It all depends on what you mean by "Islamic political parties." If you would say that the Republican party and the Democratic party are "Judeo-Christian political parties," then you're right. But of course they aren't religious political parties the way, say, Hezbollah is. It's not at all incoherent to want democracy in the Islamic world and not want the Hezbollahs of the world to take over.

The Democrats are indeed an increasingly secular European-style party. The GOP is Christianist, as befits a Christianist Republic. Hezbollah is well on its way to being a normal political mparty just as the Federalists transitioned once they had their own country.

No, no, no!

We can't use Western categories when thinking about the spiritual jailhouse--they just don't fit.

A concepts like "sect," as in "sectarian violence," does not fit, nor does "political party."

Trying to force jailouse pegs into Western holes only occasions among ourselves the confusion we wish on the enemy.

Were enemy politics and religion so conformed to our patterns of understanding, we could say thet reformation were well along and that the Endsieg in sight.

The Nazis came to power democratically too. And they were enormously popular with the majority of Germans.

Which is a good example as to why a society needs protections against the tyranny of the majority to prevent democracy from slipping into tyranny.

Thank God we Americans live in a Republic and not a democracy which the Founding Fathers rightly feared.

It's been underway for 80 years, though Attaturk went too far, and the End is here.

If the "Islamic" political parties are going to be run from the mosques, then democracy is a faint hope, at best. Because the loudest screamers will always take over, just as has happened in London, the Netherlands, Sweden, Pakistan, and even San Francisco. Iran suffers because religion is used as a political club.

If the politics of "Islam" is not just an exercise in pseudo-religious aggrandizement, then it might work. Otherwise, the religion will always suffer because it will be exploited by evil men.

You're close. Religion is always exploited and it's merely being used by men with political ends. Islamicism is political, not religious.

You wrote yesterday that Islam has never been totalitarian. I started to reply, and then set it aside (arguing the nuance around the word "efficiency" didn't seem worth it).

Of course Islamicism is political - it has very little to do with anything spiritual (or even historical).

For many Muslims living in Pakistan (or Algeria, or even Egypt), life seems much easier if Islam is more 'totalitarian' (at least as far as the government will permit). Decisions are simpler.

In Iran, it seems the opposite seems true. Same for Gaza and the West Bank. In India, some Muslims must wish for 'totalitarian' Islamic rule. But most probably would not.

Interestingly enough, Europe might be the place where the distinction (mosque v. politics) is most clearly seen. Guys like Hamza are just bigmouths who would have to keep a low profile in Egypt or Algeria (and especially Saudi Arabia). Only in the West can they spread their nonsense (and only in Europe - Hamza wouldn't last 3 months here). Same for Nasrallah - he can act like a bigshot in Lebanon, but he still sleeps in a bunker and if he were magically transported to Egypt or Saudi Arabia (or even India), he would get a 'short' turban haircut.

Politics? Islam?

Here's a golden oldie by Roger Scruton, which should be reread every so often (lest one's optimism addle one's judgment...).

Yes, Islamicism is a rational political movement. It's the Middle East's version of Marxism/Darwinism/Freudianism.

Islamicism is the modern political approach whose object is the implimentation of scripture. Leninism was the politics of 'helping history along' the path spelled out in Das Kapital. The common reliance of both Qutb and Lenin on the pre-ordained are similar but the similarity ends there. Islamicim is as practical as Leninism in forcing political outcomes and, aside from the utopianism and practical politics inherent to both, they have nothing else in common.

Leninisnm is just the implementation of an inaccurate readfing of Christian scripture. They're identical.

I think you betray a misunderstanding of both Lenin and Jesus. Equivocation adds nothing to grasping the sense of either.

There is no both. Leninism merely elevates the message of charity to the level of a state command.

That's a funny response. Lenin was about the ruthless politics of putting the theories of Marx into action. Lenin was the Qutb and Marx was his prophet. The religion was Marx's discovery of the laws of history. I know, pure materialistic claptrap, but it had intellectual cousins preceeding your horrid enlightenment by a millenium.

The Leninists are pikers compared to Christians. He came with a sword. It doesn't matter how many you kill, just to what end.

Lenin? Charity?

Envy and bitterness, more likely.

The demand for charity is envy and bitterness. The Marxist merely confuses supply and demand.