While both religion and democracy evolved from a need to control the masses, they are totally incompatible. They are basically two diametrically opposed political systems.
Since humans started walking on two legs they have imagined that, hiding somewhere in the universe or in the body of a cow there is a supreme being that is responsible for their existence, and that they should worship this divinity.
Crowding is one of our most primitive instincts. Also high on the list of primitive instincts is collective hysteria, also known as faith or communal naivety, so it is not surprising that belief in and worship of the elusive divinity was easily institutionalised. In the absence of the superior being, anyone desirous of exercising power over his cronies could claim to represent the divinity and formulate elaborate rituals and laws to ensure his hold on power.
And once one of the bipeds understood that no matter how farfetched his divine story, other likeminded souls would easily follow and they would readily recruit others to the cause by persuasion or death.
You can see where this is going.
The faith peddler was more successful in marketing his fantasy than the local monarch hawking security and taxes. The preacher had unconditional followers while the King had weapons so an uneasy alliance lasting many centuries ensued.
That is until around 506 BC when someone sitting on his Athenian latrine reading Cleisthenes latest blog had the bright idea to involve common people in affairs of state. He called it Demokratia and immediately gave it the definition of “rule of the people”.
This theory was quite enticing to the people who had already bought into the concept of religion.
Demokratia was sold much in the same way as religion, persuasion or death. And many a monarch lost his head to persuasive democracy.
Some monarchs agreed to play democracy if they could keep their head and their home. This gave birth to a bastard called Constitutional Monarchy.
It is human nature to meddle in other people’s affaires.
So the few remaining monarchs and democrats started meddling in the affairs of the church and the church reciprocated by meddling in the affairs of state. The separation of church and state became a political necessity to avoid civil war.
Religion lost their power to democracy and power is a potent motivator. Fear of losing power an even more potent motivator.
Muslims never developed a taste for democracy. They prefer Caliphate and Sharia.
Ever since Muhammad donned his ceremonial Bisht to celebrate the taking of Mecca, Muslims have dreamt of one great sandy Caliphate. Contrary to popular belief they have no interest in non-Muslim countries; once our Social Security dries up, they will return to the desert.
Since Caliphate is a political concept based on the religious principles of Tawid (unity of Allah), and Risalat (Prophethood), it is to all intents and purposes basically a religious dictatorship.
But Islamists insist that it is a democracy built on religious belief and are marketing it using the well proven ancient method of religious recruitment; persuasion or death.
The difference between Cleisthenes’s democracy in which the people elect their leader and the Caliphate is that Islam’s leader elected himself for a single term in office which would last from the creation till the end of the world.
This ingenious combination of religion and democracy neatly solves the paradox of two diametrically opposed political systems.
Problem is that, like his buddies Elohim, Buddha, Shiva and Huitzilopochtli, Allah does not communicate directly with his followers. This mutism has created a power vacuum. According to uncle Abdul, every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of the caliphate of Allah. This means that the power vacuum can be filled by everyone wearing a Shora or Kufi. Everyone is politically equal (an important ingredient missing from Karl Marx’s recipe for disaster).
Claude’s law of power states that money equals power and religious money equals religious power so the likes of the gold draped Salman ben Abdelaziz Al Saoud is more equal than Salman the goat herder.
Of course no family is perfect, and Islam is no exception. Bickering over philosophy, history and camel dung cigarettes has divided Islam. There are now more varieties of Islam than in a box of licorice Allsorts.
However divided the Islamic world, they are perfectly united over one thing; the Caliphate.
Woe betide anyone who messes with Allah, Muhammad or the Caliphate.
Because politicians cannot resist meddling in other politicians affairs, even if the other is a religious dictatorship, many wars were held. And because the faith must be extended to all non-believers and persuasion was no longer working, death was the only alternative. More wars were held. The result was always the same; dead believers and dead non-believers.
One day some new world marketing graduate decided that because democracy was losing market share to religious dictatorships a new campaign should be started to persuade the religious dictatorships that they should abandon their wicked system and join the money religion.
While the offer seemed attractive, this would mean separating religion and state. Rules are rules and no exceptions would be tolerated.
Islam fears the separation of Mosque and Caliphate more than pigskin underwear.
The result was predictable to everyone except democratic leaders. Islam would stop at nothing to keep their beloved dictatorship with its imaginary leader. They would fight with subversion, money and bombs to keep the devil democracy out of the sand pit. They would happily die for Caliph, Sharia and camel dung cigarettes.
If democracy wants to put an end to this war, the solution is quite simple; stop meddling in Allah’s affairs. They care nothing for Cleisthenes’s democracy, constitutional monarchy, pork sausages, anorexic models, porn stars or liberty.
And no amount of armed persuasion will change that.