Are Democracy & Islam Compatible? - Page 10

Goldenboy219 · 06-17-08, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

It is not hard to prove that the founding fathers had no such intention in mind when they started this grand experiment.

From the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Again. We are not a democracy!!!

Quote:

Islam does not believe in the equality of man.

A representative democracy does not require this.

Quote:

Of the 30 Articles here are the first five:

And that is the point.

As part of a religious injunction to apply Islamic law over ALL the nations of the world members of the Islamic religion are currently and have been busy planning and carrying out efforts large and small, violent and non, and in spoken and written words and deeds that will help them achieve their goal. And they will not stop until they achieve their goal.

That is the point of the Global War on Terror. That is the point of invading Iraq. That is the point of the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians. That is the point of opposing Iran. That is the point of electing GWB for two terms. That is the point of electing John McCain.

The Islamic vanguard is like the T-1000 robot that is programmed to do one thing and to never stop until it achieves it's mission.

Through increased Muslim immigration and increases in Muslim babies and through a concerted effort to minimize Islamic violence in the US there is a possibility that Muslims will be able to use increases in their population and our system of government to deceive non-Muslims and gain power.

And every time that happens, such as in Pakistan or in Algeria, the military has had to intercede to maintain real freedom in the country.

The first time I ever heard anyone refer to American voters as sheeple was in a political forum by a Muslim poster.

One can imagine his being taught that by someone teaching him the strategy to follow in the US.

More rubbish...

Democracy does not mean a rule of law per say, it only means the will of the people. If the majority decree it to be so, then it shall be...

Using the constitution as an example did not help you either. Your a so called republican, so it would probably be helpful to know the difference between a democracy and a republic (republicanism especially), which would also go a long way in showing you the true distinction between American republicans and democrats.

bhkad · 06-17-08, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

Again. We are not a democracy!!!

In THIS matter you point out a difference without a distinction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

A representative democracy does not require this.

Yeah, go ahead and defend slavery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

More rubbish...

Democracy does not mean a rule of law per say, it only means the will of the people. If the majority decree it to be so, then it shall be...

Using the constitution as an example did not help you either. Your a so called republican, so it would probably be helpful to know the difference between a democracy and a republic (republicanism especially), which would also go a long way in showing you the true distinction between American republicans and democrats.

Well, any way you spell it it boils down to no Shariah Law.

Not now. Not ever.

Never.

Now go ahead with your debating gymnastics.

Ikari · 06-17-08, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Yeah, go ahead and defend slavery.

Why not? How many Christians used to have slaves? When this country was founded, there were many inequalities left; not everyone was equal. It was set up so that everyone can become equal, that we can grow and become even more free than we were when we started (which sadly is being whittled away by Bush and friends). Islam can work with a democracy the same as Christianity. Yes, it is best to remove that, we learned that ourselves. Christian theocracies brought nothing good, we removed religion from our government and things started to improve. There is no reason why Islam can't mellow and and understand the problems with theocracy. Also the reason why we're not a Christian nation, we're a secular nation; many people happen to be Christian by their own choices.

talloulou · 06-17-08, 01:42 PM

Both Islam and Democracy are incompatible with the future, in my opinion. Depending on how you fiddle with the definition of Democracy and/or fiddle with the way Islam is practiced it's unlikely either is wholly sustainable.

GySgt · 06-17-08, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

The thread title concerns Islam and democracy. I brought up Turkey as a nation that contains both elements. I don't think it's anecdotal at all...

Perhaps the thread title should read "Are Democracy & the Arab Tribe Compatible?" I mean, the truth is that Muslims are not really joined by a faith in God but a submission to a particular culture.

jallman · 06-17-08, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Perhaps the thread title should read "Are Democracy & the Arab Tribe Compatible?" I mean, the truth is that Muslims are not really joined by a faith in God but a submission to a particular culture.

But isn't that faith so ingrained in their society as to be inseparable?

GySgt · 06-17-08, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

Why not? How many Christians used to have slaves?

.........Seven.

jallman · 06-17-08, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

Democratic Republic

Yes, a Democratic Republic. To simplify it for you, a republic where the officials are elected by democratic means.

Quote:

Bless your little heart, and i hate to break it to you, but this (the US) is not a "democratic republic"... Some people would like to believe such nonsense, yet the fact remains, we have a wonderful constitution that grants a federalist based checks and balances system.

Bless your little heart, and I hate to break it to you, but references (like the ones above) speak much louder than all your opining ever could.

Quote:

Now what if it is the will of the people to be ruled by islamic law? Say for instance, 51% of voter turnout was in support of such measures, would this not be democratic? Your presumption that democracy and islam are incompatible is based on your assumption

that the majority of citizens in these respective countries do not wish to be ruled by such laws.

