No, Moslems Can't Have Democracy

CONTRARY TO THE OPINION OF THE NAIVE, DEMOCRACY IS NOT A PANACEA that can fix the ills of every society. In Islamic societies in particular, it cannot work in the long run—or even quite frequently in the short run. The Moslem definitions of freedom, justice and good government are all at profound variance with what we in the West think those terms signify. Marisol Seibold at Jihad Watch expounds this very well:

Projecting a Western understanding of concepts like liberty, justice, and good government onto such terms as they are employed by those in favor of Sharia law (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood) only sets up the naïve for profound disappointments and awful surprises.

As Einstein said, the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." And joyfully welcoming another regime that pledges fidelity (and therefore ties its legitimacy) to Islamic law certainly fits that definition. 

Here are what, in practice, some common concepts mean to Moslems:

Freedom means that a Moslem has the ability to live—anywhere in the world—in total accordance with Islamic teachings, notwithstanding any adverse impact on others or the Moslem in question being vastly outnumbered. One example that comes to mind among countless others is the habit Moslems in Paris have acquired of closing off public streets on their own initiative in order to facilitate a larger gathering at a mosque, where, incidentally, the imam more likely than not be preaches against the very country and people hosting the Moslems in question. The fact that local residents are inconvenienced or that businesses lose custom is of no consideration whatsoever. In the same spirit are Moslem campaigns to ban pork, alcohol, etc. wherever they live, even if, again, they are just a small percentage of the population.

The concept of justice in the Islamic mind is just as intimately tied to their fabricated religion. To Moslems, justice means reward for those who follow Islam and punishment for those who do not. Thus, it is eminently just for Moslems to take what belongs to “infidels”, but it is horrifically unfair when the reverse occurs, even when what is being taken from the Moslems is just being returned to its rightful owners, if those rightful owners happen to “infidels”. That is why Moslems consider the Holy Crusades so heinous. Surely, the Holy Land had been Christian for centuries before the Mohameddan invasion, but when Christians tired of the outrages constantly perpetrated on pilgrims and fought to liberate Jerusalem, that counted for the Moslems as history’s darkest chapter. Similarly, the Moslem conquest of Spain in 711 is seen as a natural and righteous development, while the Reconquista that threw them out was an evil aggression. In the same vein, it is fitting and proper for a church to be transformed into a mosque, but it must never be restored to being a church.

And what do Moslems consider to be good government? Simply rule of the Moslems, by the Moslems, for the Moslems, and which promotes the Moslem definition of freedom and enforces the Moslem definition of justice.

In view of these realities, it is obvious why true democracy cannot take hold in a Moslem society. Only authoritarian rule—provided with strong incentives by the civilized world—can keep the Islamist wolf at bay, and that only for a while. In all other instances, the more political freedom is gained by the Moslem populace the more quickly and vehemently they will turn to radicalism. The examples are simply too numerous and consistent to argue otherwise: Iran, Algeria, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and soon, Egypt. It is time for the West to abandon appeasement and wishful thinking to face this stark reality: we must once and for all destroy Islam or it shall destroy us. 

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.