Horror as Arabs Lose Faith in Democracy!

By Bheria -July 19, 2022 FOR THE MUSLIM SKEPTIC

Do you recall our article regarding the Arab Barometer surveys? If not, I would recommend that you take some time to read it in order to get a general picture of what’s to come.

Basically it highlights the usual double standards of the Western media when it comes to Islam: They enthusiastically shared the news of Arabs becoming irreligious, basing this on previous Arab Barometer “findings.”

Yet they didn’t cover another finding of the Arab Barometer research when it revealed that Arabs were actually becoming increasingly more religious.

But recently they did, well at least some of them… and those few either chose not to accentuate the rise of religiosity, or they decided to shift the focus onto something else altogether.

Take the BBC for example.

Unlike the triumphalist tone they took when it came to reporting the hypothetical supposed mass apostasy of Arabs, we now get a very mellow “BBC News Arabic reveal findings from major MENA survey.”

The part about the rise of Islam is timidly put as follows:

In the surveyed places, people appear to be finding their faith again, particularly young people, but trust in religious leaders continues to dwindle except in Mauritania.(…)

Among the under 30s, in seven out of nine places there has been a decline in those describing themselves as not religious. Tunisia saw the largest decline. Today, about a third of Tunisian youth describe themselves as not religious; in 2018/2019 it was almost half the young population.

RELATED: The End of Tunisia: Has the State Abandoned Islam?

I wonder why there are no staggering headlines full of exclamation points now? Such as:

“Islam Rises Once Again in the Arab World!”


The West is Doomed: Arabs are Becoming Increasingly MORE Religious!”

Yet, even if they don’t feel the need to talk about the strength of Islam, they do deem it necessary to lament the decline of another religion, or pseudo-religion: Democracy.

RELATED: Why There Is No Such Thing as a Democracy in the Modern World

The same BBC dedicated an entire news article to this phenomenon titled “Arabs believe economy is weak under democracy.”

We read:

Michael Robbins, director of Arab Barometer, a research network based at Princeton University which worked with universities and polling organisations in the Middle East and North Africa to conduct the survey between late 2021 and Spring 2022, says there has been a regional shift in views on democracy since the last survey in 2018/19.

“There’s a growing realisation that democracy is not a perfect form of government, and it won’t fix everything,” he says.(…)

The future is “uncertain”, says Dr Robbins of Arab Barometer. Citizens in the region may be looking to alternative political systems, such as the Chinese model – an authoritarian one-party system – that he says has “brought a huge number of people out of poverty in the last 40 years”.

“That type of rapid economic development is what many people are looking for,” he says.

RELATED: Democracy is Not Required for Economic Growth

This activation of panic mode is understandable coming from the BBC, and Westerners as a whole, since the democratic set-up is one of the most effective ways to spread cultural liberalism. Democracy is predicated upon the “sovereign individual,” a liberal anthropology which deifies man, where the human ego is made the beginning and end of the whole political set-up.

Democratic egalitarianism mutates every man into a miniature Fir’awn.

RELATED: Democracy: Is the Population Responsible for Killing Muslims?

In fact, even a liberal thinker like Alexis de Tocqueville observed over a century ago that modern individualism is a direct by-product of democracy.

In his classic Democracy In America, book 2, chapter II, he writes:

I have shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself: I am now about to show how it is that, in the same ages, all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egotism. Egotism is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with his own person, and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellow-creatures; and to draw apart with his family and his friends; so that, after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Egotism originates in blind instinct: individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in the deficiencies of the mind as in the perversity of the heart. Egotism blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but, in the long run, it attacks and destroys all others, and is at length absorbed in downright egotism. Egotism is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another: individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of conditions.

This individualism, where man becomes an atomized individual with his only value being as a brainless consumer, would be sufficient to discredit democracy. However, we could also present the innate flaws in the electoral process itself and whether democratic politicians even genuinely represent the masses when it’s always the same liberal elite that are re-elected while they hide behind the facade of the “right” and “left” dichotomy.

This is the reason why the West is so obsessed with spreading democracy; even waging wars in its name. It’s just one of the most subtle ways to liberalize a society. All you need to do is inject a heavy dose of individualism—the bedrock of the liberal worldview.

It would also empower an easily corruptible liberal elite that would be connected, in the name of democracy, to the Western neoliberal world-system. For instance, through its financial institutions such as the IMF. And in this way, the native elite will continue the liberal agenda on its own for economic reasons.

