Islam and Democracy

[Grace Seeker]

It is suspected that Al-Qaeda was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and that among the reasons for this were her western leanings seen in her pro-democracy stance.

Many in the Muslim community desire Sharia law which, as I understand it, is simply the rule of God over the community. Of course, this rule would be in accordance with a Muslim interpretation of what God's will was not some other individual's or group's understanding. Thus, if an individual wanted to practice something that was contrary to the ways of Islam, say converting from Islam to another religion, listening to music, practicing homosexuality, these things would not be tolerated in a pure Islamic state ruled by Sharia law (I understand that no such state presently exists anywhere).

On the other hand, in a democracy (which I don't think a pure democracy exists anywhere either), one of the principals is that even the views of the minority are to be tolerated. So, a person can switch endlessly, even mindlessly between any number of religions, can listen to the most disgusting music, and can practice all sorts of sexual relationships (even those thought by others to be perversions) as long as doing so does not harm or infringe on the rights of another.

Thus to me it appears that perhaps, though there are many Muslims that seem to value many democratice ideals, that in the end Islam and democracy are actually antithetical to one another. Would you accept this as a true assessment?

[Isambard]

They only value democratic ideals when they are at the mercy of a motivated majority. Such as a country thinking about banning hijabs, see how muslims root for individual rights.

In any other case, muslims should dictate everyone else's life because obviously they know better.

[Fishman]

They only value democratic ideals when they are at the mercy of a motivated majority. Such as a country thinking about banning hijabs, see how muslims root for individual rights.

In any other case, muslims should dictate everyone else's life because obviously they know better.

:sl:
I would disagree. If I had an Islamic State and there were Sikhs, or Jews in it, for example, I would let them follow their religion freely. So would many Muslims I think. There is a difference between a Western country banning the Hijab and a Muslim country banning revealing clothing. In the west, wearing a headscarf is not considered dirty or immoral. Plenty of old ladies with no connection to Islam or Muslims wear one. The problem that some westerners have with the Hijab (the headscarf, not the veil) is more to do with being intollerant of 'strange' cultures and religions, a form of Xenophobia much like racism. Like racism people who are intollerant of the Hijab try to justify themselves with concerns about it affecting women's rights, or their 'National Identity'.
By contrast, wearing revealing clothes is considered offensive and morally repungant in a Muslim country. Restrictions on revealing clothes are not similar to western restrictions on Islamic clothing, but rather more similar to western concerns about public nudity, prostitution or drinking in public places. A Christian nun in a wimple and gown, a western man in a suit and tie or a Sikh in their turban should in theory be perfectly acceptable in an Islamic Society, but a Muslim belly-dancer girl would not.
:w:

[Belief_is_Power]

Islam and Democracy are incompatible. Decomcracy says, do what ever you want. islam says obey your creator. In a democracy you can cheat on your wife/husband and get away with it. In Islamic law this sort of foolishness would not be tolerated. Under islamic law even minorities have rights, and protection.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't know the answer to this question. I've seen different opinions about it. I've got a feeling there might be a sticky somewhere about this. I'll have a look for it in a minute.

Edit: Here it is.

Perhaps this is one of those issues where there is disagreement among Muslims?

Peace

[Uthman]

Greetings,

There is another thread on the topic of whether Islam is compatible with democracy here.

:)

Regards

[Cognescenti]

Islam and Democracy are incompatible. Decomcracy says, do what ever you want. islam says obey your creator. In a democracy you can cheat on your wife/husband and get away with it. In Islamic law this sort of foolishness would not be tolerated. Under islamic law even minorities have rights, and protection.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of democracy. Democracy doesn't say "do whatever you want". Democracy refers only to the method of government. You are describing cultural differences not the logical consequence of democracy. I might add your description of Western cultural values is highly offensive and dare I say, Kuffarphobic but that is another topic.

There are many states in the US that have provisions for legal punishment of adultery. It doesn't involve stoning to death or beheading or other such pleasantries but in some cases it is a felony.


This one is rich..."Under islamic law even minorities have rights, and protection." Apparently, that doesn't refer to Koreans, eh?

[guyabano]

Decomcracy says, do what ever you want.

Huh ? Where you got this one? In an democracy, we also obey to strict laws, just with the difference, that these laws have been made by humans, not by any God. In Christianity, you also have the ten commandments, which many christians also obey voluntary, because it is simply their faith.

[Uthman]

Greetings,

This one is rich..."Under islamic law even minorities have rights, and protection." Apparently, that doesn't refer to Koreans, eh?

Why not? Are you referring to some historical event that I'm not aware about?

Regards

[Omar_Mukhtar]

quote;This one is rich..."Under islamic law even minorities have rights, and protection." Apparently, that doesn't refer to Koreans, eh?

clutching @ straws:D:D

[wilberhum]

Islam and Democracy are incompatible. Decomcracy says, do what ever you want. islam says obey your creator. In a democracy you can cheat on your wife/husband and get away with it. In Islamic law this sort of foolishness would not be tolerated. Under islamic law even minorities have rights, and protection.

IMHO you got one thing right.

Islam and Democracy are incompatible.

But that is the only accurate statement in your post.

[snakelegs]

i think they are incompatible, altho islam has its own form of democracy.
in a democracy, as we know it, man is the highest arbitrator and in islam it is god.
this is why it is much more difficult to challenge the rulers in a theocracy - because they do what they do wrapped in the flag of god.

[Belief_is_Power]

yeah yeah yeah, some states might have laws against adultry but the punishments aren't jail time or even a fine. Oh yeah and the ten commandments have punishments also, but todays christians are to afriad to carry them out.

[wilberhum]

yeah yeah yeah, some states might have laws against adultry but the punishments aren't jail time or even a fine. Oh yeah and the ten commandments have punishments also, but todays christians are to afriad to carry them out.

Afraid? :skeleton:

I think you get confused between fear and rational thought. :-\

[KAding]

Depends on how you define democracy. An Islam state can never be a "liberal democracy" IMHO, in which individual liberty is thought to be most important. But that does not mean that Islam is hostile to mechanism such as elections to select a ruler or parliament. And on all matters on which there is no divine law there is room for the rule of the majority.

All in all I think there is room for a narrow form of 'democracy' on the executive level, ie. at the level of the rulers, where policy is made. Consultation of the people and participation by the people appear to be encouraged in Islam.

However, there is very little room for popular intervention in law making. The will of the people can NEVER overrule the will of God. So when making laws individual liberty is simply not the prime concern, nor is popular opinion.

[KAding]

A question.

In an Islamic state, who interprets Islamic Law? The Muslim community as a whole, ie. the people? The ruler, like a Caliph? Or a class of scholars, who are selected based on their education?

[wonderweasel]

"In any other case, Muslims should dictate everyone else's life because obviously they know better."

What planet do you live on??

The last time I checked those of Islamic faith are still flawed, sinful humans (just like the rest of us).

I can't think of any group, religion etc. that "knows better".

Theocracy is the worst form of government known to man (that includes any and all religions not just Islam).

Just 'cause you profess a faith in Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc... does not cure you of being a flawed human being!! Remember some of the worst atrocities committed by man was in the name of God.

[Uthman]

Greetings,

"In any other case, Muslims should dictate everyone else's life because obviously they know better."

What planet do you live on??

The last time I checked those of Islamic faith are still flawed, sinful humans (just like the rest of us).

