In an 
American Thinker article, Dr. Andrew Bostom quotes an essay by Bernard Lewis called "Communism and Islam." [
International Affairs,Vol. 30,  No. 1(Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12]. It reads:
I  turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from  the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these  is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the  totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.... Many attempts have  been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical-attempts usually based  on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both. This sort of argument  expresses a need of the up- rooted Muslim intellectual who is no longer  satisfied with or capable of understanding traditional Islamic values, and who  tries to justify, or rather, re-state, his inherited faith in terms of the  fashionable ideology of the day. It is an example of the romantic and apologetic  presentation of Islam that is a recognized phase in the reaction of Muslim  thought to the impact of the West.... In point of fact, except for the early  caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective,  the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy...[I]t was  authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments  or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers  of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but  the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience  as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical  Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God's  vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as  long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth  of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their  teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience  to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last  thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such  maxims as "tyranny is better than anarchy" and "whose power is established,  obedience to him is incumbent."
...Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different  from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain  uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a  totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on  heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in  their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal  questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the  agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always  right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both  offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a  collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the  true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the  world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed  groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle  against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world  affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the  aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up  the Communist creed as "There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!" was  laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War  for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian  enemy-might well strike a responsive note.
No comments:
Post a Comment