• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Islam incompatible with democracy?

Is Islam incompatible with religion?

  • No, there are other factors

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • Yes, because there is no separation between church & state over there

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Yes, because the Koran is their only law, and it is against democracy

    Votes: 10 27.8%

  • Yes, because it's "foreign" to their culture, democracy is a Western concept

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • other

    Votes: 6 16.7%
  • Total voters
    36
Ethereal said:
One time, in Iraq, I saw a man walking down the street, relaxed and care-free, his women trudging woefully behind him - each with thirty pound sacs of grain pressing down on their frail backs. It was over a hundred and ten degrees Fahrenheit and their burqas looked stiflingly hot in the afternoon sun.

I simply could not reconcile this site in my mind. The idea of forcing women, some of them elderly, to assume the entire burden of a family's manual labor AND the children's upbringing is unconscionable to me. What kind of a "man" is capable of such a thing? This is the status quo in many Islamic countries and I find that disturbing. That’s probably why I’m so attracted to Arabic/Persian women; they’re in dire need of a real man…:cool:
Click to expand...

This is between them. Ur opinion of it has NOTHING to do with democracy.
Its possible for a democracy to mistreat women.
Hell, muslims argue we mistreat women.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Huntington had a famous grad student, Francis Fukuyama who wrote a counter-argument to Clash of Civilizations, called The End of History and the Last Man. In his book, Fukuyama asserts that the debate over the best form of government has ended and that liberal democracy is the only viable form of government with capitalism as its economic principle. He further argues that with time, even the Islamic nations will be brought into the fold and that nations like Turkey, Malaysia and even future Iraq will be the leaders in ushering in democracy in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

And theyre both discredited morons no one with a clue takes seriously.

I ripped the clash of civilisations thesis to bits as a 19 year old, and got an a+ from a republican lecturer. Fukyama's theory is even more idiotic.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Doubtful. In atomised societies it is the state that is usually all that is left, hence De Tocqueville commented on the unlikely-hood of a secular democracy not becoming a despotism.
Click to expand...

Didn't De Tocqueville believe that a large federal government would ultimately lead to the loss of liberty? From my memory of his work I believe that he, like Jefferson, believed that small, community democracies were more suitable for the preservation of Democracy. As the states have been minimized for the power of the Federal, Tocqueville's vision has been fulfilled, no?
 
Real Talk said:
And theyre both discredited morons no one with a clue takes seriously.

I ripped the clash of civilisations thesis to bits as a 19 year old, and got an a+ from a republican lecturer. Fukyama's theory is even more idiotic.
Click to expand...

Of all of my research during grad school, my favorite book on the subject is The Dynamics of Global Dominance, by David Abernethey. By far his thesis on the movement of power and dominance, as well as the potential for ascension to power is the best.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Didn't De Tocqueville believe that a large federal government would ultimately lead to the loss of liberty? From my memory of his work I believe that he, like Jefferson, believed that small, community democracies were more suitable for the preservation of Democracy. As the states have been minimized for the power of the Federal, Tocqueville's vision has been fulfilled, no?
Click to expand...
He believed that the division of America into states with real power and autonomy was a bulwark for liberty yes. I don't know if he was a Jeffersonian. He wasn't for simple democracy to my knowledge, he was big and probably right, on support for divisions, plurality and decentralism though.
 
Wessexman said:
He believed that the division of America into states with real power and autonomy was a bulwark for liberty yes. I don't know if he was a Jeffersonian. He wasn't for simple democracy to my knowledge, he was big and probably right, on support for divisions, plurality and decentralism though.
Click to expand...

So, back to topic, I think that the fundamentalist takeover of the Islam world rests in the weak economic conditions of these countries. If the monarchies and poverty of these nations can be overcome, then democracy can flourish. Afghanistan, prior to the Soviet invasion was quite a friendly nation, with great liberties. After the void was left after the super-power struggle, fundamnetalists took over as the U.S. abandoned the people. This is a familiar scenario all over the Middle East. Yet, if the same approach is taken with the ME as has been undertaken with China, for example, and the flux of capitalism and free trade is introduced with opportunity for all, then a real Middle Class will arise and the situation will better itself.

Many argue that a Middle Class now exists and that these people are funding terror, yet the majority of these Middle Class peoples have either accrued their money prior to the rise of the chaos that now holds the region, or have become disallussioned with the Monarchies of the ME that allow their people to suffer in poverty while they deal with the U.S. and West, who promote democracy, yet deal with tyrants for access to oil.
 