I can't think of any group, religion etc. that "knows better".

Theocracy is the worst form of government known to man (that includes any and all religions not just Islam).

Just 'cause you profess a faith in Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc... does not cure you of being a flawed human being!! Remember some of the worst atrocities committed by man was in the name of God.

Isambard (who you quoted from) is actually an atheist. He was being sarcastic when he said that. :)

Regards

[Grace Seeker]

"In any other case, Muslims should dictate everyone else's life because obviously they know better."

What planet do you live on??

You need to read that statement in context. Isambard was speaking with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.

[Cognescenti]

Greetings,



Why not? Are you referring to some historical event that I'm not aware about?

Regards

It's more of a "current event"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_So...in_Afghanistan

Of course...you will tell me they Talibums weren't following the tenants of Islam.

[Cognescenti]

Islam and Democarcy are not incompatible...........as long as the vote comes out the right way :okay:

[adeeb]

from any directions... islamic law a lot better than democracy...

islamic law has very clear regulations...but democracy accomodate what people want, even if majority want to be allowed to to sex in public, the government will have nothing to say except yes...

in democracy, you can buy people's voice to do what you want.. like in many islamic country.. they just leave Islam and accept western law by the name of democracy..

[Whatsthepoint]

islamic law has very clear regulations...but democracy accomodate what people want, even if majority want to be allowed to to sex in public, the government will have nothing to say except yes...

Most governments will say no.
But you can always gather a required amount of signitures and make a referendum about the issue in question..

[Yanal]

:sl:
It's a shame why would Al-Qaada do something to harm women. Besides in Benazirs speech one of them said that no muslims can harm a women. But on the other side it can be Al-Qaada but someone wouldv'e told them too because one two shots then boom all of a sudden how can that be without someones order and i can't believe someone cam be so foolish to do that action and the person who told them is even worse.
:w:

[adeeb]

:sl:
It's a shame why would Al-Qaada do something to harm women. Besides in Benazirs speech one of them said that no muslims can harm a women. But on the other side it can be Al-Qaada but someone wouldv'e told them too because one two shots then boom all of a sudden how can that be without someones order and i can't believe someone cam be so foolish to do that action and the person who told them is even worse.
:w:

maybe that's impossible for good muslim to kill a women... but was Benazir really great muslima?? many negative issues about her and the white house make us realize who she was...:-\

i read about what benazir did while she was in western country...out of islamic value and she called ' oxford party girl'...:-[
and that kind of women that you wish to be a prime minister? also she wanted to make a good relationship with Israel after winning the election as prime minister...like she got brainwashed by the western:blind:

however, i still disagree on the way killing a person like that

[Yanal]

:sl:
My parents are from Pakistan they respect her so i thought shse was good or know i think she just tried to act i wonder if she prayed but yes you are right that no body should've killed her that way.
:w:

[Pygoscelis]

Pure democracy is cooperative rule (every citizen has an equal say). Pure Islam is dictatorship (with Allah or the one perceived to speak for him as dictator). These are opposites. The two may mix, but they will always conflict. The more democratic a nation is the less Islamic it can be and vice versa. This also applies to Christianity and Democracy.

[north_malaysian]

"Islam and Democracy" the latest book by President of Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)

By Roslan Shahir

A book entitled "Islam dan Demokrasi" (Islam and Democracy) is the latest masterpiece of PAS President, Dato Seri Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang("Tuan Guru").

I was instructed by him to get several copies of it to be given as a gift for several political figures listed by himself.

He really want these political figures to see and share his latest book in discovering the openness of Islam towards democracy, something which is being ridiculed by the enemies of Islamic movements.

I was instructed to give those book copies to the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Advisor of People's Justice Party (PKR) Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the Opposition Leader Mr. Lim Kit Siang. According to Tuan Guru, Tun (Dr. Mahathir) is an avid reader and during his (Tuan Guru) position as the Opposition Leader before, he gave several books to him (Mahathir) when he was the Prime Minister.

While giving those books to be autographed by him, Tuan Guru told me about the latest news of several Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) figures being detained in Egypt. He said that this shows how double standard are those who are Pro-Western and American agents.

At a time, they want to propagate democracy to the entire world, but in the same time they take actions against Islamic movements which accepted democracy as what is happening towards the Ikhwan political figures.

Regarding to Democracy, Tuan Guru mentioned in his book preface that Islam would never reject a good thing (ideas) regardless where it was created or founded. It's proven that the Islamic movements accepted democratic way in shaping administrations in various levels, some (Islamic movements) are successful while some others are failures. Whatsoever, if the whole world want democracy as a way in order to create an administration of state, the Islamic movements are ready to use it.

For over 50 years PAS had already accepted this democracy practice. And as early as 1959 PAS managed to rule the state goverments of Kelantan and Terengganu by democracy practice.

Until now, PAS is still welcoming this (democracy) practice with remaining as a political power recognised and respected by its administration in the state of Kelantan, and its representatives in the "Dewan Rakyat" (Parliament) and "Dewan Negara" (Senate) and other states' assembly halls.

And it's not possible if Malaysia has a democratic competition arena in accordance to the true democracy principals and practices propagated by the West, PAS is confident to gain more success and could contribute towards the development of the religion, people and country more effectively.

It's important that the public should understand on how Islam really accept democracy. And if PAS managed to be in power (ruling Malaysia) it would continually preserving this democracy practice in its administration and leadership contrary to lies said by some (Anti-PAS) people.

The "power" would be (if PAS rule Malaysia) permanently rest in the people's hands. If the people had enough with PAS, then via the democracy practice they have the right to reject PAS.

The history had witnessed the rises and falls of PAS administered state governments, rised with the supports of people and fell mostly by democracy practice which actually done by lies and corruptions (of the current Malaysian government).

Whatsoever, the supporters of PAS had proven that within 50 years of independency of the country, they accepted well whether (PAS) lost or won without creating any chaotic or disturbance acts and not even bloodshed which had been done by other political parties when they lost in the general election for example in 1969 (between United Malays' NAtional Organisation-UMNO and Democratic Action Party-DAP) and in Sabah when Sabah United Party (PBS) managed to rule the state of Sabah.

Because of that, the task of the leaders, members and supporters of PAS is too heavy which is to convince the public that the democracy practice which the spirit of it is enshrined in the Federal Constitution would be preserved if PAS is given the responsibility to preserve it. It (democracy practice) currently has lots of faultiness as the preserver (the current Government) is too greedy and afraid if they lost their power democratically.

I estimated that I would finish reading this book in a short period. I would like to suggest the leaders and members of PAS and those who want to know PAS closer to get this book for all of them to analyse and understand it.

Meanwhile, I would do my duty given to me that is to make sure that Tuan Guru's book would be given to the hands of Tun Mahathir, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang and others.

(Roslan Shahir bin Datuk Mohd Shahir is the Press Secretary of the President of PAS)

Translated from: http://pemudapasseremban.net/v4/inde...d=538&Itemid=2

[Uthman]

Greetings,

It's more of a "current event"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_So...in_Afghanistan

Of course...you will tell me they Talibums weren't following the tenants of Islam.

And would you disagree with me if I said that?

[Bittersteel]

Decomcracy says, do what ever you want.

that's in a liberal country.

for a Non-Muslim perspective this post seems to say everything.

