Sidda, democracy or dictatorship?

Submitted by Abdul Rahman Reijerink (Australia), May 28, 2006 at 11:24

Why should my wife have to expose herself in a way she is uncomfortable with just to work in a hospital and serve the people (as she would have to in France with its "democratic" laws). Keep in mind that I believe the veil is only necessary to protect women and if it does not serve this purpose it should not be worn. My wife feels protected by it. It is her right to decide, not yours or mine or anyone elses, why should she have this right taken away because of a handful of deluded fanatics, (in reality a parliament of biggots) according to your argument? All that law will do is exclude girls from school and women from work who either choose to wear it or are forced to by blasphemous thugs, oppressing them even more. Your form of democracy is totalitarian.

It is discrimination. whether targeted against one faith or all. the state should not enforce religion, but it should not interfere either, except to protect the individuals right to practise their faith as they see fit. your own argument says on the one hand that Muslims were not targeted, then says that it was the fundamentalists who were to blame... which is it?

I refute your assertion that if Islam is practised devoutly that it is totalitarian, except that it does touch on every part of our lives, but should not faith inform everything we do, I am sure most Christians and Jews and Hindus who consider themselves devout think so. Innthat sense it is "total". What is a relaxed approach? I take a modern approach, this does not make me "relaxed" if by that you mean saying fornication/drinking is Ok so long as no-one gets hurt etc...

The Sharia is not some immutable law, sure God's law is unchanging but how we understand it does, the understandings of previous generations do not bind us. When you say that this is what the Sharia is, you merely strengthen the hands of those who claim it is immutable, and that we fallible human beings can know exactly and perfectly what God wants of us.

Why are the violent and disobedient Muslims bound to overcome the devout believers who practise patience and love (as ordained by Allah)? They may take up a lot of headlines and have financial backing, but they are still a minority. I did not embrace Islam because some evil men followed the whispers of Satan, it was because the devout muslims are an excellent example to all mankind and have excellent manners, piety and respect for others. The terrorists have sympathy among a large number of Muslims becasue they are seen to stand up against authority that is mis-used, this will not translate into new followers of their evil in large numbers (and has not). It is an immature position and I condemn it, but we need to understand why they feel this way, and argue against it. Some of it has justification, no one is ever all right or all wrong.

In summary, civil society cannot defend itself by oppressing minorities, this will only serve to weaken it and take away what is worth struggling for. A great (non-muslim) man once said something like "those who would save their lives by selling their liberty deserve neither". We need to unite against the sick at heart who listen to Satan and think it is God will they follow. Not attack each other in some misled idea of security.

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".