From the forums: The challenge of Islam and Democracy
N.B. I am not Davy
Over on the forums, Kit asks how should libertarians deal with the problem of Islamic law:
Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician being prosecuted for the crime of insulting Islam, put it this way
”Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.”
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/ … Lords.aspxIn Britain we are seeing no-go areas for Non Muslims. People being forced to submit to Sharia courts under threat of violence. Muslims not only refusing to adapt to our way of life, but insisting that we adapt to theirs!
How, as Libertarians, do we face the threat to liberty from a totalitarian religious ideology? Respecting an individuals right to religious freedom is important, but when that religion is engaged in a deliberate and large scale assault on our values of liberty then how can we respond
I have a thought on this topic. Firstly I want to say that I am of course in favour of freedom in all areas, but I do have problems with religion in general. My problems are both philosophical and practical, for example when it comes to issue of indoctrinating children. However I will agree that Islam is typically worse and far more totalitarian than say Christianity, at least in the modern age of enlightenment.
I think this is because the so-called ‘Islamic countries’ are not secular countries. Islam is violently enforced by governments and indoctrination is so rife it is just commonplace. The very reason they are called ‘Islamic countries’ is precisely because they are not secular. For example, Christianity is the most popular religion in the USA, but we would not call it a ‘Christian country’. It is a secular country because freedom to practice any religion (or none at all) is recognised as inherent. Islamic states have simply not progressed through an enlightenment stage, which is why they remain so backwards.
It follows, therefore, that a large number of Muslims who emigrate to Britain simply don’t understand the ideas of freedom and secularism or have never even considered the ideas in any great depth. From their experience it is considered valid to spread the practice of Islam with force; such is the basis of their entire legal system! Of course I’m not talking about all Muslims here, but enough to have a significant effect.
I have no problem with anybody proselytizing to spread ideas (in-fact I openly welcome it), but using violence to do so is just wrong and that includes using the power of government. Muslim children * growing up in Britain also suffer from the same lack of understanding as their parents, but thankfully to a much lesser degree due to their greater exposure to western culture. However I must stress that I believe in judging everybody on an individual basis.
I find this topic interesting because it brings up an intriguing thought experiment. Imagine a small democratic island where there is a native population of 1000 people. What if 2000 Muslims were to emigrate to the island over the course of the next few years? I can see why people who believe in the democratic process would begin to feel threatened by this. The Muslims would soon have a majority stranglehold with which they can use to adopt strict Sharia Law. It would therefore be in the natives’ best interests to become massive nationalists in order to limit immigration, just like the BNP, using violence and sweeping generalisations of people to limit their freedom to travel through arbitrary borders.
For somebody like me, who thinks that the democratic process is illegitimate anyway, this really isn’t a problem. The issue of immigration is rendered moot, for if this situation were to occur it is simply due to the problem of government having too much power. That is, the problem of the government having the ‘authority’ to implement Sharia Law in the first place. Authority that is supposedly granted by the people, but how can we defer authority that we don’t even have ourselves? It is magical thinking, no better than religious dogma itself.
So no I don’t see Islam as the challenge, but government. As always seems to be the case, the solution isn’t more government but far less. Religion will all but vanish on its own with the pervasive spread of freedom and secularism.
— Jack Whitehead
* Sorry Dawkins
March 6th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Exactly, no state, no “territorial monopoly of ultimate arbitration”, nothing for any particular group to “capture” for their own ends.
It was when I heard Hoppe at the LA onference in 2008, that I was struck (and indeed someone might have even asked a question about it right at the end) that the “private law society” was a framework in which such things as Sharia could be used by the people who wanted to use it when dealing with each other.
So they’d subscribe to some Sharia based insurance company, and hire Sharia arbitrators for disputes between members of Shaira insurance companies, but when they had to deal with someone outside a Sharia insurance company (the rest of us) they would have to use an arbitrator agreeable to both parties – unlikely to be the Sharia one.
That just leaves the “problem” of people being coerced into using the Sharia insurance company, say, by family or tribal pressure – perhaps say especially a problem for women. Well, in the same vein as Walter Block proposes (I think I interpret him correctly) that in child abuse cases, someone on the outside of a family could apply to the arbitrators as a “knight on a white charger” so to speak to protect a child being abused but who cannot speak out themselves, perhaps a similar thing could be envisaged for people “oppressed” by their traditional legal system. Which, after all, is no worse than what happens today. If you are an abused wife and kept locked up all day who is there to rescue you even currently anyway?
March 6th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
[...] helping our cause, and in ending the audiance for Islamophobic fears and propaganda such as here, here, here and here. [...]
March 7th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Sorry, but the idea that without a State there is no problem is just not the case.