Depends on how you define democracy. An Islam state can never be a "liberal democracy" IMHO, in which individual liberty is thought to be most important. But that does not mean that Islam is hostile to mechanism such as elections to select a ruler or parliament. And on all matters on which there is no divine law there is room for the rule of the majority.

All in all I think there is room for a narrow form of 'democracy' on the executive level, ie. at the level of the rulers, where policy is made. Consultation of the people and participation by the people appear to be encouraged in Islam.

However, there is very little room for popular intervention in law making. The will of the people can NEVER overrule the will of God. So when making laws individual liberty is simply not the prime concern, nor is popular opinion.

there is another thing.In a Muslim state Non-Muslims are allowed to have their own laws and courts.In modern western developed nations there is no such thing(for minorities).it can be a good or bad thing depending on how you view it.

I don't know whether they can have representatives though;it's probably allowed.

Of course...you will tell me they Talibums weren't following the tenants of Islam.

of course they were.They were just extreme,irrational and a bunch of crazy illiterate fools,retarded even.

[Whatsthepoint]

there is another thing.In a Muslim state Non-Muslims are allowed to have their own laws and courts.In modern western developed nations there is no such thing(for minorities).it can be a good or bad thing depending on how you view it.

I don't know whether they can have representatives though;it's probably allowed.

In developed democracies minorities are protected by an entire set of laws - in the area they live in, every public service, including eductaion, courts etc must be available in their native language, their culture is protected and financially supported by the state, they have the freedom to worship anything they want (but that has nothing to do with minorities legislation). As far as I know, minorities don't have their own courts, at least not in any country I know of. In europe that's not much of a problem because most nations there are culturally related, so they don't have drastically different views on justice.

[Amadeus85]

Since islamic revival in 60's and 70's it's clearly to see that muslims try to establish a state closest to islamic (or even shariah).It can be seen from Morocco to Indonesia. But still some american or european politicians (vide Bush,Condie Rice or Gordon brown) say that they want to give democracy to muslim world. But when muslims get true democracy they will establish religious state, most probably hostile to western interests.

[Bittersteel]

yes look at the Hamas.They were elected.
But no, not all Muslims aren't the same or cry for religious states.The influence of liberalism is greater in this increasingly globalized world.Maybe a minority cry for a religious state surprising if you find it.

[Whatsthepoint]

yes look at the Hamas.They were elected.
But no, not all Muslims aren't the same or cry for religious states.The influence of liberalism is greater in this increasingly globalized world.Maybe a minority cry for a religious state surprising if you find it.

Hamas was elected because it is the only political force truely opposing Israel. IMHO a green socialist party would have won in Gaza as long as it had a tough stance on Israel.

[Amadeus85]

yes look at the Hamas.They were elected.
But no, not all Muslims aren't the same or cry for religious states.The influence of liberalism is greater in this increasingly globalized world.Maybe a minority cry for a religious state surprising if you find it.

I hope that you understand that i just wanted to show the close minds of those politicians. It's not that Im against islamic state in muslim countries. It is not my buisness.

[Omar_Mukhtar]

quote:But still some american or european politicians (vide Bush,Condie Rice or Gordon brown) say that they want to give democracy to muslim world.

And do you believe condi and her crew are actually serious?

[Bittersteel]

It's not that Im against islamic state in muslim countries. It is not my buisness.

your elected leaders don't think such as you.it's not only Bush and Co but also the EU who thinks they should meddle for what they think is the greater good.

[Isambard]

"In any other case, Muslims should dictate everyone else's life because obviously they know better."

What planet do you live on??

One where people understand perspective-taking and sarcasm.

[wilberhum]

from any directions... islamic law a lot better than democracy...
Maybe if you are a Muslim that not only wants to be a slave of Allah but also wants to be a slave of the state.:-\
islamic law has very clear regulations...
You have to be kidding me. Islamic law can't even figure out the details of a womans head ware.
but democracy accomodate what people want, even if majority want to be allowed to to sex in public, the government will have nothing to say except yes...
In any society, IMHO the majority of people are moral. There is one of your safe guard.
in democracy, you can buy people's voice to do what you want..
There are corrupt people in every government. That is the fallacy that most ignore when it comes to an Islamic state. It will not meet you expectations because there will be some corrupt people running it.
like in many islamic country..
There are no Islamic countries.
they just leave Islam and accept western law by the name of democracy..
You have to leave Islam to accept western law? You need to let your Western brothers and sisters in on this well kept secret.

In the end almost no non-Muslim wants to live in a theocracy.
There are many many reasons for that.

[Bittersteel]

like in many islamic country..
There are no Islamic countries.

maybe he referred to Muslim majority countries?if not perfectly Islamic at least nations with most laws based on the Islamic tenets.

wanted to post it.It may help.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/blewis.htm

[wilberhum]

maybe he referred to Muslim majority countries?if not perfectly Islamic at least nations with most laws based on the Islamic tenets.

wanted to post it.It may help.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/blewis.htm

Interesting that you only addressed the least important point. :-\

[Bittersteel]

hehe,maybe because more or less I agree with most of your points except one or two.

[Amadeus85]

quote:But still some american or european politicians (vide Bush,Condie Rice or Gordon brown) say that they want to give democracy to muslim world.

And do you believe condi and her crew are actually serious?

Seriously? No.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Democracy, sharia, dictatorships and communism = all forms of rule.

None is better than another since the effectiveness of those forms of law depend on how, when, why and to what extent they are carried out, in addition to the society's thoughts on it. As it stands, democracy is working well in the West - would it neccesarily work in countries that currently use communism, dictatorship or sharia law? Not completely. Similarly, Sharia law, dictatorship and communism will probably not work fully in the Western countries such as UK/US/France etc (unless of course there is a major attitude change in society!)

[Cognescenti]

:sl:
Democracy, sharia, dictatorships and communism = all forms of rule.

None is better than another since the effectiveness of those forms of law depend on how, when, why and to what extent they are carried out, in addition to the society's thoughts on it. As it stands, democracy is working well in the West - would it neccesarily work in countries that currently use communism, dictatorship or sharia law? Not completely. Similarly, Sharia law, dictatorship and communism will probably not work in the Wester countries such as UK/US/France etc (unless of course there is a major attitude change in society!)

I disagree. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Democracy is simply a form of government. The laws under which citizens in that democracy live can be determined in any number of ways.

Sharia is sort of a hybrid..a system of immutable laws with instruction on how to govern

Communism is neither. It is a model for an economic system and it is, at is core, silent on law or form of government. Of course, when you start taking things away from people that used to belong to them, you are going to need some oppressive laws and a dictatorial form of government to keep the thing going. :)

Also, I disagree with you that none is better than the other. Ask the Russians or the Cubans or the Chinese about their sordid little experiments with Communism. Also, one might compare North korea to South Korea (althogh the chief difference there is capitalsm) As for Shariah, I have no problem with the moral teachings which mirror the Ten Commandments and the Rabbi's Golden Rule to a large degree, but there is this nagging question of the discrepancy in standard of living between Muslim states and the Western democracies. Look at the recovery from absolute ruin after WWII. Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Brunei are doing OK economically. I think we all know what they have in common.

[aamirsaab]

I disagree. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Democracy is simply a form of government. The laws under which citizens in that democracy live can be determined in any number of ways.

