Skip to content

Dare to Speak Islam versus Free Democracy and Free Enterprise

July 21, 2009

“Islam is clearly not a religion of peace. It is a framework for establishing power and conquest” – Chapter 3

Dare to Speak
Islam versus Free Democracy and Free Enterprise

By Al Bailey

Much has been written about Islam, its ethics, and its relationships with other religions. Despite this large volume of work, there appears to be something missing, something even more basic and important to people of all faiths. What is missing is a study of Islam with regard to governance, particularly regarding its relationship to what we call democracy. The goal of this book is to fill the gap by providing this investigation and presenting its findings.

Why choose this subject? Because, throughout the world, we receive starkly conflicting information about Islam. Apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace. They also claim that our democratic traditions of religious tolerance require us to respect the freedom of Muslims to practice Islam. At the same time, we see Muslims practicing violent religious intolerance around the world. This intolerance is often against their non-Islamic neighbors, who range from Orthodox Russians to Sudanese Christians, Hindu Indians, Catholic Filipinos, and Buddhist Thais. Additionally, Muslims practice religious intolerance against each other. We hear of Sunni Muslims persecuting Shiite Muslims, Shiite Muslims persecuting Sunni Muslims, and Wahhabis persecuting everyone else.

Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. Yet many people fail to associate the violence committed by Muslims with Islam itself. They steadfastly seek alternative explanations, such as colonialism, tribal tensions, racism, and poverty. They refuse to even consider the idea that Islam may be inherently aggressive and intolerant toward other religions.

This self-deception cannot continue for long. Islam’s presence and influence is growing throughout the world, and it demands our attention. For example, Nigeria’s northern states announced their conversion to Islamic Law in 2002 by sentencing several women to death by stoning for adultery. In 2006, the entire nation of Denmark was terrorized by Muslims around the world because a mid-sized, independent Danish newspaper published some political cartoons of Muhammad.

An ever-growing cascade of violence tells us that we are approaching a time when we will have no choice but to confront two disturbing possibilities:

• Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy as we know it, because it opposes the individual freedoms and protections that citizens of democracies cherish.

• Muslims are in the process of using our own democratic institutions to subvert democracy and to replace democratically determined law with Islamic Law.

Before you dismiss these words as bigotry, please allow me to explain:

In the United States, we have embraced principles of tolerance and freedom that may be described as “live and let live.” Applied to religion, “live and let live” means that no one has the right to force their beliefs on others; nor may they prevent others from changing their beliefs. While Americans may not always live up to these principles, we aspire to them, and use our freedoms to correct ourselves as we progress.

Tolerance and freedom are essential parts of what we call democracy, which political theorists usually call Liberal Democracy or Western Democracy.

In Dare to Speak, this form of democracy is called Free Democracy. Religious tolerance is an essential principle we live by in the United States and throughout the Westernized world. This principle has evolved from centuries of futile religious battles that caused us to violate the very beliefs we claimed to fight for. It was codified in complete form by the Constitution of the United States, which has been an example and a beacon of hope for nations around the world. While these nations have created constitutions of their own, to serve their particular circumstances, the U.S. Constitution has remained a guiding reference for progressive thinkers everywhere. Why? Because it exemplifies a framework for governance that grants unprecedented powers and freedoms to its citizens.

In contrast, there is a part of the world where Free Democracy has not flourished, and its freedoms are not valued. Free Democracy did not evolve there, and we are discovering that it does not grow there, despite a variety of working examples in other parts of the world. This infertile soil is the House of Islam.

Why has the form of democracy we cherish failed to take root and grow in the Islamic world? Because Islam ties religion and politics together in a Gordian knot. Islam has its own body of laws, known as Shari’ah,1 and these laws sharply oppose Free Democracy. Islam and Free Democracy are as opposed to each other as Communism and Free Democracy, or Fascism and Free Democracy.

Many people refuse to consider the possibility that Islam and Free Democracy are irreconcilably opposed to each other. After all, the benefits of Free Democracy are obvious, and many Islamic nations have worked diligently to adopt it. Unfortunately, the fruits of these efforts confirm that Islam and Free Democracy do not mix. Islamic nations like Turkey, Egypt, and Algeria have histories of secular governments, but those governments have uneasy relationships with their citizens. These nations have often found themselves resorting to warlike tactics against Islamic fundamentalists to preserve themselves. In Iran, Islam’s mullahs won such a war, and they now use their authority to thwart the superficially democratic institutions they control.