I think its difficult to blankently say Islams values can not be coincided with a democratic values. If you look at the history of the middle east they have shown the ability to progress and be a learned and prosperous area. However as long as the polerization that we see today continues, Imams preach ignorance and hate, and education takes a back seat to spiritual fanaticism we will not see the englightment of these people.
 
Livebythesword said:
I think its difficult to blankently say Islams values can not be coincided with a democratic values. If you look at the history of the middle east they have shown the ability to progress and be a learned and prosperous area. However as long as the polerization that we see today continues, Imams preach ignorance and hate, and education takes a back seat to spiritual fanaticism we will not see the englightment of these people.
Click to expand...

I agree, but as long as their is only the choice to live in poverty or go to the Imams and terror groups for money, fundamentalism will dominate.
 
Islam can be compatible with Mob Rule, oh, I meant democracy. :doh
 
Kandahar said:
Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon are all Shiite, and they all have quasi-democracies. Granted, none of those countries are as representative of their people as, say, the United States of America. But they're certainly more representative than many Sunni states. I don't see how you can say that Shia Islam is incompatible with democracy, when there are examples to the contrary that exist right now.
Click to expand...

small correction

Iran has a large majority of Shi'ite population
Iraq is predominantly Shi'ite
As for Lebanon only about one third of the population is Shi'ite
 
All religion is incompatible with democracy. Every religion requires devotion to an unelected person or persons. In Islam it is to the mullah's who claim to be gods representative on Earth. Same thing in Christianity.
 
Secularism is the way to go.

In order to build stable, responsible government in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States needs to completely eradicate the extremists, by any means possible.
 
PeteEU said:
All religion is incompatible with democracy. Every religion requires devotion to an unelected person or persons. In Islam it is to the mullah's who claim to be gods representative on Earth. Same thing in Christianity.
Click to expand...

What is your point? This is a good thing, it splits loyalty and adds plurality and distinctions to the state. As De Tocqueville that most prescient commentator on democracy realised such things are absolutely necessary for freedom in democracy which tends to break down distinctions and amass power in one centralised spot.
 
Laila said:
Islam is as compatiable as any other religion.
Click to expand...

I very much disagree. Christianity was set up as a religion seperated from state governance and only began to find its way when Protestants emerged to challenge the Catholic church. Islam's base was set up to show no seperation. Looking at this from the religious point of view.....

Jesus said, "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and render unto God that which is God's." This clearly demonstrates a difference between a heavenly plain and an earthly plain. Muhammed was a General and a soveriegn. Therefore he was his own Ceaser. Both inventors had entirely different prescriptions for their religions. Would Christianity look different today had Jesus been a General or a soveriegn? Would Islam be different had Muhammed been a simple carpenter and a hippie? There is a sense of superiority and demand for power that cultures assume when their religious icons ruled empires....and it ripples down through history. For Catholics....it was the "victimhood" of Jesus on the cross. For Muslims, it has been about the glory of Muhammed. After all, in the end, Muhammed died successful and empowered. Jesus was executed.

Of course, Christianity would lose its path rather quickly. And Islam did the same upon Muhammed's death with the Sunni insisting on a vote for succession (resembling a sort of democracy) and the Shia insisting on a devine blood line (resembling a monarchy).

Over the course of history, the Sunni would lose stewardship of Islam to the converted Turks. And it was at this time, the Sunni elders put the breaks on Islamic progression insisting that the Ottoman Caliphate kill the mobile printing press, which was in Turkey, the only observatory, which was located in Istanbul, and insisting on an abandonment of social progress. Whether because of a sense of lost pride having lost Islam to outsiders or just an attempt to turn back the clock to Islam's "Golden Age" when the Sunni laid the law, all of these type things encouraged the idea that Islam was government.

I don't think Islam is as poised to assume a seperation from state as Christinaity was. This is not to say it is impossible, but people need to recognize that democracy from one culture to the next will not be the same and that many will stamp their own brand of democracy upon the earth. But I am a firm believer that the roots of the religions are more important to understanding today's crisis' than people think.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Do you mind explaining this?
Click to expand...

You know this stuff.

Europe ~ 16th century. Protestors, which would become "Protestants," would see men like Martin Luthor. Catholics would see men like Phillip II. Henry the VIII would go on to insist on less power to the church, which challenged the condition of Rome. The Holy Bible would start seeing translation from Latin to English so that the average man could read it for himself. The mobile printing press would begin to filter these translations on a wider scale. Violence, mayhem, religious turmoil, etc.

