“In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. Our movement is completely against what you call democracy"

Much better to leave it to a Tiny Minority of Extremists to wield all legislative, executive, and judicial power, eh? This story appears to precede Bhutto's assassination yesterday, but is nonetheless highly relevant to yesterday's events.

"Taliban leader warns against using religion for electoral gains," by Iqbal Khattak for the Daily Times:

BANNU: A senior Taliban leader warned parties on Thursday against “using religion for electoral gains”, saying they would join parties urging boycott of January 8 polls.

“In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. Our movement is completely against what you call democracy in which a small majority can decide irrespective of the fact whether what they have done was good or bad,” the Taliban leader, asking not to be named, told Daily Times in an interview here.

He said the Taliban were “against elements who are using Islam for electoral gains”.

This un-named Taliban leader doesn't appear to take into account the fact that democracy might be used to bring about more Sharia law; after all, the success or failure of a democracy depends on the values that inform its participants-- both candidates and voters. But perhaps Sharia-by-democracy isn't fast enough, and those gains won't guarantee the abolition of the present system. And at any rate, this election won't hand the Taliban the absolute power to which they believe they are divinely entitled.

The warning comes at a time when Maulana Fazlur Rehman, contesting the National Assembly seat NA-26 in Bannu besides NA-24 (Dera Ismail Khan), is rallying for party candidates to win as many National and provincial assembly seats amidst stiff challenges from rival candidates in southern districts of the Frontier province, the JUI-F heartland.

Severe punishment: “Our members in Bannu district are strictly barred from taking part in the elections and anyone found guilty of violating the directive will be severely punished,” said the senior Taliban leader who did not wish to be identified.

He said there were around 500 Taliban members in Bannu city. “We will join forces trying to convince the people that people’s solution of problems does not rest with democracy,” he said.

Posted by Marisol at December 28, 2007 7:51 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

"“We will join forces trying to convince the people that people’s solution of problems does not rest with democracy,” he said.

...Islamic methods of convincing people include but is not limited to : intimidation, murder, rape, extortion, bombings, and fatwas....

...Islam....feel the love....Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 28, 2007 8:15 AM

“In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. Our movement is completely against what you call democracy in which a small majority can decide irrespective of the fact whether what they have done was good or bad,”

In a recent poll 76% of Pakis favored strict implementation of Sharia. (.pdf download) http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf

In past 24 hours all top republican candidates re-emphasized how important it was for Pakistan to overcome this tragedy and to continue the move towards democratic elections. Posted by: USorThem at December 28, 2007 8:55 AM

"Our movement is completely against what you call democracy in which a small majority can decide . . . ."
says Taliban leader

Last time I looked, a small majority was still larger than the largest minority. Posted by: ebonystone at December 28, 2007 9:38 AM

"He said there were around 500 Taliban members in Bannu city."

Psst...Hey, NATO forces...bomb Bannu CityPosted by: Mr Ape Pig at December 28, 2007 9:47 AM

"In past 24 hours all top republican candidates re-emphasized how important it was for Pakistan to overcome this tragedy and to continue the move towards democratic elections."

Democratic elections got Hamas elected. Its not neccessarly a good thing. Posted by: Elric66 at December 28, 2007 10:31 AM

"Taliban leader warns against using religion for electoral gains,"
.................................

See, in the US, such a headline would indicate disapproval of a candidate or supporter *using religion* for electoral gains--say, in the campaign of Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. or Jesse Jackson, or Pat Robertson, or Pat Buchannan.

In the above statement, the disapproval is not about the use of religion, but using it to gain *electoral votes*.

Exsgtbrown wrote:

...Islamic methods of convincing people include but is not limited to : intimidation, murder, rape, extortion, bombings, and fatwas....
........................

Exactly so. Any election is an appeal to people, urging them to vote for the candidate or policy that is best for society. Candidates and backers of policies must convince the electorate--through emotional appeals, promises, or, ideally, through reason--that such votes are warranted.

As Exsgtbrown points out, the only alternative to democracy is force. This is what the Jihadists want to return to--*as a principle*.

And we know exactly what it looks like. Afghanistan under the Taliban was just about as close to hell on earth as is possible.