Democracy thus impacts non-Western societies on both the level of the masses and also the level of the elite.

These are the reasons why the BBC, and the West as a whole, gets triggered when Arabs (or others) rebuke democracy.

So in essence it seems like the Arab Spring—which was supposedly going to democratize the Arab world—is being replaced by some form of Islamist Boy Summer.

RELATED: Questions About Democracy You’re Not Supposed to Ask

Democracy: Is the Population Responsible for Killing Muslims?

By Hud Lesprit -July 4, 2022


It has become a recurrent trend where Muslims all over the World are deemed collectively responsible for terrorist attacks which have unfortunately lead to the deaths of civilians in the West.
When the pundits are mature enough to recognize that most Muslims have nothing to do with these killings, they instead blame Islam, alleging the religion to be the root cause of these violent transgressions.
This is just a petty attempt to try and seem tolerant while still blaming all Muslims. Undoubtedly, no true Muslim would say that he condemns Islam. So according to such a claim, this would make all Muslims moral allies to terrorists.
What is the difference, then, between blaming Islam and blaming Muslims?
RELATED: French Politician: Muslim Terrorism Happens Very Conveniently Before Elections
Now, let me first be very clear in stating that we condemn the actions of terrorist extremist groups and that they do not represent the true beliefs, laws, and teachings of Islam. They are shady individuals, criminals, often have questionable ties to various intelligence agencies, and are not known in the Muslim community for their knowledge or steadfastness. And often their Islam can even be doubted.
That being said, let us now talk about the Islamophobes that use this line of reasoning. 
These hypocrites quickly label all Muslims as belligerents, when they themselves are not willing to acknowledge the blood on their hands for their active role in the killing of millions of Muslims.
Nobody wants to take on the blame for the devastating crimes committed by democratic governments throughout the Muslim world.
Bush killed millions of Iraqis?
They will tell you:
“It is not my fault! He’s the one that did it, not me!”
But in a democracy, isn’t the head of state the representative of the population? One assumes power in such a system by the majority of the voters voting him into office. And those who did not vote for him still endorse the system which he used to get elected. They also recognize his legitimacy in representing them as the elected leader of their country.
RELATED: Why There Is No Such Thing as a Democracy in the Modern World
How then can anyone escape the logical conclusion that, when Bush commanded the killing of millions of Iraqis, every defender of democracy within the USA is also accountable?
They want Muslims to collectively assume the blame for 9/11, but who voted for Osama bin Laden?
Who voted for Cherif and Said Kouachi, or the murderers of Charlie Hebdo?
Who voted for Omar Mateen before he killed dozens of people in Orlando?
Muslims certainly didn’t. All Muslims of sound mind know that these individuals strayed far from the true beliefs, laws and teachings of Islam, and we would never accept these criminals as our representatives.
RELATED: Maryam Petronin: The Ex-Hostage Macron Doesn’t Want You To Know About
Meanwhile, most of the killings against Muslims in the last century have been perpetrated by elected officials who were chosen and appointed by the population. And the citizens are to blame according to the principles of democracy.
Certainly, most Western people do not want to be seen as culpable for the crimes of their governments, much like Muslims around the world do not want to be held accountable for the crimes of random terrorists. Unfortunately, most Western people are not aware of the crimes their governments commit due to the brainwashing they receive at the hands of the mainstream media.
But, as we have seen, Muslims have far more grounds to deny this accountability. It seems logical that, for Westerners to be able to deny accountability, they would have to renounce their governments and claim that they are not true representatives of the will of the people. Maybe they could renounce the concept of democracy as a whole and admit its deep flaws.
Until Westerners renounce the liberal philosophy underlying their bloodthirsty governments, they are in no position to criticize Muslims or Islam.

Beyond Elected Government. Just Government

“If a dog dies of thirst at the bank of Euphrates, how shall I answer for that to Allah.”
By Khalid Baig

“Surely, Allah commands you to fulfill trust obligations toward those entitled to them and that when you judge between people, judge with fairness.” [An-Nisa 3:58]

This is an essential verse of the Qur’an to be consulted by anyone who wants to understand Islam’s teachings about governance and government. While it talks about discharging trust obligations and being just in all situations, it has special implications for staffing and running public office.

