Amir Taheri discusses a new book published by al Qaeda and released in the Arab world that calls "American democracy" the greatest threat to Islam:
- The author of "The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad" is Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama bin Laden's closest associates since the early '90s. A Saudi citizen also known by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad, he was killed in a gun battle with security forces in Riyadh last June.
The book is published by The Centre for Islamic Research and Studies, a company set up by bin Laden in 1995 with branches in New York and London (now closed). Over the past eight years, it has published more than 40 books by al Qaeda "thinkers and researchers" including militants such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's No. 2.
....Al-Ayyeri argues that the history of mankind is the story of "perpetual war between belief and unbelief." Over the millennia, both have appeared in different guises. As far as belief is concerned, the absolutely final version is represented by Islam, which "annuls all other religions and creeds." Thus, Muslims can have only one goal: converting all humanity to Islam and "effacing the final traces of all other religions, creeds and ideologies."
Unbelief (kufr) has come in numerous forms and shapes, but with a single objective: to destroy faith in God. In the West, unbelief has succeeded in making a majority of people forget God and worship the world. Islam, however, is resisting the trend because Allah means to give it final victory. [NY Post]
Article comments
1 - mike
Can't you do a little better than this? This guy is part of the Bendora Associates group, whose clients include neocon Michael Ledeen, an admirer of Italian fascism, and whose President, Eleana Bendora, is herself a strong admirer of Continental neo-fascist philosophers. Many Bendora clients are profiteers eager to exploit Iraq for political gain.
Offering up this guy as a proponent of democracy is like offering up Osama bin laden as a proponent of religious toleration. Not to be taken seriously.
Try again.
2 - Eric Olsen
Mike, you are the one who is slipping. It isn't the messenger, it's the message. The point is the book he's discussing, not his interpretation of it, which there is very little of anyway. Even if every word of your comment is true - and I have no idea if it is or isn't - that has zero bearing on the matter at hand: al Qaeda's view of Islam is antithetical to democracy, modernization, rule of secular law, even economic progress. That's the point. I thought you were in favor of democracy.
3 - mike
No, the point is that people who throw words like democracy and freedom around had better be prepared to walk their talk. Most neocons say they love freedom and democracy but when you look closely at their writings and political connections, a more sinister picture emerges. So I'm not part of their war on terrorism. I don't want them or you speaking for me on behalf of the "West" and "civilization" and I don't want to pay for your garrison state. Period.
4 - Eric Olsen
It seems to me the point of fostering democracy and freedom is to transcend the necessity of living in a "garrison state" in perpetuity, which you have made it clear you don't want to pay for. I don't either, hence my stance.
5 - John Campea
The problem as I see it Eric is that the current US regime is not acting on behalf of freedom, it's acting on behalf of the US. This doesn't bother me execpt when acting means imposing rule on other people groups who may not want you there.
I'm a Canadian, and I endorsed the US mission in Afganistan (which we Canadians participated in)for various legitimate reasons.
Freedom means letting the people decide for themselves. If those in Islamic countries want a Theocracy, then freedom dictates that we allow them to have it. Period. To dictate to them what thier ideologies and governmental systems must be is in contradiction to the tenants of freedom.
No ideology "must be smashed". TO smash an ideology is in condradiction to freedom. Ideologies must be engaged and shown false. Then it naturally withers and dies. To be honest, we in the west have never given those in Islamic countries much of a reason to reject the wacko extreme views of Islamic Fundamentalists.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know its not going in with our guns and telling them how to live. This kind of action only makes the wackos look like they were right all along in the eyes of musliims.
6 - Eric Olsen
Actually, no - though you are quite sensible for a Canadian, John (kidding, sort of). Freedom would dictate a removal the forced theocracies that now blight the region (though Iraq was a totalitarian-socialist government), allowing the establishment of the freedom that only a secular democratic government and rule of law can bring.
And yes, the ideology that "Muslims can have only one goal: converting all humanity to Islam and 'effacing the final traces of all other religions, creeds and ideologies,'" must be smashed because it affords no compromise - it is kill or be killed, and I would rather it be them.
7 - BJ
Eric,
A couple of questions, the first two serious.
BJ
1. And yes, the ideology that "Muslims can have only one goal: converting all humanity to Islam and 'effacing the final traces of all other religions, creeds and ideologies,'" must be smashed because it affords no compromise - it is kill or be killed, and I would rather it be them.