Posted by: gravenimage at December 28, 2007 10:32 AM

It is true, democracy and shari'a are incompatible. Shari'a is a "revealed" law, a one-off deal. Once the source, e.g., Muhammad, is dead and buried, the entire collection of statutes is complete and considered immutable. Sovereignty is vested in the revealer. Under such a system there is no need of a legislative function, only interpretation ("judges", imams, Islamic "scholars", etc.) and executive (enforcement) functions.

Democratic rule on the other hand, vests sovereignty in the people who are living. They may choose to incorporate statutes which their deceased forebears enacted but the living always have the option of abrogating those statutes and enacting their own. It is the ultimate definition of self-determination for any society.

Islamic law is codified by the Islamic canon, Koran, hadiths and the biography of Muhammad. It is elaborated by over a thousand years of interpretation by Islamic "scholars". No amount of interpretation can abrogate a single syllable of the canon. So for all practical purposes, Islamic law (a.k.a. "shari'a") began to lose its relevance to the living as soon as the Prophet exhaled his last breath.

Now 13 centuries later, shari'a persists as a 7th century warrior code that has been poorly scaled up in an attempt to meet the needs of political and social conditions that could never have been envisioned by the illiterate desert brigands who conceived it. By modern standards it is atavistic and is only suited to a social order that civilized peoples in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and Australia abandoned centuries ago.

It is an ideology that is a self-evident failure in the modern world and it must be either confined to the primitive societies that desire it, with extreme force if necessary, or, like the barbaric religions of rain forest cannibals, it must be extinguished. Posted by: DrMack at December 28, 2007 10:37 AM

Norman Davies in his 1996 book, Europe, A History:

"... Democracy has few values of its own: it is as good, or bad, as the principles of the people who operate it. In the hands of liberal and tolerant people, it will produce a liberal and tolerant government; in the hands of cannibals, a government of cannibals."Posted by: Goob at December 28, 2007 10:53 AM

Why are we threatening Pak to democratize now, when polls show that if he ran, Osama Bin Laden would win? The first priority of our foreign policy should be to further our own security. We can best do that by supporting anti-jihadist elements, even if that means postponing democratic change.
Somehow, it has become axiomatic that democracy cures terrorism. It's more like a chain of events, where less Islam leads to greater tolerance and respect for human law, which leads to less violence, which leads to social cohesion, which leads to more voluntary political arrangements like democracy. Note the essential first step. Posted by: jewdog at December 28, 2007 11:24 AM

New speech for Bush, or any other would be presidential canidate ... reposting from yesterday

Bush:

"Fellow countrymen I must say now that I have been misleading you. Islam is not a peacefull faith. It is a faith designed around Arabic imperialism, and the subjugation of all non-Muslims. Yes this includes you and I. From now on all American foreign policy towards Islamic nations will be backed by knowledge of Hadith, Sura, and Quranic texts. We understand now that we are Dar 'Al Harb, which translates to the land of war. At best non-Islamic states can only live in a fragile coexistance on the same planet with Islam. Today I am asking the Supreme Court to reclassify Islam as a cult, which is bent on overthrowing our government. The scope of this conflict has been clouded by words like al Queda, moderate Islam, radical Islam, War on Terror ... The world has been at war since Islam became a political force, and will continue to be at war. From now on all U.S. foriegn policy will be based upon these facts. There will be dark days ahead of us now that I have spoken to you in plain English about this threat, but this is the first step in defeating the spread of this cancer, which threatens our very existance. Thankyou very much for your time ... you may direct your questions to my new Secratary of State Robert Spencer
Posted by: ethoman at December 28, 2007 11:40 AM

Sharia and democracy are incompatible. It's that simple. If true democracy (which must be accompanied by an enlightened legal system and a proper moral order, neither of which can be found in Islamic religious law) takes hold in any majority Muslim country, it will be in spite of, not because of, Islam. This is not the case for the other major religions of the world which pose no obstacle to democracy as Islam does. Thus Islam reveals itself to the world again as a burden, in this case respecting the institution of democracy, but there are numerous other ways it is a burden as well, as so many who post here know only too well. Posted by: Wellington at December 28, 2007 12:03 PM

Democracy and sharia are fundamentally incompatible. Muslim political leaders say it, Muslim scholars say it, illiterate Muslims say it. Non-Muslim scholars say it. The common man in non-Muslim societies say it. Our ancestors said it. So we all know it. That is, we all know it with the exception of our young children, the severely mentally handicapped and our politicians.

