Ruling Democratically, Autocratically, or Religiously

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), May 20, 2014 at 16:34

Like many aspects of humanity, there are the implications of duality of thought and purpose; in some cases, it is thought that reposes in duplicity. No one is immune, either in perpetration or as a recipient of implementation. In the management of governmental affairs, politics of any sort can be affected, so much so that even a moral government can fall prey; a beneficent autocracy or freedom seeking republic devolving into tyranny or a mob ruled plurality. The devolution leads to further chaos that screams for revolution that makes resolution nearly impossible.

That being said, for some, the attempts to characterize a modernization of Islamic sentiments from distinguishing belief characteristics of fundamentalist Islamists who desire shari'a is a perspective that is fraught with irreconcilable differences that are manifest world-wide with each collision against western culture. Islamism does not/will not reach any long term coexistence with anything not set by the Quran or the hadiths.

To the extent that this next statement is thought to bring some kind of nexus or comparison of Nazism to Islamism, one wonders if this is so: [I have argued for decades that Islamism, like fascism and communism, is by nature dictatorial, for all three share a radical utopian mentality, a glorification of the state, and a drive for global hegemony. I disdainfully compared a moderate Islamist to moderate Nazi, noting that while Erdoğan and Osama bin Laden deploy different tactics, they both aspire to apply the same medieval law code.] From this perspective, there is a problem; and it is religiously rooted. A Nazi connection, though cultic, is not necessarily religious; a communistic connection as agnostic/atheistic is not religious; but Islamism is religious.

Since the association to Turkey is sensed here, we have read in times past that the secularist basis of separating older post Ottoman Turkey was to bring Turkey into a 'modern' day and age in which associations with the west could be more easily facilitated. But, by not dealing with the underlying religious, thereby fundamentalist ideologies of Islam in Turkish society, the deeper seated urge to return to the roots of the Islamic Prophet fought out of its repression and its legacy is now sought out by 'modern day' fundamentalists as true believers of the cause.

Thus, to the point of Islamism having a human face, there have been faces to Islam from all of its variant and divergent sensibilities, from the most stringent adherent to its most moderate (the latter called apostate by the former). The question remains at the end of the day, which face will the west be able to contend with if the irreconcilable differences that are inherent each to the other are not resolved? This is going to be hypersensitive as the globalist mentality that searches for a 'one world order' to solve the world's peace problem comes to its full expression of who will rule humanity, when it is finally realized that humanity cannot be trusted to rule itself and the democracy devolves into tyranny.

Now, put a face to who would rule over that.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".