Sophistry. You are approaching this from a grossly simplistic perception of democracy. Of course, if all the people voted for Islamic law, then that vote is democratic but the implementation of that Islamic law would change the nature of the government from democracy to totalitarian rule or, possibly at best, an theocratic ogligarchy. The democracy would cease to exist.

GySgt · 06-17-08, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

But isn't that faith so ingrained in their society as to be inseparable?

For the most part. You are on the right track.

Most of the world's Muslims, who happen to live outside the Middle East, live in electoral democracies. At the same time, their governments offer few freedoms and little accountability. So with this, Islam doesn't have to be the problem. Many people are unaware that the Qu'ran doesn't prescribe any specific form of government. So what is going on here?

Though they do not reflect the Western democracies we are used to seeing, the Turks and the Iranians have proven to be able to travel the path, somewhat. The Turks abolished the Caliphate (to the dismay of Arabs everywhere) and established a democracy on their own. Iranians, while still subjected to the whims of a religious majlis who vote for them, have demonstrated that they have the desire to lead their nation upon the path of their choosing. The Arab world, however, has never produced a democracy (notice the tribe that immediately lashed out during the elections in Iraq). And the reason is because they are far more subjected to the whims of the tribe rather than faith in God. For the Arabs, the issue of "church and state" is inseperable.

It all goes back to the example set forth by the Prophet and the interpretations made by the First Caliphate, Abu Bakr. Muhammed was a peace maker between tribes. He evolved into a soldier, a general, and then to a soveriegn. His life example has inspired the notion that the religion has everything to do with military and governance. Then came the Caliphates. The successors of Muhammed were the heads of Islam and the successor to Muhammad's political authority. This meant that they interpreted Islam as Muhammed did and extended this into interpreting what Muhammed said. The seperation between "church and state" is not an easy task when the inventor of the religion is also the head of state (imagine Jesus Cesar). It was the early Caliphates who decided that the spread of Islam involved conquering "enemies of God." In doing so, the Sunni made war on the Shia and other tribes who rejected the Sunni idea of Muhammed's successor. In quick fashion, the Arab tribe grew to topple empires. By the end of the Crusades, the Turks converted to Islam and became the fist of Islam. And even though the Turks held the Caliphate power, it was the Arabs who denied the Middle East the tools of the West that saw us eventually evolve beyond religious prescription. For example, in 1579, Istanbul got an observatory. In 1580, Arab clerics had it demolished. Another example would be the printing press. Ibrahim Muteferrika opened the Islamic world's first printing press in Istanbul in 1728. By 1745, Mullahs prohibited the priniting press. More examples? In the mid 19th century Arab mullahs bullied the Ottoman Empire to drop three seminal issues of religious reform: (1) ending the Muslim role in the African slave trade, (2) freeing women from the yoke of the veil, and (3) letting unbelievers live in the land of the Prophet. After the Fatwa was leveled, the Turks were accused of becoming infidels. The Turks appeased and Islam was "preserved."

Today, there is no Caliphate. What is left is a civilization full of bitter old Arab men who look down upon the Turks and hold deep contempt for the Shia. All the while, the Arab colonization of the Middle East persists. Muslims from all tribes face Mecca. Muslims from all tribes must pray in Arabic - Remember....at one time, the center of the Christian world was Rome and the language in "Holy" print was in Latin. Did not such precriptions protect the power of the Vatican at one time? Islam has yet to address these issues in their religion. And why?

Because they are submissive to a tribe, rather than their faith in God. If God speaks in all languages as the Qu'ran states, why pray in Arabic? If God is everywhere as the Qu'ran states, why face Mecca? Equality and democracy can't exist in the Arab Middle East if the integrity of the tribe is to remain intact. So, it is very true that at this time, their "faith is inseperable because it is too ingrained in their society."

Singularity · 06-17-08, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

You don't believe in the author's point of view. But what is your frame of reference?

Personal experience with Muslims in the United States, for one. A little bit of reading on Islam for another. Certainly not to the degree that Dr. Hammond has, but that doesn't change anything. Why does he believe Islam will be fundamentally changed if it is separate from the state? In addition, has Christianity fundamentally changed since Western nations have begun attempting its removal from state? If not, then what makes the Christian religion different in such a way as to not change the fundamental nature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

How much do you know vs. how much does he know about Islam?

Irrelevant. My question certainly holds enough weight to be answered and his reply to possibly be rebutted if the answer is logically inconsistent. His superior knowledge of Islam (assuming he has it; after all, I don't know a thing about the man, i'm only assuming he's well-versed here) would hopefully be great enough to answer the question to the point no rebuttal or further questions could be needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

But the more I read your paragraph the less sure I am about what you are disagreeing with. Please specify.

The primary thing I disagree with is the assumption that Islam would radically change should it be subject to separation (or attempted separation) from the political state. I've read many articles saying how Islam is a "complete system", yet none have explored the tangent of why Islam would fundamentally change if separated. Because I aint buyin' it.