Sharia is sort of a hybrid..a system of immutable laws with instruction on how to govern

Communism is neither. It is a model for an economic system and it is, at is core, silent on law or form of government. Of course, when you start taking things away from people that used to belong to them, you are going to need some oppressive laws and a dictatorial form of government to keep the thing going. :)

Thanks for the correction.

Also, I disagree with you that none is better than the other. Ask the Russians or the Cubans or the Chinese about their sordid little experiments with Communism. Also, one might compare North korea to South Korea (althogh the chief difference there is capitalsm)

I meant in the sense that just because it works in one country it doesn't mean it will work in another.

...but there is this nagging question of the discrepancy in standard of living between Muslim states and the Western democracies. Look at the recovery from absolute ruin after WWII. Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Brunei are doing OK economically. I think we all know what they have in common.

True but is this neccesarily because of the type of goverment itself or is it more to do with how that government is acting. Don't forget that a dictatorship doesn't always equate to oppression.

[Cognescenti]

True but is this neccesarily because of the type of goverment itself or is it more to do with how that government is acting. Don't forget that a dictatorship doesn't always equate to oppression.

What you say is true, of course. I can't prove it is due solely to type of government, but there are ineffectual leaders in the West, too. It doesn't seem to come out the same way :)

According to the strong majority on this forum, George Bush is the "dumbest" or "worst" (take your pick) President in US history, yet we are in the 7th year of economic expansion. Odd, isn't it?

As for benevolent dictatorship...that is not a bad system if you can find it...the problem is getting rid of the guy if you make a mistake.

[north_malaysian]

As far as I know, minorities don't have their own courts, at least not in any country I know of.

In Malaysia, the non-Muslim natives of Borneo have their own Native Courts.

[north_malaysian]

But when muslims get true democracy they will establish religious state, most probably hostile to western interests.

Of course, because for most of Muslims, the Western are hostile towards Muslims. The more Western propagandas attacking Islam, the more convincing to the Muslims that Western want to end Islam. That why they have to protect Islam.

Imagine, if the Western stop attacking Islam.

[wilberhum]

Of course, because for most of Muslims, the Western are hostile towards Muslims. The more Western propagandas attacking Islam, the more convincing to the Muslims that Western want to end Islam. That why they have to protect Islam.

Imagine, if the Western stop attacking Islam.

Imagine, if Islam stop attacking the West.

[Belief_is_Power]

^^^^ Ahhhhh more anti-muslim claptrap from wilberhum, sometimes I wonder if this guy is just here to hassle us muslims.

[wilberhum]

^^^^ Ahhhhh more anti-muslim claptrap from wilberhum, sometimes I wonder if this guy is just here to hassle us muslims.

Mind giving an example?

Or do you just like making negative statements about others to fill you ego. :raging:

Or is it just another case of some juvenile that has no concept of sarcasm? :?

[ricardo_sousa]

there is another thing.In a Muslim state Non-Muslims are allowed to have their own laws and courts.In modern western developed nations there is no such thing(for minorities).

there no such thing, because if it did, it would contradict the foundations of the "western societies": "all equal, despise their race, religions, origin, sex..."

so a government represents "all the people" and the laws of the country the same thing.

[caroline]

It never works to impose one culture's model onto another one, be it economic, political, social... But assuming democracy (as if we HAD one lol) should be foisted on which ever of the lucky nations the US happens to be "saving" at the moment is just another example of how truly stellar the US's ethnocentricity really is -- second only to it's hypocrisy.

As far as the Bhutto assassination and Al Qaeda... please. Don't you think it's the least bit convenient that we're coming up on elections, that we need an excuse to keep our dirty fingers in the Middle East, that if we end up having to occupy Pakistan (out of the kindness of our hearts of course) that we will just HAPPEN to have Iran surrounded?

Hmmm... but oh no. I'm a conspiracy theorist. Just like I was when I said the WMDs were a lie.

[caroline]

But then again, to even speak about hypocrisy of the US foisting democracy on an Islamic nation, you'd have to be stupid enough to believe that the US had any intention of establishing "democracy" in the first place.

[north_malaysian]

Imagine, if Islam stop attacking the West.

But, would the west stop attacking Islam, if Muslim stop attacking the west?

I think the West have allergies to women that covered from head to toes, to men that have four wives... :exhausted

[Whatsthepoint]

I think the West have allergies to women that covered from head to toes, to men that have four wives... :exhausted

Apart from the safety issues I for one have no problems with a woman being covered from head to toes. I do think though that muslim women living in the west should have the freedom to wear whatever they wanted without having to fear their husbands' and families' counter mesaures.
I don't have a real problem with polygamy. I'm sure if I want it legal, but should it become legal is should apply to both genders.

[Whatsthepoint]

As far as the Bhutto assassination and Al Qaeda... please. Don't you think it's the least bit convenient that we're coming up on elections, that we need an excuse to keep our dirty fingers in the Middle East, that if we end up having to occupy Pakistan (out of the kindness of our hearts of course) that we will just HAPPEN to have Iran surrounded?

are you saying the US killed Bhutto in order to able to invade Pakistan so they could surround Iran? Lol, you really are a conspiracy theorist.:D

[jd7]

I hate to sound as dumb as I am, but I will I am sure.
A list of Muslim majority countries with mostly free and open elections might be helpful in assessing how well democracy functions with Islam.

Just wondering.

[MTAFFI]

Imagine, if the Western stop attacking Islam.

Imagine, if Islam stop attacking the West :X

[jd7]

One other thing I was wondering about.
It seems to me that the freedom to openly express an opinion is vital for a democracy to function properly. Voting is a form of expressing an opinion.

Is freedom of speech vital for a democracy to function properly as well?
Does Islam support freedom of speech and expression, even if the expression was deeply insulting to Islam and/or its past/present leaders?

Would the Gay Pride marches be tolerated by Islam? I am assuming the Gay Pride marches are a form of expressing an opinion.

Still wondering

[MTAFFI]

It never works to impose one culture's model onto another one, be it economic, political, social... But assuming democracy (as if we HAD one lol) should be foisted on which ever of the lucky nations the US happens to be "saving" at the moment is just another example of how truly stellar the US's ethnocentricity really is -- second only to it's hypocrisy.

As far as the Bhutto assassination and Al Qaeda... please. Don't you think it's the least bit convenient that we're coming up on elections, that we need an excuse to keep our dirty fingers in the Middle East, that if we end up having to occupy Pakistan (out of the kindness of our hearts of course) that we will just HAPPEN to have Iran surrounded?

Hmmm... but oh no. I'm a conspiracy theorist. Just like I was when I said the WMDs were a lie.

I agree that no ones social, economic, political or cultural model should be imposed on another. You are correct in that.

As far as the US having ethnocentricity, you may wish to think again, ethnically the US is one of the most diverse countries in the world, and because of this, the culture of the US is diverse as well, so there really isnt a place for ethnocentricism. However, I will assume you speak of American values and what is wrong with that? Does every country not think there values are better than anothers? What is your culture? Do you believe that someone elses is better than yours? IF you really wish to talk about ethnocentricism you can look straight to the M.E., if one of those rulers had the capability, you would submit to Islam, pay a non muslim tax, or die (if you were an ido worshipper).

As far as the Bhutto assasination goes all I can say to you is with that comment you officially made yourself look like a freak conspiracy theorist.. ;D And I laugh at your gullability and simple mindedness for even having the gall to type it :giggling: Dont worry though, we wont invade Pakistan, they are an ally and they also hold WMD, so they dont have much to worry about as far as an invasion goes, the thought is rather far fetched, but that is what conspiracy theories are right? Far fetched anti government nonsense, perfect for individuals like yourself.

As far as Iraq and WMD, SH publicly stated many times he had these weapons, and publicly threatened our country many times over. If you were the leader of the US and this man is widely thought to have these capabilities would you give him the chance to hand them off to some unknown terror cell that may be able to detonate such device on US soil or interests? I wouldnt... Iraq is a mistake because Saddam was a liar and Bush was to quick to finish his daddies fight.. It is a pointless war and a waste of tax paid dollars.

Some advice to you: judging by the literature that you cite, you seem no better than those you argue against, it is obviously one sided and very clearly has a specific agenda, you can gain no more reading from only this type of material than whatever was on the authors mind and if you wish to have the authors mind then you are a drone. Try reading some pro-democratic or pro-US material then look in the middle somewhere and you might be a bit more well rounded as an individual and probably more interesting to talk to. I am not saying one or the other is right, I am saying everyone has an agenda so it is always good to walk both sides of the tracks

[Whatsthepoint]

One other thing I was wondering about.
It seems to me that the freedom to openly express an opinion is vital for a democracy to function properly. Voting is a form of expressing an opinion.

Is freedom of speech vital for a democracy to function properly as well?
Does Islam support freedom of speech and expression, even if the expression was deeply insulting to Islam and/or its past/present leaders?

Would the Gay Pride marches be tolerated by Islam? I am assuming the Gay Pride marches are a form of expressing an opinion.

Still wondering

We all know what happened when cartoons of a certain prophet were published...:X

[Cognescenti]

It never works to impose one culture's model onto another one, be it economic, political, social... But assuming democracy (as if we HAD one lol) should be foisted on which ever of the lucky nations the US happens to be "saving" at the moment is just another example of how truly stellar the US's ethnocentricity really is -- second only to it's hypocrisy.

As far as the Bhutto assassination and Al Qaeda... please. Don't you think it's the least bit convenient that we're coming up on elections, that we need an excuse to keep our dirty fingers in the Middle East, that if we end up having to occupy Pakistan (out of the kindness of our hearts of course) that we will just HAPPEN to have Iran surrounded?

Hmmm... but oh no. I'm a conspiracy theorist. Just like I was when I said the WMDs were a lie.

Caroline;

You don't llike the US very much, do you? As you appear to be simultaneously living in Haiti and Kansas, why not just make the Haiti part permanent, then you won't have to use the 1st person plural pronoun when describing the US. Plus, you will have the added benefit of enjoying the great democratic freedoms of Haiti.

Democracy isn't a "cultural model", it's a system of government. We aren't trying to export cowboy hats and chili to Iraq. It does appear that the Iraqis are, at present, unable to throw off thousands of years of clan allegiances and several centuries of sectarian dvision (not to mention some resentment toward the Baathists from the Hussein era) in order to form a inclusive democracy. Oh well. Now it is about kicking AQI in the teeth. :smile:

As for your Bhutto theory....:uuh: That just doesn't hold together. Where are the US troops going to come from to occupy a country with a huge population
of what would certainly be hostile locals. Bhutto was a pro-democracy advocate. She was educated at Harvard and Oxford. I am guessing you didn'/t "go there".

[north_malaysian]

I don't have a real problem with polygamy. I'm sure if I want it legal, but should it become legal is should apply to both genders.

Muslims are patriarchal people..... if a woman have 4 husbands, if she had a baby ... then we have to do DNA test to see which father's name/surname should be used. Poor baby....:exhausted

Imagine if a woman has 4 husbands, and each husband has 4 wives...:skeleton:

[Uthman]

Greetings,

Does Islam support freedom of speech and expression, even if the expression was deeply insulting to Islam and/or its past/present leaders?

(emphasis mine)

No, it doesn't.

Regards

[Jayda]

self determination is more important than democracy... i think... people should govern themselves in accordance with their cultural traditions and as long as their laws are in harmony with God's laws.

[MTAFFI]

self determination is more important than democracy... i think... people should govern themselves in accordance with their cultural traditions and as long as their laws are in harmony with God's laws.

what if it was a country of atheists? Should they have to govern in accordance with Gods laws?

[Jayda]

what if it was a country of atheists? Should they have to govern in accordance with Gods laws?

si... atheists, muslims, bhuddists... ancient aztecs... their laws should be based upon God's laws... leges sine moribus vanae, laws without morals are useless.

[MTAFFI]

si... atheists, muslims, bhuddists... ancient aztecs... their laws should be based upon God's laws... leges sine moribus vanae, laws without morals are useless.

indeed I agree, good answer

[ricardo_sousa]

Greetings,

(emphasis mine)

No, it doesn't.

Regards

and that is the ultimate weakness of the "Islamic Civilization". When you can´t criticize "your" actions, then all the "system" become dogmatic and against progress. The Medieval Europe is a good example.

[ricardo_sousa]

Democracy is good because it can "regenerate" the leaders and political ideals and the nations "keep moving"...

[Uthman]

Greetings ricardo_sousa,

Thank you for your post. :)

and that is the ultimate weakness of the "Islamic Civilization". When you can´t criticize "your" actions, then all the "system" become dogmatic and against progress. The Medieval Europe is a good example.

That would be something I agree with with regards to man-made laws which are changed, abrogated and updated as time goes on and new situations are encountered. However, Sharia is said to come from Allah (which admittedly won't mean much to a Non-Muslim) and is therefore seen as complete and perfect.

With that in mind, Muslims would argue that progress in this sense is unnecessary as the laws from Allah are complete, universal and applicable to any time and situation. Thus, there is no concept of 'making it up as you go along' that would be present with a man-made political system.

Regards

[Cognescenti]

That would be something I agree with with regards to man-made laws which are changed, abrogated and updated as time goes on and new situations are encountered. However, Sharia is said to come from Allah (which admittedly won't mean much to a Non-Muslim) and is therefore seen as complete and perfect.

With that in mind, Muslims would argue that progress in this sense is unnecessary as the laws from Allah are complete, universal and applicable to any time and situation. Thus, there is no concept of 'making it up as you go along' that would be present with a man-made political system.

Regards

Osman;

I understand the concept of the divine origin of Shariah. As we have seen most recently in Sudan, however, there is the thorny problem of implementation and interpretation which often falls well short of the divine :sunny:

[ricardo_sousa]

However, Sharia is said to come from Allah (which admittedly won't mean much to a Non-Muslim) and is therefore seen as complete and perfect.

With that in mind, Muslims would argue that progress in this sense is unnecessary as the laws from Allah are complete, universal and applicable to any time and situation. Thus, there is no concept of 'making it up as you go along' that would be present with a man-made political system.

Regards

I know that fact and interpretation of the Sharia. But the world doesn´t stop and new situations arrive.... the Sharia rules the traffic in the streets or it was man made laws? Sharia rules the food quality standards? and so on...

So you have always a set of "man made laws", that of course, don´t contradict the Sharia, but if that can´t be "questioned", it will never "improve".

I will not even discuss some Sharia laws that clearly transform the "Islamic Civilization" (I use frequently this term to represent the muslins who want to follow the true Islam) less competitive compared to the western ones.