”Exactly, no state, no “territorial monopoly of ultimate arbitration”, nothing for any particular group to “capture” for their own ends.”
”So no I don’t see Islam as the challenge, but government. As always seems to be the case, the solution isn’t more government but far less. Religion will all but vanish on its own with the pervasive spread of freedom and secularism.”
These statements are missingthe point. Islam does not need the State to impose itself. It is a Non-State totalitarian ideology. Abolishing the State will not result in taking away the instruments Islam can use for oppression as Islam has its own intruments, independent of the State.
Also, the idea that religion will somehow fade away without the existence of the State seems very odd, almost like the old Marxist ideas that ‘after the revolution’ human nature was going to change.
The problem is that Islam is a Non State totalitarian ideology. As Libertarians generally focus on the problems of the State it seems we have developed a blind spot for Non State forms of oppression. Simply abolishing the State is not the answer to the challenge of aggressive Islam.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:19 am
I realise I have turned your thread into another anarchist debate
Sorry about that. I’m aware that you’re in favour of a minarchist government though. Do you think a society with limited government would still have the same problems with Islamic ideology? Because it sounds like you do. If so, do you have any suggestions that doesn’t involve increasing the size or power of government?
But like I say, I don’t think ‘we’ need to do anything collectively. The only thing we can do is to let people interact with each other freely. Before the enlightenment Christianity was just as bad as Islam; spread by the tip of a sword. There is nothing special about Islam really.
So I do think religion will gradually fade away with secularism and free speech. We can see it happening today with atheism on a sharp rise in secular areas of the world and organised religion diminishing rapidly. I understand that this is because it’s sort of ‘in’ to be an atheist right now, but I would argue that it’s just because it’s finally becoming acceptable. Like homosexuality, it is not longer considered a dirty thing to be an atheist. And rightly so. I strongly believe that rationality will always win out when it is free to challenge irrationality on a level playing field.
But obviously there will always be some religion, just like there will always be some people who believe in ghosts, psychics and healing crystals. People can believe whatever they want so long as they don’t aggress against anybody.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Professor Nafeez Ahmed delivered an excellent lecture on issues surrounding violence and force (the state) and Islamic law. There is such a thing as Islamic common Law which is often in direct contradiction with Sharia law. Much like UK common law is often violated by statutes.
March 8th, 2010 at 7:50 am
well the UK as a support to USA have come and invaded by militry force a lot of muslim lands (iraq, Afganistan, pakistan)and are staying for good.Also under the UN blanket you are trying to control all other muslim lands and are enforcing your idea of goverment and your way of life on us.
so what makes your way of life better than ours?just because it is your idealogy backed up with an army?
I dont consider any of the countries that have mainly muslim citizens as Islamic countries because they do not implement shariah law it is mostly rulers that are supported by your goverments that rule with dictatorship mixed with capitalism and traditions.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
The problem with an anarchic “stateless” environment as I see it is that Islamism will set its Totalitarian self up and then begin to bully and harass, to extend its remit (which it believes to be the entire globe, btw – do not believe the canard that “muslim lands” only covers those invaded centuries ago…).
At some stage it will, and I repeat, will move to impose its will over you. It might begin this by rejecting dispute organisations that are not Sharia unless it is to its direct advantage. Other disputes will remain unresolved awaiting the submission of the Infidel.
If necessary it will try force. If it realises resistance is strong it will agree a truce (of usually 10 years) but not a permanent agreement. Those 10 years are to rearm, get stronger, wear down the enemy. It will then try again.
It will be a stateless entity fighting a de facto State entity.
Personally I think that Islamism will be defeated as long as the falsehoods can be exposed and Islam can be seen for what it is, a belief system, not Divine, unassailable, perfect.
This can be done by precisely reducing the power of the State to stop people saying such things. A strong state can be bent to the will of those wishing to suppress free speech.
However, I do think, as a Minarchist, the Rule of Law is where the State should be and as such it will be there to ensure that oppression of those who try and speak out does not gain the upper hand and win the day.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
p.s. by “State” it could be in a form hinted at by the Stateless Ireland pre English domination, which, frankly, I found fascinating and would love to learn more about when I get the time.*
* if any one has further reading links, please please share them.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
If Muslims can reject non-sharia dispute organisations without too much trouble can they not also reject the state courts? The way I tend to think of it is that people will naturally want to recoup their losses for any malicious damages caused to them by others.
Force will be used to extract recompense, no differently if there is dispute organisations than if there is state courts. But I tend to think dispute organisations will perform better at this job than states. Not to mention they aren’t funded by theft to begin with.
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
[...] This video also ties in nicely with the challenge of Sharia law and democracy. [...]