Christianity had a reformation and the status quo was forever shaken. Consider that up to this point in history that the center of the Christian world was Rome and the word of God was in Latin. This all changed and led to a healthier religion (comopetition tends to bring out the best of a product whether we speak of automobiles or souls).

Now, consider today that the center of the Islamic world remains Mecca and the word of God is Arabic. The Qu'ran states that God is everywhere so why do Muslims have to face Mecca? The Qu'ran states that God speaks in all languages, so why do Muslims have to pray in Arabic? I submit that just like the Catholic Church of old, The Sunni Arabic tribe prescribes an allegiance to their tribe and establishment rather than God. In other words, Islam hasn't had its reformation. (Yet?) And until it does, the prescriptions of old will continue to exist.
 
This all changed and led to a healthier religion (comopetition tends to bring out the best of a product whether we speak of automobiles or souls).
Click to expand...

This I disagree with. I'm both a Catholic and reformed Christian being an Perennialist Anglican but if anything I certainly lean towards the former approach. I don't think a lot of what went on at the reformation was a good thing nor was Catholicism and traditionalism before then becoming moribund.

One cannot, in my opinion, have a living meaningful religious community without enshrining the importance of religious tradition like those you mention of Islam's above.
 
Wessexman said:
What is your point? This is a good thing, it splits loyalty and adds plurality and distinctions to the state. As De Tocqueville that most prescient commentator on democracy realised such things are absolutely necessary for freedom in democracy which tends to break down distinctions and amass power in one centralised spot.
Click to expand...

My point is that religion is incompatible with democracy. All major religions demand a certain level of devotion by followers to said religion and that devotion on many levels contradicts basic democratic freedoms and thought.
 
GySgt said:
I very much disagree. Christianity was set up as a religion seperated from state governance and only began to find its way when Protestants emerged to challenge the Catholic church. Islam's base was set up to show no seperation. Looking at this from the religious point of view.....

Jesus said, "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and render unto God that which is God's." This clearly demonstrates a difference between a heavenly plain and an earthly plain. Muhammed was a General and a soveriegn. Therefore he was his own Ceaser. Both inventors had entirely different prescriptions for their religions. Would Christianity look different today had Jesus been a General or a soveriegn? Would Islam be different had Muhammed been a simple carpenter and a hippie? There is a sense of superiority and demand for power that cultures assume when their religious icons ruled empires....and it ripples down through history. For Catholics....it was the "victimhood" of Jesus on the cross. For Muslims, it has been about the glory of Muhammed. After all, in the end, Muhammed died successful and empowered. Jesus was executed.

Of course, Christianity would lose its path rather quickly. And Islam did the same upon Muhammed's death with the Sunni insisting on a vote for succession (resembling a sort of democracy) and the Shia insisting on a devine blood line (resembling a monarchy).

Over the course of history, the Sunni would lose stewardship of Islam to the converted Turks. And it was at this time, the Sunni elders put the breaks on Islamic progression insisting that the Ottoman Caliphate kill the mobile printing press, which was in Turkey, the only observatory, which was located in Istanbul, and insisting on an abandonment of social progress. Whether because of a sense of lost pride having lost Islam to outsiders or just an attempt to turn back the clock to Islam's "Golden Age" when the Sunni laid the law, all of these type things encouraged the idea that Islam was government.

I don't think Islam is as poised to assume a seperation from state as Christinaity was. This is not to say it is impossible, but people need to recognize that democracy from one culture to the next will not be the same and that many will stamp their own brand of democracy upon the earth. But I am a firm believer that the roots of the religions are more important to understanding today's crisis' than people think.
Click to expand...

What a load of bull****. Christianity has been just as demanding as Islam is today of its followers. The Catholic church and other faiths have killed, tortured and banished people they saw as being "unfaithful" or not good enough for their faith. For centuries it was part of Christian dogma that women were not allowed to many many things and any woman that even attempted to speak up or go outside the boundaries were seen as witches and what not and often killed. For centuries, only the wealthy were allowed an education, an education that was only conducted by Christian monks and denied to the masses. For centuries Christianity denied science (and still does) to such an extreme that it actually killed people for their views.

Even today Christianity attempts to destroy democracy at every level. Whether it is gay rights, abortion, divorce or any other area the church see it "morally" obligated to meddle its ugly hands in.