What makes Islam different from other religions? Why is it hostile to Free Democracy? To put it plainly, it does not believe in “live and let live.” Devout Muslims do not feel obligated to convince others to convert to Islam through reason. Instead, the Koran encourages them to use persecution. According to the Koran,2 people of other faiths are allowed to continue in their practices only if they acknowledge that Islam is a superior religion and pay extortion money to an Islamic government in the form of special taxes.3 This exception, which is extolled by Muslims as an example of tolerance, is actually designed to grind down other religions to nothing over time. To people who are weak, or young in their faiths, this persecution raises a…

1 Also referred to as Sharia or Shariah.

2 The Koran, which is also spelled “Qu’ran” or “Quran,” is a compilation of the recitations of Muhammad, believed by Muslims to be literal words of Allah.

3 Jizyah, which is a per capita tax imposed on adult male non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.

…question: “Why pay extra taxes and accept an inferior position in society when all I have to do is convert to Islam?”

In a sense, these mercenary conversions are a saving grace. There are many Muslims in the world who are Muslim in name only. They know that if they left Islam, their Apostasy4 would be considered a capital crime. They are prisoners of their faith instead of believers. Therefore, the apparent strength of Islam can be deceptive, and many nominal Muslims are far more benevolent than Islam calls them to be.

Many of us Westerners grew up ignorant of Islam. Therefore, with few experiences to contradict our democracy-inspired beliefs, which seek to accommodate different religions, we have absorbed the notion that the world’s religions as merely different paths to the same goal. For people who still believe this, the words of this book will come as a shock, because they reveal that Islam violates this assumption. Dare to Speak will show that Islam is overtly hostile toward other religions. More importantly, it will show that Islam is overtly hostile to non-Islamic governments.

This book will also uncover the subterranean war that Muslims are currently waging against the world’s Free Democracies. It will lay out the issues, provide references to back them up, and begin to discuss the actions that Westerners can take to preserve Free Democracy for future generations.

This book quotes extensively from the Koran (a compilation of recitations that Muhammad claimed were Allah’s) and the Hadith (compilations of Muhammad’s other words and deeds), as well as recent news articles and modern religious books written by Muslims. It does so to demonstrate two key points:

1. The portions of Islamic holy scripture that carry disturbing messages are not merely stray quotes in otherwise benign books. They are essential components of Islam, and the Koran and the Hadith emphasize them repeatedly. Faithful Muslims take these messages seriously and act on them.

2. The actions of Islamic terrorists around the world are not merely the products of a few deviant minds or some splinter group; they come from the violent messages of one “eternal” source: Islamic holy scripture .

Dare to Speak will demonstrate that, as long as Islam is treated as a respectable religion, and not as a hostile political ideology bent on global domination, Islam will continue to expand and sow its seeds of terror throughout the world. If we allow this to happen, the nations that currently embrace Free Democracy may one day find themselves destitute and chaotic, with their democratic laws replaced by Islamic ones.

As you read this book, you will find many references embedded directly into the text rather than exiled to appendices or footnotes. This structure gives you direct access to the sources of Dare to Speak’s assertions, to help you view them easily and form your own conclusions.

4 The abandonment of one’s religion. While most religions frown upon Apostasy, Islam views it, in specific legal terms, as the greatest of all crimes that a Muslim can commit. It is a crime punishable by death.

If, after reading this book, you doubt its assertions, please do your own independent research. With vast resources and newspaper archives available on the Web and in libraries, your job will be easy and inexpensive. As a starting point, I highly recommend the University of Southern California’s “Compendium of Muslim Texts,” which provides on-line access to three translations of the Koran, plus a comprehensive compilation of hadiths, along with keyword search functions for all texts. You can find this site at

Please do not dismiss or pre-judge the points of this book if they disagree with what you want to believe. You have a duty to yourself and your family to understand the issues we face, so that you can respond to them appropriately. Your actions may impact your children far more than yourself.

Before moving on to the first chapter, I would like to tell you why I call this book Dare to Speak. According to Islamic Law, these writings could easily be interpreted as insulting to Islam, and to Muhammad himself. The punishment for such insults, according to Shari’ah, is severe and may include death. Therefore, by writing to you, I am truly putting my life on the line. But this is why I feel I must speak. If I was silenced by fear, it would already be too late; Islam would be in control of my life, and yours.