Amanah (discharging one’s trust obligations) and Adl (Justice) are highly stressed attributes of believers. Sayyidna Anas, Radi-Allahu unhu, says: “It must have been a rare sermon in which the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, did not say the following words: ‘One who has no amanah has no iman (faith) and one who breaks promises has no religion.’ ” Yet these all important qualities become even more so when a person is occupying a position from where he can affect other people’s lives. Thus, Ulema explain that this verse specifies that all positions of authority are a trust to be given to those who are qualified for them. Further it specifies that whenever a Muslim is in a position to adjudicate a case between any two parties, he must do so with justice and fairness.

The conduct of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, in this regard and his numerous sayings on the subject further highlight the importance of this command. According to one hadith, if a person who has been charged with some responsibilities relating to the general body of Muslims gives an office to someone simply on the basis of friendship or connection of some sort without regard to the capability or merit of that person, the curse of Allah falls on him. None of his acts of worship are accepted, whether mandatory (fard) or voluntary (nafl).

We can discern some very important principles from the above.

First, the selection of people for positions of authority, and their behavior once in office, is a religious matter. Islam does not recognize the separation of religion and state.

Second, these positions are not a right of the people but a trust from Allah to be discharged according to His commands with utmost concern for justice for all. Third, the people so chosen must be good, for the good of the society depends on that.

From this we can begin to see the difference between Islam and that immensely advertised political system called democracy. Democracy is concerned with the mechanism for selecting people for government. Islam is concerned with the outcome of that selection. Democracy makes a huge virtue of its mechanism— the electoral process. But, mechanisms can and do change with time and circumstances. The two leading models of democratic government, England and the U.S.A., have different systems for electing the head of the government and the legislators, and their systems have also changed over time. Further, anyone overly impressed with the outer trappings of American Democracy may do well to remember a little known historic fact: Many in the U.S. wanted to make George Washington the King of America, but it was the distaste of the Revolutionary days for things English that kept monarchy away from the leading democracy of the world.

What matters most is what sort of rulers and managers of public life result from the process. Yet democracy is silent about it. It wants an elected government. Islam goes much further. It wants a just government.
What if corrupt people get elected through fair elections? Democracy offers no serious answer to this question. Early leaders, like James Madison, claimed: “People will have the virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.” But more than two centuries of history have made nonsense of this proposition. Just recently a convicted liar and known sex-offender occupied the highest office in the U.S., and the public was not even concerned. So much for “men of virtue.”

What if democracies turn into tyrannies and the elected people commit atrocities against mankind?

It is sufficient to glance at the historic record of the last century. The only use of atom bombs was made not by a rogue dictatorship but the leading democracy in the world. The atrocities committed by European powers against each other in the two world wars were mostly the works of democratic governments. Just recently we saw with horror what happened in Bosnia, and Kosova. Yet the Serb leader had been an elected one. In Kashmir, where Indian atrocities are no less serious but are much less publicized, the democratic world is quite happy that India is a democracy. We are constantly reminded that Israel— a zionist apartheid country built on stolen land and sustained through constant oppression, torture, and treachery against the people whose land was stolen — is the only democracy in the Middle East. Well, what does that say about the system of government called democracy?

Democracy’s record on the home front is equally unenviable. It is no secret that in the U.S. real power lies with big corporations and wealthy people. Manufactured consent replaces informed public opinion and provides the façade for the “government by the people.” One result: Pockets of abject poverty in the richest nation in the world. In a country that grows so much food that it does not know what to do with all of it, there are thousands of people who go hungry or eat off the trash. What is more, nobody thinks the system of government has anything to do with it. Nobody loses sleep over it, not the least the elected rulers. Now contrast this with the Islamic Khilafah, where Sayyidna Umar, Radi-Allahu unhu, worries: “If a dog dies of thirst at the bank of Euphrates, how shall I answer for that to Allah.”

The widespread popularity of democracy indicates the yearning people have for justice, righteousness, and fairness that democracy promised but never delivered. Democratic movements had started out with the noble intentions of ending the tyranny of autocratic rulers. However, as with all other efforts aimed at reforming human society that were free from divine guidance, they could not reach their goal. The world needs to know that it will find it in Islam. But before that the billion Muslims living in the world today also need to discover that fact.

Unfortunately, our preoccupation with the vocabulary of democracy has shifted our focus to the electoral process and away from the requirement for establishing a just government.. The sooner we realize our mistake, the better.