We can kill an individual with this message, but is it really possible to kill the message via those means?
2. I don't understand how you force a people to live under a secular democracy. What if they vote to be governed by a constitution that mandates Islamic law?
3. Plenty of other religions have followers that believe their duty is to convert the rest of the world to their religion. Must we invade Bob Jones University?
8 - Eric Olsen
BJ, the belief is smashed when it becomes clear Allah is not protecting al Qaeda and sympathizers who espouse this hateful message as the US and allies roll over Afghanistan, Iraq (not a theocracy but Saddam invoked Allah for protection at the end - didn't work).
Freedom of religion, an absolutely core tenet of any civil society, cannot be protected in a theocracy - freedom is more important than pure democracy at this point. Freedom of religion can only be protected where church and state are separated, that freedom must be protected, ergo, theocracy is unacceptable.
Believing that your religion is the "right" one and evangelizing is one thing, declaring all nonbelievers subhuman and deserving of only death is another. Fundamentalists of any stripe are dangerous.
9 - John Campea
The basic question still exists, what do you do if the people of an Islamic nation WANT a theocracy? You're right that SOME of them don't want it, but SOME of them do. What if they choose to have a faith based government? How does your position address this situation?
Would we say, "no, you can only have OUR system of government?" Do we have that "right"?
10 - JR
“Fundamentalists of any stripe are dangerous.”
Oh, I don’t know. I don’t feel too threatened by the Amish. But they do seem to make a point of minding their own business.
11 - JR
"(T)he belief is smashed when it becomes clear Allah is not protecting al Qaeda and sympathizers who espouse this hateful message as the US and allies roll over Afghanistan, Iraq"
I don't think history bears this out; religious faith seems to benefit more than suffer from adversity. After all, God failed to protect Judge Moore's Monument; have any Christians lost faith because of that? Indeed, this country seemed to become MORE religious after 9/11. The idea that God protects the more faithful society isn't based on actual historical facts, so more facts probably won't threaten that misconception. I expect that the more we roll over Afghanistan and Iraq, the more the fanatics will find significance in whatever minor reversals we suffer.
Having said that; Eric, I agree with you 100% on separation of church and state. But we may not be able to sell a fully secular government in the Middle East (do even the Israelis have one?) So how do we get a secular government by way of election in Iraq?
Maybe we should look at the example of Turkey. They are a Muslim nation that has managed to "modernize" to the extent that they are on the verge of joining the EU. From what I understand, Turkey is a democracy, but the military steps in if the elected government tries implement religious rule.
Since we effectively are the military in Iraq, we could do the same thing there. We let them elect whomever they want; but as soon as any government tries to enact certain religious-based laws, we step in. If Iraqis want to elect a bunch of fanatics they can; but as soon as those elected officials actually try to act on their beliefs, we pull the plug. We should draw up something like a Bill of Rights stating what freedoms cannot be infringed upon (we could prohibit things like forcing women to wear veils or any sort of religious discrimination, as well as the usual freedoms of speech and assembly, etc.) This is important because it would be best to have a set of rules to point to so that any elected government knows ahead of time what's going to get them in trouble and so the people know we're not just playing political favorites.
For the longer term, of course, our guys should be recruiting and training Iraqis to take over the military role. We would have to do a pretty careful job getting recruits to buy into the system by giving them a secure place in the middle class. They should be paid well enough to own nice homes but not so well as to have undue influence outside their role as civil servants. We might even train some of them here in the States so they have a chance to see the benefits of our system.
Don't know if it would work, but I haven't seen any better ideas coming out of our government.
12 - Eric Olsen
JR, I don't have much to disagree with in your thoughtful analysis, though when the mullahs, terrorists and other spokespersons for Allah, claim He (Allah) is going to save them from American military might here and now, and then they roll over like the insipid Iraqi "army," this is a direct confrontation to the justification for theocratic rule. Allah will NOT protect your ass - this makes the strictures of sharia a bit less appealing.
May people choose theocratic rule democratically? In the long run, no they can't - it is antithetical to personal freedom, especially freedom of religion, as I mentioned. Given time, education, economic development, and exposure to a BETTER WAY, people will choose separation of church and state. In the meantime they must be "guided," perhaps in the way JR suggested.