Chapter 1: The new Cold War
Back in the exciting days of the late ‘80s, when it became apparent that Communism had failed, and that Free Democracy held the keys to the future, Francis Fukuyama wrote a hopeful article called The End of History? which was later expanded into a book.5 As he saw it, history records the evolution of society. Through it, we have learned how primitive tribes progressed through various forms of government and economy in a series of experiments that ultimately led to a perfected structure that Fukuyama felt could no longer be improved. He believed that, while actual governments and laws may still evolve, the basic structures of modern democracy, including Free Enterprise and the fair treatment of minorities, were firmly established and needed no additions. He, and many others, believed that the battle between Communism and Free Democracy was the last great conflict of humankind. The popular image of Afghani Muslims at the time was that of courageous freedom fighters, who helped the West finally break the back of the Soviet Union. With the Cold War over, we could all look forward to pounding our swords into plowshares and cashing in on the “peace dividend.”

Only one minor problem remained: the Middle East. But Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres 6 were having productive talks in Oslo, 7 and, in 1994, their break-through agreements won them the Nobel Peace Prize. The 1979 revolution in Iran was seen by the general public as an isolated case in an isolated country. The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1984, which killed 240 Americans, was portrayed as political rather than religious, and rooted in Europe’s occupation of Ottoman territories after World War I. Somalia’s bloody rejection of U.S. aid in 1993 was blamed on inept interference in a chaotic country that the U.S. did not understand. But all those issues were mere side-shows. The main event was Peace in the Middle East. A giddy world prepared for the revelry and looked forward to giving history its final curtain call.

Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist for negotiating away too many Jewish demands. Later, the few remaining negotiating points became stumbling blocks that broke the whole deal. On September 28, 2000, Yasser Arafat declared the Intifada, 8 and Israeli-Palestinian relations fell apart.

An amazing detail in this deadly deterioration is that the area of land that broke the deal is less than 50 square miles, and most of it is barren wasteland.9 Equally amazing is the fact that no one seems willing to point out that it is absurd to rage eternally over such small stakes. Why do we ignore the apparent silliness of these people, who sacrifice thousands of lives over a small expanse of arid dirt? It might be because it is too embarrassing – we would rather think….

5 The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama, 1992, publisher: Penguin Books

6 At the time, Yasser Arafat was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister of Israel, and Shimon Peres was Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.

7 Capital of Norway.
8 Arabic term for “uprising.” The Intifada referred to here is more formally known as the Al Aqsa Intifada, or the Second Intifada. It refers to the uprising of Palestinians against Israel, beginning in September 2000, which began as hopes for a resolution on issues unsolved by the 1993 Oslo Accords deteriorated.

9 Apartheid Wall, by Nigel Perry, The Electronic Intifada, 2000-2002 Palestine Independent Media Center.

….that the world is being rocked to its foundations by something important. To Americans, living in a country formed by the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Purchase, and the Gadsden Purchase, the situation is unfathomable. If the parties involved really wanted to solve their problems, they could readily do so through some kind of purchase or land swap. There is obviously something more ominous afoot, and it has little to do with land.

Other events soon revealed that history was not going to end any time soon. They included the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. The United States responded but was ineffective. The country was so caught up with Bill Clinton’s trysts with Monica Lewinski that people barely noticed. Osama bin Laden was a shadowy, unknown figure who had rarely surfaced in the news before these attacks. Some cynics even viewed him as a convenient distraction from Bill Clinton’s impeachment process. After bin Laden openly declared war on the United States, the U.S. assailed him with a military fly-swatter – an ineffective cruise missile attack – and then returned to its scandals.

On September 11, 2001, everything changed. With the Twin Towers collapsing in a cloud of dust, a gash in the Pentagon billowing smoke, and Flight 93 smashing into a Pennsylvania field on its way to Washington, presumably to the White House, the United States woke up and declared its War on Terror and Osama bin Laden.

But how could Osama bin Laden, an outlaw in a remote part of the world, with only a few thousand terrorists at his disposal, strike such a devastating blow? And, how could he elude capture even to this day?

The answer is that bin Laden is not an outlaw: his actions were condoned by his Afghan host, the Taliban. And, despite his apparent outlaw reputation among most Islamic governments, he was considered by many citizens of those governments to be a combination of Robin Hood and spiritual leader. These people saw him, and still see him, as a hero for declaring Jihad 10 against the Infidel West, and they cheer his tirades against the United States.

The alarming truth is that the only thing that can keep Osama bin Laden at large while a $25 million dollar reward hangs over his head is the intense loyalty of a vast multitude of Muslims.

1. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
2. A crusade or struggle. – The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

[Continue reading online at Scribd]


Hizb ut-Tahrir: Spread Islam or Die Trying

The Enemy Has Breached The Gates

Also see: American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us- Steven Emerson

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: