Can There Be Democracy Under Islam?

[mudwhistle]

I remember reading about Iran's history.

One of the issues some protesters used against the Shah seemed to be that he tried to buy progress by spending billions. He lived like a king and spent lavishly while the people suffered. He instituted harsh rules to assure compliance. He rigged elections to maintain the country's Democratic status thus preventing a Theocracy from forming.

I've been to Middle Eastern countries and discovered that just about the only thing they produce in large quantities is oil. They don't build much of anything. They don't export as much as they should. So as a result they are consumers instead of manufacturers. I think this is a major contributor to the economic stagnation they suffer from.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Islamic governments must be developed according to the revelations of Allah (SWT).

Whether or not non-Muslims deem these governments "free" by their standards is of no real concern to us.

Which is why no sane person would ever want to live in an Islamic government.
Not Islamic = no rights.

 

[Samson]

So as a result they are consumers instead of manufacturers. I think this is a major contributor to the economic stagnation they suffer from.

Economic Stagnation compared to who?

When we compare the relative political stability within the Ottoman Empire to Western Christian nations between 1900 and 1400, we also note that the Ottoman ecomomy was indeed stagnant. However, muslims within the Ottoman domain didn't know any difference, and I submit that many still don't, and nor do they care.

Furthermore, left to their own devices, without western influances, they would probably peacefully go about their business of eating sheep guts, trading camals, marrying their 5 wives, and praying to Allah 5 times a day.

Which is why no sane person would ever want to live in an Islamic government.
Not Islamic = no rights.

Sanity is relative.

 

[mudwhistle]

So as a result they are consumers instead of manufacturers. I think this is a major contributor to the economic stagnation they suffer from.

Economic Stagnation compared to who?

When we compare the relative political stability within the Ottoman Empire to Western Christian nations between 1900 and 1400, we also note that the Ottoman ecomomy was indeed stagnant. However, muslims within the Ottoman domain didn't know any difference, and I submit that many still don't, and nor do they care.

Furthermore, left to their own devices, without western influances, they would probably peacefully go about their business of eating sheep guts, trading camals, marrying their 5 wives, and praying to Allah 5 times a day.

Which is why no sane person would ever want to live in an Islamic government.
Not Islamic = no rights.

Sanity is relative.

I would think that would be obvious..

I'm a bit confused.

You ask a question...then you answer it.

Their economy is stagnant in comparison to Western economies.

 

[antagon]

I remember reading about Iran's history.

One of the issues some protesters used against the Shah seemed to be that he tried to buy progress by spending billions. He lived like a king and spent lavishly while the people suffered. He instituted harsh rules to assure compliance. He rigged elections to maintain the country's Democratic status thus preventing a Theocracy from forming.

I've been to Middle Eastern countries and discovered that just about the only thing they produce in large quantities is oil. They don't build much of anything. They don't export as much as they should. So as a result they are consumers instead of manufacturers. I think this is a major contributor to the economic stagnation they suffer from.

well said. i think its rediculous to have all of that oil and not have a plastics or energy based economy. i guess they export more than they should

 

[geauxtohell]

If Islamic Nations can't become democracies, than that little side jaunt into Iraq to "spread democracy" just became even more stupid.

Or at least the people that bought into it.

"If Islamic Nations can't become democracies..."

You would find it oh-so-useful to have read the speech before you post about what is, actually, the antithesis of the Lewis speech.

So, if you have the time, read it first, and have another go.


"just became even more stupid.

Or at least the people that bought into it."

It appears that you play only one note on this piano, and watch for any opportunity to attack the Bush administration. This speech really does not offer that opportunity, and exposes you in a not-so-positive light: sometimes the term "stupid" bounces right back at you.

Not all posts are partisan.

I know what he said. I was posing the other side of the coin.

Frankly, I don't see how any one that supported the war would ever even entertain the thought that democracy is impossible in the Islamic world.

After all, this whole military adventure in Iraq was based on "spreading democracy". A person would look pretty stupid if they supported a war, but didn't believe that it was possible to achieve the main objective.

It's analogous to the people who supported the war in Iraq but think Islam is an inherently evil doctrine. Total cognitive dissonance.

I can't speak for the entire Islamic world, but I don't think that democracy will hold up in Iraq simply because it was not mandated by the people. We "imposed" democracy on Iraq and that doesn't lead me to think it will be a successful venture.

At best, they will slip back into a moderate, repressive Islamic regime like Saudi Arabia. Then, in regards to Islamic terrorism, we are back at square one.

 

[geauxtohell]

There certainly can be democracy under amn Islamic government.

You just have to vote the way the mullahs tell you or else.

FYI

Mullah is the name of a Shi'ite cleric.