Christianity only "accepted" a separation of church and state out of pure survival instinct. The masses over time got more and more educated and slowly realized the bs the Church has spoon fed them for generations. Plus the political link between Church and rulers across the world became less and less when the rulers realized that they needed to give more freedoms and democratic access to its subjects or they would loose power totally.
 
Wessexman said:
This I disagree with. I'm both a Catholic and reformed Christian being an Perennialist Anglican but if anything I certainly lean towards the former approach. I don't think a lot of what went on at the reformation was a good thing nor was Catholicism and traditionalism before then becoming moribund.

One cannot, in my opinion, have a living meaningful religious community without enshrining the importance of religious tradition like those you mention of Islam's above.
Click to expand...

British society doesnt become meaningless because religious values are not shared, infact it makes us stronger because we can live beside each other and ignore our differentiating beliefs, which is more than what i can say for the Netherlands, Germany, or the ME, etc. Why, how, could one possibly encourage or enforce religious traditions in British society when religious views and beliefs are so diverse and different in England? It would cause divisions. You cannot enforce the majority and ignore the large minority. It wouldnt work in Britain to encourage "religious traditions". It would, however, work if we encouraged traditions based on common beliefs and understanding. The Britain you share your view of, a Britain that can share religious traditions no longer exists, because those religious traditions are no longer just home to Britain, but a variety of other religions. This isnt the cure to reversing social decline.
 
Well all current democracies have muslim living with in them most of whom both worship Islam and partake in democracy.

Islamism isnt because it itself a different form of government.
 
PeteEU said:
My point is that religion is incompatible with democracy. All major religions demand a certain level of devotion by followers to said religion and that devotion on many levels contradicts basic democratic freedoms and thought.
Click to expand...
I discuss it contradicts them to the degree it makes democracy impossible but it does sometimes provide a lot of tension. Personally I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Democracy is probably the best form of gov't, when done properly, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't have a hell of a lot of problems and I think religion, and the extra source of authority you talk of might not necessarily be bad things for it as De Tocqueville that greatest of commentors on democracy surmised. Democracy requires distinctions and plurality because it helps to destroy these.
 
kaya'08 said:
British society doesnt become meaningless because religious values are not shared, infact it makes us stronger because we can live beside each other and ignore our differentiating beliefs, which is more than what i can say for the Netherlands, Germany, or the ME, etc.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Our society is weaker now than it was in my opinion. Community and such certainly are. That society cannot survive without shared beliefs is certainly true, it is then but a heap of atoms.

Why, how, could one possibly encourage or enforce religious traditions in British society when religious views and beliefs are so diverse and different in England?
Click to expand...
I'd start by reviving religious teaching in schools and the place of the church in society. I'd build communities as well, the two go together.


It would cause divisions. You cannot enforce the majority and ignore the large minority. It wouldnt work in Britain to encourage "religious traditions". It would, however, work if we encouraged traditions based on common beliefs and understanding.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is one cannot engineer the necessary shared belief system. It is the infant of centuries, the child of generations. Not something to be built by the whim of individual reason or even a whole generations. It is far better to fall back on what we have got, what is intertwined in our constitution and what has served us so well.

The Britain you share your view of, a Britain that can share religious traditions no longer exists, because those religious traditions are no longer just home to Britain, but a variety of other religions. This isnt the cure to reversing social decline.
Click to expand...
I must disagree. One can do it in a way as to not be too offensive to other belief systems. They'd have their complete religious liberty, I'm not talking about reviving the test act or arresting Catholics, really I'm only suggesting measures quite mild, nothing directly against any other belief system. Well mild to all but those who have unfortunately imbibed too much of a particular strain of American or French thought.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Iran is certainly not Sweden in this regard, but neither is it North Korea. It's most a dictatorship, but it certainly isn't totalitarian. Iran's elected leaders are not the most powerful people in Iran, but they do hold some real power over domestic affairs. That's a great deal more representative than many Sunni states.
Click to expand...

lol their elected leaders must be vetted by the theocrats. None of their so called "reformers" will even so much as criticize the closed circle of power of the theocracy let alone call for its end. True Iranian reformers are banned from elections.

You also have the examples of Lebanon and Iraq, which are even closer to representative democracy than is Iran.
Click to expand...

Yep the Lebanese recently rejected the Islamist agenda. Iraq is in a state of defensive democracy whose system is almost exactly that of Lebanon's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom