'Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.'
–True, Not all Muslims are alike but all Islamists are alike.
–By the same token, not all Russians are alike but all Communists under Lenin and Stalin were alike.
-And, not all Germans were alike but all Nazis were alike.
–Not all organizations composed of Caucasians are alike but all members of the Ku Klux Klan are alike.
–The fact that European Christian Democratic and Israeli religious parties respect the rules of democratic politics has no connection with whether the Muslim Brotherhood will do so.
Is that clear?
What’s striking about the administration’s position is the lack of the most basic logic. True, a political party with religious affiliations might “respect the rules of democratic politics.” But that doesn’t mean parties favoring a Sharia state in which, say, Muslims who convert to another religion are sentenced to death, fall into that category. There is no proof that Islamist parties “respect the rules of democratic politics” except their willingness to run in elections. The Nazis and Communists also ran in elections. So what?
And what is a moderate Muslim? He might be a conservative traditionalist; liberal reformer; Kurdish or Berber nationalist; tribal loyalist; etc. But that doesn’t apply to an Islamist, someone who wants to fundamentally transform the existing society into one governed by Sharia law under a hardline interpretation, wiping of Israel off the map, subordinating Christians and women; and driving Western influence out of the region.
Winning an election and forming a government is only the first step. What does that government do? It passes laws that enforce an Islamist conception of society; puts its people into the bureaucracy, rewards imams who are radical and fires those who are moderate; rewrites textbooks and what appears on the media, chooses judges and the commanders of the armed forces; and sponsors terrorism against other states.
It would be something else completely for the U.S. government to say: We will accept the Muslim Brotherhood in government if it takes power in an election, but we will do everything possible to stop that from happening. That would be a proper U.S. interests’ policy.
Clinton did set some conditions but in no way hinted that any Islamist party might violate them:
'Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do.'
Where to begin?
–The Islamists do not reject violence. The Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism against Israel, Americans, and Iraqi Shia. It will soon be backing violence, at least covertly, against Christians, secularists, and others. That is their doctrine.
–Abide by the rule of law. Well, they will democratically change the law into a repressive dictatorship. The Communists and fascist regimes also had laws that they enforced
–Freedom of speech. No speech that criticizes Islam, their interpretation of Islam, or themselves, as we already see in Turkey where a former general was just sentenced to prison on the charge of having criticized the judgment in conversation with a villager.
–Freedom of religion. No building or repair of churches, no equality of treatment for Christians. In Turkey a great historic church is now being converted into a mosque.
–Association and assembly. Even now, look what happens if Christians try to demonstrate in Cairo.
–Respect the rights of women and minorities. Laws will be changed to take away women’s rights because Sharia will govern.
–And what will the U.S. government do if these democratic practices don’t happen? Might it ot be too late?"
I find this all very unusual. On the one hand we have an organization, The Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of the Radical Jihad, virtually taking over the country of Egypt, which is, of course, one of the most important countries in the Middle East. The Brotherhood has an ideological provenance that goes to the Koran, but also to Nazi Germany. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza. It is thus a genocidal organization.
On the other hand we have an administration that is complicit in the rise of the Jihad in the Middle East. It should be clear by this point to all that the current US administration has no real concern about preventing a Sharia take over throughout the entire area. The Muslim Middle East is rank with homophobia, gender apartheid, and genocidal Jew hatred and the US Secretary of State believes that standing against this kind of malice is insulting toward Muslims.
And, finally, on the third hand we have a political movement in the US out of which the president came, i.e., the progressive movement, that has not the strength of stomach to even discuss the fact that it is implicitly supporting a movement that stands in direct opposition to everything that it allegedly stands for. The progressive movement tells the world that it supports Gay rights, yet this movement has abandoned Gay people in the Middle East entirely.
The progressive movement tells the world that it supports women's rights, yet this movement has abandoned women in the Middle East entirely.
The progressive movement also tells the world that it is anti-racist, yet it constantly displays a condescension toward people of color, particularly Arabs, and tends to blame Jews for the attacks against us.
What is most galling, however, is that the progressive movement, as a rule, is so painfully politically correct that they cannot even bring themselves to honestly discuss what is the single most significant foreign policy development since the end of the Cold War. The fact that the Jihad is taking over country after country in the Middle East is treated as irrelevant. Part of the reason for this, of course, is that the Obama administration has sent a signal that they are OK with these developments, despite the genocidal nature of the Jihad.
And, of course, merely to even the raise the issue, as I am doing here, marks one as a "racist" or an "Islamophobe" or a hard-line right-wing warmonger. In other words, if an imam screams for the blood of Jews in a mosque and I say, "Hey, that imam is calling for the murder of Jews" it makes me the bad guy in the self-righteous, morally vacuous world of the progressive-left.
What a shame.