[jd7]

If this isn’t too far off topic:

Osman “That would be something I agree with [in] regards to man-made laws which are changed, abrogated and updated as time goes on and new situations are encountered. However, Shari is said to come from Allah (which admittedly won't mean much to a Non-Muslim) and is therefore seen as complete and perfect”.

It was my understanding that a number of laws that allowed the taking of slaves, and some might say abusing the female slaves, had been abrogated.

Am I wrong in my understanding?

Still wondering

[caroline]

are you saying the US killed Bhutto in order to able to invade Pakistan so they could surround Iran? Lol, you really are a conspiracy theorist.:D

Yeah, and there were WMDs too... and nukular bombs and mushroom clouds awaiting us...

If you're interested there's a lot of literature that clearly shows this kind of tactic not the least bit out of keeping with US foreign policy.

[caroline]

Caroline;

You don't llike the US very much, do you? As you appear to be simultaneously living in Haiti and Kansas, why not just make the Haiti part permanent, then you won't have to use the 1st person plural pronoun when describing the US. Plus, you will have the added benefit of enjoying the great democratic freedoms of Haiti.

Democracy isn't a "cultural model", it's a system of government. We aren't trying to export cowboy hats and chili to Iraq. It does appear that the Iraqis are, at present, unable to throw off thousands of years of clan allegiances and several centuries of sectarian dvision (not to mention some resentment toward the Baathists from the Hussein era) in order to form a inclusive democracy. Oh well. Now it is about kicking AQI in the teeth. :smile:

As for your Bhutto theory....:uuh: That just doesn't hold together. Where are the US troops going to come from to occupy a country with a huge population
of what would certainly be hostile locals. Bhutto was a pro-democracy advocate. She was educated at Harvard and Oxford. I am guessing you didn'/t "go there".

I don't dislike the United States. But I despise our foreign policy. And no, I did not go to Harvard but my mentor did. I'm just an economic anthropologist -- my degrees are not Ivy League. I do have a bit of reading and some experience under my belt.

As for Haiti's "democracy" -- the only truly democratically elected president they ever had has been overthrown by the US TWICE. I lived there when it happened and I saw the whole thing on the ground. I also read the "journalism" about the situation in the US media. Needless to say, what was really happening was diametrically opposed to the reports you were getting in the US.

Sorry but my information about US foreign policy doesn't come from youtube and people who think the US is being taken over by Satanic Cults. That would be a convenient cop-out though. My information comes from field experience, independent research, and years of academic study. If you think any of the actions I proposed are out of keeping with typical US foreign policy then you simply lack information.

The ad hominem attacks from various posters don't deserve a response. All I can say is that the atrocities we see happening in the world right now would not be possible without the apathy and naivety of the public.

[caroline]

I agree that no ones social, economic, political or cultural model should be imposed on another. You are correct in that.

As far as the US having ethnocentricity, you may wish to think again, ethnically the US is one of the most diverse countries in the world, and because of this, the culture of the US is diverse as well, so there really isnt a place for ethnocentricism. However, I will assume you speak of American values and what is wrong with that? Does every country not think there values are better than anothers? What is your culture? Do you believe that someone elses is better than yours? IF you really wish to talk about ethnocentricism you can look straight to the M.E., if one of those rulers had the capability, you would submit to Islam, pay a non muslim tax, or die (if you were an ido worshipper).

As far as the Bhutto assasination goes all I can say to you is with that comment you officially made yourself look like a freak conspiracy theorist.. ;D And I laugh at your gullability and simple mindedness for even having the gall to type it :giggling: Dont worry though, we wont invade Pakistan, they are an ally and they also hold WMD, so they dont have much to worry about as far as an invasion goes, the thought is rather far fetched, but that is what conspiracy theories are right? Far fetched anti government nonsense, perfect for individuals like yourself.

As far as Iraq and WMD, SH publicly stated many times he had these weapons, and publicly threatened our country many times over. If you were the leader of the US and this man is widely thought to have these capabilities would you give him the chance to hand them off to some unknown terror cell that may be able to detonate such device on US soil or interests? I wouldnt... Iraq is a mistake because Saddam was a liar and Bush was to quick to finish his daddies fight.. It is a pointless war and a waste of tax paid dollars.

Some advice to you: judging by the literature that you cite, you seem no better than those you argue against, it is obviously one sided and very clearly has a specific agenda, you can gain no more reading from only this type of material than whatever was on the authors mind and if you wish to have the authors mind then you are a drone. Try reading some pro-democratic or pro-US material then look in the middle somewhere and you might be a bit more well rounded as an individual and probably more interesting to talk to. I am not saying one or the other is right, I am saying everyone has an agenda so it is always good to walk both sides of the tracks

Gee, think you could have slipped a few more personal attacks in there?:okay:

[wilberhum]

Gee, think you could have slipped a few more personal attacks in there?:okay:

What do you expect when you not only buy into every conspiracy theory ever created, you make up your own. :-\

[Grace Seeker]

Folks, this thread is difficult enough to keep from slipping into attack mode even when it is NOT made personal. Can we just drop these last few comments and move on, please.


One of the things that I see that is keeping us from really addressing this is that quite a few are thinking not in the abstract, but projecting different present governments into the picture.


Just for the record, a democracy can and has elected many different types of leadership. Chile elected a communist government in 1970. Hitler came to power in a democracy as well. There is nothing to prevent a democracy from writing a constitution based on Sharia law.

But I wonder if, in the long wrong, the principals of democracy -- one man, one vote (except in Chicago:D) -- are perhaps diameterically in opposition to the priniciples of Islam --submit to God's will -- for it would just be coincidence if what was understood as the will of God and the will of the majority were the same. At some point in time the chances are that they would be different, and then the principles of each system would be in opposition to one another. And would men (and women) living in an already existing democracy be willing to give up their right to self-determination and surrender it to a set of laws, albiet even from a God they might believe in, if they did not have confidence in those who would be interpreting God's law for them and be able to replace them if they did not?

[Malaikah]

I know that fact and interpretation of the Sharia. But the world doesn´t stop and new situations arrive.... the Sharia rules the traffic in the streets or it was man made laws? Sharia rules the food quality standards? and so on...

What most people don't realise is that very few laws are written in stone in Islamic law, and all other laws are determined by the relevant law making authority of the country, including the examples you mentioned (road and food safety). The world is changing and Islamic law takes that in to account, hence why it can be applied at any time and place. So why some of the laws are man-made, the presence of these man made laws is not against Shariah, but a part of shariah.

So you have always a set of "man made laws", that of course, don´t contradict the Sharia, but if that can´t be "questioned", it will never "improve".

Of course the man-made laws can be questioned and improved! What can't be changed, for example, are the principles on which Islamic law based, and the fixed laws.

Islamic law is actually very flexible, something people don't realise.

[Grace Seeker]

Of course the man-made laws can be questioned and improved! What can't be changed, for example, are the principles on which Islamic law based, and the fixed laws.

Islamic law is actually very flexible, something people don't realise.

So, let's take the results of a poll among Malaysians Muslims listed in another thread:

Who should have the authority to monitor and punish Muslims for immoral behaviour?
Religious Authority - 44%
Family - 33%
Others - 21%


Now that was taken just of Muslims. If we had the view of non-Muslims, it might be that the majority says that it should be family, and not a religious authority that punishes Muslims for immoral behavior. Am I correct in assuming that this would be contrary to Islamic law? So, then what happens. How flexible is it at that point in time?

