Apostasy in Islam is a dangerous decision.
Islam's Advance: Huge surprise here. Saudi textbooks teach hate
Islam and Democracy
It is election season in America and time to look at one the of the dhimmis' favorite myths-the democratization of Islam. Great blood and treasure have been spent in Iraq to bring democracy to Islam.
But it makes no difference how much blood and treasure are spent; Islam is no more compatible with democracy than pigs are with flight. Islam has an entire doctrine of politics and government that was laid out by Mohammed. And just like pigs were not made for flight, Islamic political doctrine was not made for democracy.
The reason for this is the perfect example of Mohammed. Mohammed achieved success only when he became a politician and warrior. We may have politicians who invoke religion as part of their political persona, but we do not have any politicians who actually speak for god. Mohammed spoke for god. All Muslims did what they were told. Mohammed did not operate any kind of primal democracy; Mohammed and Allah ruled absolutely down to the smallest detail.
It is at this stage of the argument that Muslims like to invoke the idea of Mohammed's consulting with his Companions as a model for democracy. At the battle of Badr, one of the men asked Mohammed if his battle orders were from Allah? Mohammed said that it was his own opinion, not Allah's. The man pointed out that if the troops were placed in front of the well, it would be to Islam's advantage and Mohammed followed his advice.
The argument is that Mohammed listened to the voters. Hence, Islam is democratic. But when you read the entire Sira (the biography of Mohammed) and the Hadith, such "votes" by the Companions are extremely rare.
Here is an example of how non-democratic Islam is.
Abu Muslim Book 020, Number 4573: […] Shouldn't we overthrow them [the worst of rulers] with the help of the sword? Mohammed said, "No, as long as they establish prayer among you.
If you then find anything detestable in them you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience."
In short, as long as a leader is a Muslim, obey him, even if he is a tyrant. Does that sound like a democratic view? What if the tyrant is Sadam Hussein? Obey him.
But this is not the real reason that Islam cannot ever have democracy. The real reason is found in the word-kafir, a political word. The Muslim is superior to the kafir in politics and culture and the kafir must submit to the will of Islam in public affairs. Democracy is based upon the idea of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule leads to equality in law and politics. But a Muslim and a kafir are not equal in political Islam. Votes are equal. We have a contradiction and democracy submits to Islam and tyranny.
There is a third reason why Islam is not capable of being democratic. Democracies are the source of the idea of human rights. Islam does not grant human rights to kafirs.
Christians are 3% of the population in Iraq and are 30% of the immigrants. Why? Persecution by political Islam. About 1300 years ago Iraq was Christian. Soon it will be 0% Christian. The tragedy is that this is of no importance in the media or houses of worship.
But we digress. The point is that Islam only gives full rights to Muslims. Kafirs, Christian and otherwise are second-class citizens, basically semi-slaves. This inequality is built into the doctrine of Islam and is fully supported by the example. If Mohammed wanted democracy he would have practiced democracy as a sacred example. But his sacred example was supreme, unquestioned ruler.
Islam is perfect, universal, complete and eternal. It does not have a reform option. Democracy is a kafir form of politics and is anti-Islamic.
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Will China Invade Taiwan? - Ian Easton says China hasn’t got the ability to do it right now, but the long-term ambition is there. A Chinese diplomat in Washington recently threatened ...
4 hours ago