Sharia and democracy cannot coexist in any society. I choose democracy and am willing to fight to the death to ensure that neither my family nor I shall ever have to live under the tyranny of sharia. I am willing to fight myself and am willing to commit my children, my treasure and my energy to a nation that employs a professional armed force to utterly exterminate anyone on the planet who designs that we shall be subject to sharia by force of arms.

It's way past time for our politicians to wake up and smell the napalm. The world is at war and it is a war that the proponents of sharia have declared on us, not the other way round. Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at December 28, 2007 1:26 PM

DrMack,

Excellent summation of the competing systems of democracy and Sharia. The entire Sharia system really is hermetically sealed, whereas democracy continually experiments with new forms of law. It has not yet permeated Western consciousness that Islam contains within it a legal code. Westerners still think of religion as something protected by law, not the something that contains the law.

I fear that it is the inability of the average Westerner (an inability abetted by the continual obfuscation of Islam's natural tendencies by our self-anoited elites) to understand such simple political and philosophical distinctions, though, that leads us to be vulnerable.

It needs to be put in simple terms for the simple people: Would you rather be ruled by the terms laid out by Mohammed, who claimed they were also the rules laid out by his god, Allah, or would you rather make your own decisions based on your own conscience?

The whole argument that the Islamic tradition refers to "consulting" the people is a far cry from compatibility with democracy. As I understand it (and I'm probably right because it's not really that complicated an issue), this "consultation" with the people only occurs in rare circumstances, chosen by the caliph or the ruling class. In other words, the idea of regular elections, which is a cornerstone of democracy, is completely alien to the Muslim tradition. What good is it to have the "right" to be consulted when the ruler has no corresponding obligation to consult you?Posted by: venividivici at December 28, 2007 1:33 PM

Emphasizing democracy over freedom and individual rights was a HUGE goof on the part of our government. And one from which I fear we may not easily recover.

Consider:

If the pro-democracy parties win the public debate, they vote in a Sharia gov't and the jihaddis win.

If the anti-democracy parties win the public debate, they appoint a Sharia gov't and the jihaddis win.

Is it really possible that the people in Washington are that stupid?
Posted by: joeblough at December 28, 2007 6:12 PM

" “In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. ... (in) what you call democracy a small majority can decide irrespective of the fact whether what they have done was good or bad,” ..."

------------------------

Which is SO MUCH WORSE than having a handful of mind-controlled mullahs decide (irrespective of the facts) that what they've done is good...Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at December 28, 2007 6:22 PM

One thing not mentioned: the Quran exhorts true believers to follow the leader Allah has appointed for them as they would follow Mohammed or Allah himself. In other words, once someone is declared the new leader, the "little people" (the ignorant masses, as instructed by the ignorant mullahs) must follow his dictates. Under Sharia, power devolves from God to the leader he has appointed, so there is no concept of "government by consent of the governed"; no belief that power resides in the people. The prophet tells believers that they will get the kind of leader they deserve: if the populace is religious, obedient and faithful, they will be blessed with a beneficent leader; if their leader is cruel and corrupt it's because the people were not firm enough in their religion. So the leader is not responsible for what he does, it's all up to Allah. (How convenient.) And thus the little people can do no more than mutter "inshallah" if asked how they want their country run.

I'm soooo glad I was born in America!Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at December 28, 2007 7:40 PM

Church bells go silent in Gaza

While a Palestinian priest utters sweet dhimmi nothings -- saying, as dhimmis have always said, that the Muslims are wonderful, and the Christians identify with them -- the reality suggests otherwise. "Christmas under Hamas rule," by Katya Adler for BBC News (thanks to Mark Durie):

Earlier this year, the Islamist Hamas party took control of Gaza, home to a thriving Christian community now preparing to celebrate their first Christmas under Hamas rule.

Manawel Musallam - priest, headmaster and Gazan - is a rotund, avuncular man, fond of wearing berets.

I have come to his office to ask how Christians in Gaza were faring on this, their first Christmas under the full internal control of Hamas.

"You media people!" Father Musallam boomed at me when I first poked my head around his door.