[Malaikah]

So, let's take the results of a poll among Malaysians Muslims listed in another thread:

Firstly, I would just like to make it clear that polls like this don't mean much. The general public is not qualified to make those kind of decision. That is the role of law makers and people who must study the law for many years

If we had the view of non-Muslims, it might be that the majority says that it should be family, and not a religious authority that punishes Muslims for immoral behavior. Am I correct in assuming that this would be contrary to Islamic law? So, then what happens. How flexible is it at that point in time?

I'm really not sure what you mean. Is what contrary to Islamic law?

[wilberhum]

Just for the record, a democracy can and has elected many different types of leadership. Chile elected a communist government in 1970. Hitler came to power in a democracy as well. There is nothing to prevent a democracy from writing a constitution based on Sharia law.

If a constitution became based on Sharia law, it would no longer be a true Democracy. And if the new government was "Based" on Sharia law and was not a perfect implementation, it would not be an Islamic state.

If you mix the two, you end up with neither.

[KAding]

If a constitution became based on Sharia law, it would no longer be a true Democracy. And if the new government was "Based" on Sharia law and was not a perfect implementation, it would not be an Islamic state.

If you mix the two, you end up with neither.

Thats not true. If you mix them you get a mix ;). Liberal democracy as we try to practice it in the West is also a mix obviously. It is also not a 'true' democratic system. Heck our whole system is based on an elected elite, all aimed at preventing the 'tyranny of the majority'.

That mixing means that you don't have a 'pure' system is really only relevant to fundamentalists. I think mixing democracy with Sharia is quite possible, both doctrines simply have to make compromises.

For example: a nice mix
- Allow the majority (ie the people) to interpret Islamic law (rather than scholars). In other words, let the people elect law makers and scholars every few years or even hold referendums on matters of religious interpretation. "Do you believe Islam allows women to drive cars?" Yes/No (:P)
- Elect Imams/Caliph with limited terms
- Have an independent judiciary that is appointed by the elected rulers/parliament

Sure, it will not be 100% Islamic, simply because perhaps 'the people' aren't really in a position to interpret Islamic law properly. And yes, it isn't 100% democratic because in the end 'the constitution' (ie Sharia) will be virtually impossible to change (though interpretation can evolve over time).

[wilberhum]

Thats not true. If you mix them you get a mix ;).
.......................................
Sure, it will not be 100% Islamic, simply because perhaps 'the people' aren't really in a position to interpret Islamic law properly. And yes, it isn't 100% democratic because in the end 'the constitution' (ie Sharia) will be virtually impossible to change (though interpretation can evolve over time).

Sure, it will not be 100% Islamic and we will continue to here how evil it is because it is not 100% Islamic. :-\

But if there is an experiment I truly hope that it is done in a Muslim Country.

[jd7]

KAding “I think mixing democracy with Shari is quite possible, both doctrines simply have to make compromises”.

I have to disagree. In Islam the balance of the individual rights verses the over riding demands for state’s rights/security is, and always will be, by far balanced in favor in the states favor.
Islam will always limit the non-Muslim in favor of the Muslim. No open and fair democracy can survive that in the long term. (Fair= one man-one freely given vote.)


Now if you want to discuss some sort of hybridized democracy, you must address' the limited voice of the minority.

Your posits only address populations that are in agreement with remaining as second class citizen. Expecting people to desire to remain a second class citizen has failed over and over. Look at what happened in South Africa, or Gandhi in India.

Freedom to offer/voice opposing opinions is part and parcel to democracy, even if they happen to hate Islam.

Islam doesn’t tolerate that.

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of individuals rights of freedom of expression and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

If it isn’t free and open….it is a dictatorship to one degree or another.

Islam will tolerate dictatorship, but it will not tolerate an open and free diverse populace.

I don’t intend to insult anyone with this post and my apologies to anyone who may have taken offense at this post.

[jd7]

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of individuals rights of freedom of expression and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

The above sentence should read:

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of the individuals rights of freedom of expression of ideals incompatible with Islam and state security, and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

[Grace Seeker]

Firstly, I would just like to make it clear that polls like this don't mean much. The general public is not qualified to make those kind of decision. That is the role of law makers and people who must study the law for many years



I'm really not sure what you mean. Is what contrary to Islamic law?

That family, rather than religious authorities, would have the power to punish people for immoral behavior.

[Malaikah]

That family, rather than religious authorities, would have the power to punish people for immoral behavior.

Thanks for clarifying, and I don't know what the answer to that, sorry.

[Bittersteel]

Islam doesn’t tolerate that.

criticism is allowed,bashing or insulting isn't.that is as far as I know;however nowadays criticism of Islam even is hated by Muslims (which is something else).

BTW,mode of governance doesn't matter if justice is not served.

[wilberhum]

criticism is allowed,bashing or insulting isn't.that is as far as I know;however nowadays criticism of Islam even is hated by Muslims (which is something else).

BTW,mode of governance doesn't matter if justice is not served.

If Islam is from god, criticizing Islam is equal to criticizing god, which is blasphemy which is punishable by death.:?

[KAding]

KAding “I think mixing democracy with Shari is quite possible, both doctrines simply have to make compromises”.

I have to disagree. In Islam the balance of the individual rights verses the over riding demands for state’s rights/security is, and always will be, by far balanced in favor in the states favor.

Thats only because you define 'democracy' as 'liberal democracy', which is a very modern Western approach to the matter. Democracy does not imply individual liberty, this is simply a dominant element we added in the West. If certain totalitarian rules are deemed Islamic by the majority then there really isn't anything undemocratic about implementing them. It's anti-liberal, but not anti-democratic.

Islam will always limit the non-Muslim in favor of the Muslim. No open and fair democracy can survive that in the long term. (Fair= one man-one freely given vote.)

Thats a good point. The position of a non-Muslim in an Islamic state is a matter of concern. Would they have the right to vote? In a sense a non-Muslim in an Islamic state is similar to a non-citizen in any modern state, in that their political rights are quite seriously curtailed. This would certainly be a legitimate concern when attempting 'Islamic' democracy in a country with a sizable non-Muslim minority.

But then again, is there anything in Islamic scripture that explicitly bans non-Muslims from participating actively in politics? There would still be room for non-Muslim participation in all those matters on which there is no 'divine' law. And perhaps there are alternative solutions, for example, whereby non-Muslims can request to be exempted from certain rules or whereby they have their own political institutions limited to their group.

Now if you want to discuss some sort of hybridized democracy, you must address' the limited voice of the minority.

Your posits only address populations that are in agreement with remaining as second class citizen. Expecting people to desire to remain a second class citizen has failed over and over. Look at what happened in South Africa, or Gandhi in India.

I largely agree, as long as these non-Muslims are natives of the land anyway. From a democratic point of view I think it is quite reasonable for a Muslim majority to demand that immigrants follow integration courses and eventually do the Shahada and pledge that "that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger". Again, Islamic democracy would not be liberal, at least, as long as the majority of the Muslims does not interpret Islam as being liberal.

Freedom to offer/voice opposing opinions is part and parcel to democracy, even if they happen to hate Islam.

Islam doesn’t tolerate that.

