off this threat at its source. But unless and until he does so, an Islamic state in Iraq will not be a triumph of democracy, but yet another nail in the coffin of free people in that unfortunate nation and elsewhere.
Posted by Robert at October 21, 2004 6:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
AN islamic sharia Iraq would confirm to many of Bushe's enemeies that the war in Iraq's primary purpose was to take away the threat of invasion for Saudi Arabia and had nothing to do with the "war on terror".
He would be accused of sacrificing US lives to help out his Saudi Pals, with which he has been photographed "holding hands".
It is the worst possible outcome ! and would lead to outright WW3.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 21, 2004 6:41 AM
Just because you vote it in doesn't make it a democracy any more than was the model that the Soviets created and "voted" in. George, above, has stated the obvious truth except that we've been at war for decades. The war can only escalate and spread as now the Islamists will be emboldened to believe that their tactics are working.
Posted by: epg at October 21, 2004 7:49 AM
The framers of the US Constitution were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority and in their written legacy they explicitly expressed fears about it. How is that, you say? What about this "democracy is democracy" thing? You would think that it was un-American to have such thoughts. The democratically determined exemption to the noise ordinance in Hamtramck, MI to allow the amplified blare of muezzin to cut the community's predawn peace is a good case in point. One of the best treatments on the issue is Madison's essay published as Federalist 10.
The remedies for the threats to personal liberties that democracy poses are mitigated by the principle of republicanism which is embodied in federalism and bicameralism. Above all, the legitimacy of the rule of the majority is ultimately derived from the consent of the minority to the will of the democratically elected majority. When that rule is oppressive, it ceases to enjoy that legitimacy.
The gist is that "democracy is democracy", but if that democracy tramples basic human rights (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights), it loses its legitimacy as a peer in the community of nations that does hold such rights to be inalienable and is thus deserving of treatment by the world community as a pariah state.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at October 21, 2004 11:02 AM
Jihad Watch Peaceful Islam, Surrender in Iraq, and Islamist Democracyby Robert Spencer
Posted Oct 21, 2004
What if, when they vote in January, Iraqis choose to institute an Islamic state? "I will be disappointed" if Iraq votes for an Islamic "fundamentalist" government, said President Bush this week, "but democracy is democracy."
This is some kind of Orwellian double speak Mr. Spencer.
Iraq is already an Islamic state. Don't believe me google Iraqi Interim constitution and read article 7 for yourself. It is also an Arab state, as the constitution declares by fiat that all Iraqi's are Arab.
So the selection in January will merely decide which cronies or mujtahids run the Islamic state of Iraq.
at October 21, 2004 2:07 PM
I'll save you the trouble of google.
Iraqi Interim Constitution
[(A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.(B) Iraq is a country of many nationalities, and the Arab people in Iraq are an inseparable part of the Arab nation.
Article A makes clear that Shari'a is the law of the land
Article B makes clear that Iraqi Arabs are part of the pan Arab or Arab Nationalist movement (Nasser or the Ba'aths)
at October 21, 2004 2:17 PM
A quote of yours from the article
John Kerry promises to fight terrorism more effectively than has the President, but says nothing about the need to redefine the conflict -- and his overtures to Iranian mullahs and to European leaders who have kowtowed to dictators and Islamic radicals in the Arab League for thirty years indicate that a Kerry Administration would be a fate worse than Bush. At least the incumbent recognizes that there is a war that must be fought.
It looks like despite Kerry's overtures'Bush Receives endorsement from Iran
I said it before I'll say it again:
Bush has turned secular Iraq into a fledgling Islamic Theocracy, and simultaneously made Islamic Saudi oil much more valuable as iraqi pipes go up in flames.
Muslims should be getting on their knees and blowing Dubya for all the work he's done for them.
Posted by: Giaour at October 21, 2004 2:30 PM
Fine article, RS. Our troops aren't fighting and dying to establish a theocratic dictatorship - what is that candy-ass Bush thinking?!
Posted by: Rottweiller at October 21, 2004 2:56 PM
While I would be willing to argue what is best for America or the Iraqis, I would never want to impose on their right to choose. As much as I would hate to see Iraq under the control of the Iranian Mullahs: Their choice is their choice, and short of armed rebellion by the persecuted minority, or a Federalist system that allows States or Jurisdictions to make separate choices within Iraq (like Nigeria), democracy is not served by denying an Islamic theocratic ruler.
After the elections, the choice will be clear; and we must act on that choice. Either we can help them build a Democratic nation that respects human rights and dignity, or we can wipe the dust off our boots and leave them to suffer the consequences of what we consider a poor choice.
We can give them nothing less than this. Our honor is more important than them making the right choice, and if they choose incorrectly, we should leave with our honor.
at October 21, 2004 10:02 PM
Robert,
I imagine if there is a chance that you will read the comments, the most likely would be the comments on your own articles. I do believe your insistance on identifing the enemy is crucial. As you have stated, the "War on Terror" does not sufficiently identify the enemy, and your approach is well founded; but wouldn't the next step be identifying our objectives and clarifying our purpose?
Bush's insistance on Democratic choice is crucial in maintaining the moral objectives. Perhaps he could lower the target to only the Human Rights of the oppressed which would support minority rule, but for the moment the lofty goal of Democracy and Freedom for all of the individuals is more worthy and his insistance that their will is more important to the selection than our own is critical thought that the Iraqi people have to assimilate. Now that the choice is given, somebody has to sell it.
Posted by: RevBenny at October 21, 2004 10:42 PM
spot on, robert. it's about time somebody said it the way it really is
on another note, i'm of the opinion that ramblings out of the iranian mullahs in support of bush are taqiyyah
Posted by: ted at October 22, 2004 12:37 AM
re: Hulego Khan's (H.K.) comment referencing the Madison's essay in Federalist 10 (great analogy)
as well as his statement -
"The gist is that "democracy is democracy", but if that democracy tramples basic human rights . . ."
then add Robert's final statements -
"The sooner the occupant of the White House on January 20, 2005, recognizes that they are recruiting in mosques and Islamic schools and fighting to impose Islamic law upon an unwilling world, the sooner he will be able to act to cut off this threat at its source."
It seems to be clear as day to me . . . time to refocus our troops efforts to clean house (er, mosque).
Kill the poisonous serpent by cutting off it's head (or by any method that suits the enemy's current protocol) - i.e. target the immams/clerics/mullahs/islamic scholars/ayatollah's - They've been preaching that
martyrdom is a virtue, right?
Then remove the hate inciting literature from the mosques and madrassas and burn that vile material.
Only question is . . .why would we wait until 1/20/05???
at October 22, 2004 11:55 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)