"Hamas this, Hamas that. You think we Christians are shaking in our ghettos in Gaza? That we're going to beg you British or the Americans or the Vatican to rescue us?" he asked.

"Rescue us from what? From where? This is our home."

[...]

"You see," Fr Musallam told me, as he gazed indulgently at the goings-on on stage. "Our identity is a multi-layered one."

"Of course, I am a Christian believer, but politically I am a Palestinian Muslim. I resist Israel's military occupation, obviously not with weapons.

"The Jihad can never be mine but with my words, my sermons, I am a Palestinian priest."

[...]

"We have lived alongside Muslims here since Islam was born," said Fr Musallam, waving his arm at the stage.

"They have a special word for us, the Christians of Palestine. They call us Nasserine - the people of Nazareth. They recognise that we have always been here.

"Even the more extreme Muslims see a difference between us and other Christians they regard as enemies and call Crusaders."

There is no evidence to suggest the Hamas government here officially discriminates against Christians but its takeover in Gaza - its military wing's leading role in armed resistance against Israel, along with the Islamic Jihad faction - have all led to the increasing Islamisation of Gazan society.

And that has encouraged some extremist Muslims to take action.

A Christian bookshop owner was killed here a couple of months ago.

There was a kidnap attempt on another Christian recently.

And a number of Christian families we spoke to say they had received death threats.

They question Hamas' willingness to take action to protect them.

However, it was under Hamas armed escort that we met the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, on a special pre-Christmas visit to Gaza.

It was quite a spectacle.

The Patriarch, dressed in a purple cassock, stepped out of a black, shiny Mercedes at the Latin Church in Gaza City.

'God's creatures'

A crowd of police cars screeched to a halt all around him, lights flashing and sirens screaming. Bearded gunmen dressed in black jumped out to guard him.

In previous years, the Patriarch's Christmas sermon has concentrated on the suffering of Palestinians under Israeli military occupation but this year he preached steadfastness in the face of intimidation by Islamist fanatics.

"They forget we are all God's creatures," he told a concerned-looking congregation.

"But nobody can tell us Christians how to dress, how to live or how to pray".

The patriarch called on the Hamas government to take responsibility and to protect the Christian citizens of Gaza, along with everyone else.

As the crowded church was belting out hallelujahs, I stepped into the church courtyard for some fresh air.

The Muslim call to prayer was beginning to echo from the myriad of mosques all around.

I thought how this reflected the situation in Gaza in Christmas 2007 - that while the muezzin were on loudspeaker, the church bells here are played from a cassette tape.

A nervous young nun adjusted the volume - loud enough to peel through the church but not to penetrate its walls - it might risk offending Muslim Gazans passing by.

Mark Durie sums it up:

I was reminded by this story of the text of the 7th century "Pact of Umar", in which Chrisitans, when surrendering to Islam, agreed to silence their bells: "We shall use only [wooden] clappers in our churches very softly."

The prohibition on ringing bells was one of the universal restrictions imposed by Islamic law upon 'dhimmis' - non-Muslims living under Islam after conquest. The bells of Middle Eastern Christians fell silent for more than a thousand years, until the European Powers dismantled the dhimmi system during the 19th and 20th centuries. Now the age-old discriminatory laws are being enforced again, and Hamas is proving as good as its word, for when it took power in Gaza the local Christians were told that as they were now in a full Islamic system they 'must accept Islamic law'. The silence of the bells bears witness that Hamas has told the truth about its intentions.

The silence is bad enough, but what distressed me most about Adler's report was her claim - paradoxically in the very same article - that "There is no evidence to suggest the Hamas government here officially discriminates against Christians…"

This Christmas season Gazan Christians are being resubjected to the odious, humiliating discriminations of the dhimmi system. This makes Christmas a very good time for the rest of the world to wake up and pay attention to the stark historical reality of dhimmi Christians' lives under Islamic rule, and to the intolerable reimposition of these conditions in many Muslim societies in the present day.

Posted by Robert at December 27, 2007 6:30 AM

�

Look at this new aircraft....

Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center. The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747's 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.

The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decided to kill its 7 47X st retched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusier 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif.

The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.

There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus's $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky.

High body rigidity is anothe r key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers fly ing comfortably at mach 0.88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed a nother advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 mph (912 km/h).

The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.