It is not illegal for non-Muslims in an Islamic state to disagree with Islamic doctrine. It is illegal to insult the messenger, yet how does that infringe on their democratic rights? And it is illegal to commit treason. Is there anything in Islam that would prevent non-Muslims from rationally discussing state policies? As long as you do not attempt to overthrow the Islamic order you'll be fine. Keep in mind that most liberal democracies on this planet do not condone hate-speech either, nor do they condone those who plot or call to overthrow the liberal-democratic order.

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of individuals rights of freedom of expression and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

If it isn’t free and open….it is a dictatorship to one degree or another.

Islam will tolerate dictatorship, but it will not tolerate an open and free diverse populace.

I don’t intend to insult anyone with this post and my apologies to anyone who may have taken offense at this post.

But again, democracy does not need to be liberal or pluralist. Democracy at it's core is about the rule of the majority, the empowerment of the people on matters of the state. It is about elected rulers or even direct democracy. In ancient Greece, the supposed cradle of democracy, there were no civil rights either.

I agree with you that the issue of non-Muslims is an important one. If there are too many of them it would certainly de-legitimize the Islamic democratic state. Although, again, it would depend on what political rights these non-Muslims would actually have. There might be implementations thinkable that alleviate many of these concerns. The way Islam seems to grant jurisdiction of non-Muslims over their 'own kind' on family law and such might provide an opening.

in short, here is how I see it:
- Mixing liberalism with democracy: Quite a natural mix that has proven to be feasible, despite the obvious incompatibility between 'individual liberty' and 'majority opinion'. In our systems it is virtually impossible for the majority to take away the rights of a individuals, because of a separation of powers and a difficult to alter constitution. Our systems are designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority. We have essentially curbed 'the will of the people' (and thus democracy) in that regard.

- Mixing Islam with democracy: An Islamic democracy would be structured to prevent laws from being un-Islamic. Whether something would be considered un-Islamic is for the Ummah as a whole to decide. For that they would elect rulers that would be forced to consult the people (shura) and they would elect representatives that would interpret Islamic doctrine. These representatives would then make actual laws based on these interpretations and on matters on which there is no divine 'inspiration'. The 'will of the people' is essentially limited by how far interpretation of Islamic scripture can be stretched. But, if you think about it, isn't the Ummah (ie. the people) the most logical candidate to interpret what Islam is?

All said and done though, I would prefer to live in a liberal dictatorial system that respects individual liberty, then in an illiberal democracy, which an Islamic democracy would most likely be! but IMHO it certainly is a feasible mix!

[MTAFFI]

Gee, think you could have slipped a few more personal attacks in there?:okay:

except for saying that you are simple minded I am not sure where the personal attacks are that you are speaking of.... my most sincere apologies if I offended you, perhaps you would wish to actually respond to the post and show me where my faults are :? The last paragraph was meant to be helpful criticism, I hope this is not what you are referring to.... I also said you are simple minded, gullable and a conspiracy theorist, none of which I think are personal attacks, more like perceptions I have gathered from your posts. Please dont take offense to my perceptions.

[Grace Seeker]

One of the things that I could see happening if Islam was to try to operate using some democratic form of goverment, is that it might created schisms within Islam. Surely no two people ever think completely alike. Thus, though many people are like-minded, they will still have points of differences. This is going to be true whether they are Muslims or not. Thus, one has both Benazir Bhutto and Osama binLaden claiming to be Muslims. Yet, their views of what it means to be Muslims and practice Isalm are not compatible with each other. The result is that those who agree with binLaden's view of Islam and wish to go in that direction say that Bhutto is not a true Muslim. And those that agree with Bhutto say the same about binLaden. And even on this very forum we can see this sort of disagreement.

Now, if one operates any form of democracy in Islam, one either has to give voice to all sides and find some way to tolerate those that one disagrees with....OR
One takes a radically exclusive stand and casts as outside the Ummah all those that don't fit one's own acceptable definition of what it means to be Muslim. But then, how narrowly does one draw that circle? Does one say that Turks who drink and enjoy music are not true Muslims? Does one say that western women who don't wear the scarf at all times and places are not true Muslims. Does one say that Saudi business men who on business trips visit women other than their wives for entertainment purposes are not true Musilms?

Interestingly, in Malaysia they seem to be taking the opposite approach, saying that a person who decides that she does not wish to remain in the Ummah cannot leave it. Or that to be Maylay is to automatically be Muslim, and those who cease to be Muslim also therefore cease to be Maylay. Quite interesting how that works. I must have missed that session in my genetics class.

[north_malaysian]

Interestingly, in Malaysia they seem to be taking the opposite approach, saying that a person who decides that she does not wish to remain in the Ummah cannot leave it. Or that to be Maylay is to automatically be Muslim, and those who cease to be Muslim also therefore cease to be Maylay. Quite interesting how that works. I must have missed that session in my genetics class.

It's "Malay" not 'Maylay":giggling:. The Malays belong to the Malayo-Polynesian race. How to recognise a Malays? Have you ever seen the Hawaiians or Samoans. The pure Malays looks like them.

In Malaysia, all Muslims who habitually speak Malay Language are known as "Malays". Whether you're Arabs, Persians, Turks, Indians, Chinese, Khmers, Thais... as long as you're Malaysian citizen, born Muslim and speak Malay. Automatically you're a Malay ang have lots of special previleges.

[Grace Seeker]

It's "Malay" not 'Maylay":giggling:.

Apologies for my spelling.

In Malaysia, all Muslims who habitually speak Malay Language are known as "Malays". Whether you're Arabs, Persians, Turks, Indians, Chinese, Khmers, Thais... as long as you're Malaysian citizen, born Muslim and speak Malay. Automatically you're a Malay ang have lots of special previleges.

That is an even more interesting genetics class than I would have imagined. In fact it sounds more like political science than biology.

The Malays belong to the Malayo-Polynesian race. How to recognise a Malays? Have you ever seen the Hawaiians or Samoans. The pure Malays looks like them.

I have a friend from Malaysia. My guess is they look a little like him, though he is also part Chinese. But I have seen other pictures of people on the streets of Kuala Lumpur as well. But what I am hearing you say is that according to the state, a person could be of pure Malayo-Polynesian descent, but if they don't habitually speak Malay or are not Muslim that the state won't recognize them. Sort of sounds like the way the US Department of Agriculture classifies a tomato as a vegetable rather than a fruit. It has everything to do with politics and very little to do with science or truth.

[jd7]

KAding, I understand and can agree with your statements, however only in the abstract. I don’t believe it would work for any length of time in practical application.

What are your thoughts on Iran’s government? I can see where certain aspects of it might fit your model.

Also would your model work very well if there were an equal mix of Muslim sects?

Given man’s tendencies to do what we do, seek power and attempt to control our neighbor (probably the same thing down deep.) for our own selfish ends, would your model work without a lot of hard police tactics? A police state is what comes to mind.

A comment or two concerning some statements:

From a democratic point of view I think it is quite reasonable for a Muslim majority to demand that immigrants follow integration courses and eventually do the Shahada and pledge that "that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger".

What would you fore see the punishment to ultimately wind up being if a person refused the pledge? Would that even be legal if there is to be no compulsion in religion?

As to your remarks concerning ancient Greece, I can’t help but think that is a bit of apples to oranges given that modern groups would want the same freedoms that they see in other countries.

One last thing if you don’t mind, does your model fit very well what the USA is trying to implement in Iraq?