Iran is the only Shi'ite government in the world and is ruled by Mullahs.

All other muslims nations have Sunni governments. And are not ruled by Mullahs.

Guess what.

I don't give a fuck about Muslims or Islam

Islamic governments or any other theocracy for that matter and democracy can only coexist as long as the people kowtow to the government and therefore a set of religious tenets.

Religion is not about freedom it is about control and Islam IMO is one of the most controlling religions.

Did you support the war in Iraq?

If so, what in the hell do you think we would accomplish there?

 

[antagon]

Islamic governments must be developed according to the revelations of Allah (SWT).

Whether or not non-Muslims deem these governments "free" by their standards is of no real concern to us.

Which is why no sane person would ever want to live in an Islamic government.
Not Islamic = no rights.

then theres the money and the petro-engineering jobs.

 

[Samson]

So as a result they are consumers instead of manufacturers. I think this is a major contributor to the economic stagnation they suffer from.

Economic Stagnation compared to who?

When we compare the relative political stability within the Ottoman Empire to Western Christian nations between 1900 and 1400, we also note that the Ottoman ecomomy was indeed stagnant. However, muslims within the Ottoman domain didn't know any difference, and I submit that many still don't, and nor do they care.

Furthermore, left to their own devices, without western influances, they would probably peacefully go about their business of eating sheep guts, trading camals, marrying their 5 wives, and praying to Allah 5 times a day.

Which is why no sane person would ever want to live in an Islamic government.
Not Islamic = no rights.

Sanity is relative.

I would think that would be obvious..

I'm a bit confused.

You ask a question...then you answer it.

Their economy is stagnant in comparison to Western economies.

Yes, it was a rhetorical question.

Just because an "economy is stagnant in comparison to Western economies" doesn't mean its bad, or even that people living within that economy are unhappy.

 

[geauxtohell]

Economic Stagnation compared to who?

When we compare the relative political stability within the Ottoman Empire to Western Christian nations between 1900 and 1400, we also note that the Ottoman ecomomy was indeed stagnant. However, muslims within the Ottoman domain didn't know any difference, and I submit that many still don't, and nor do they care.

Furthermore, left to their own devices, without western influances, they would probably peacefully go about their business of eating sheep guts, trading camals, marrying their 5 wives, and praying to Allah 5 times a day.



Sanity is relative.

I would think that would be obvious..

I'm a bit confused.

You ask a question...then you answer it.

Their economy is stagnant in comparison to Western economies.

Yes, it was a rhetorical question.

Just because an "economy is stagnant in comparison to Western economies" doesn't mean its bad, or even that people living within that economy are unhappy.

You mean Iraqi norms and values might not be the same as American norms and values?

How else are we going to put a McDonalds on every corner?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Islamic Nations can't become democracies, than that little side jaunt into Iraq to "spread democracy" just became even more stupid.

Or at least the people that bought into it.

"If Islamic Nations can't become democracies..."

You would find it oh-so-useful to have read the speech before you post about what is, actually, the antithesis of the Lewis speech.

So, if you have the time, read it first, and have another go.


"just became even more stupid.

Or at least the people that bought into it."

It appears that you play only one note on this piano, and watch for any opportunity to attack the Bush administration. This speech really does not offer that opportunity, and exposes you in a not-so-positive light: sometimes the term "stupid" bounces right back at you.

Not all posts are partisan.

I know what he said. I was posing the other side of the coin.

Frankly, I don't see how any one that supported the war would ever even entertain the thought that democracy is impossible in the Islamic world.

After all, this whole military adventure in Iraq was based on "spreading democracy". A person would look pretty stupid if they supported a war, but didn't believe that it was possible to achieve the main objective.

It's analogous to the people who supported the war in Iraq but think Islam is an inherently evil doctrine. Total cognitive dissonance.

I can't speak for the entire Islamic world, but I don't think that democracy will hold up in Iraq simply because it was not mandated by the people. We "imposed" democracy on Iraq and that doesn't lead me to think it will be a successful venture.

At best, they will slip back into a moderate, repressive Islamic regime like Saudi Arabia. Then, in regards to Islamic terrorism, we are back at square one.

Let me fill in some of your history-lacunae, so that you may actually have the perspective necessary to read, and to consider a new viewpoint.

Going back to the seminal work of Tocqueville, the traditional view of Islamic countries was that they could never embrace democracy, as their law book and religious text are one in the same.

Pick up a copy of 'Democracy in America.' Most educated folks have read it.

The speech by Professor Lewis gives the counter to that argument.

You, on the other hand, are clearly out of your depth in any discussion whose preeminent concept isn't 'why Bush was wrong.'

 

[Charles Stucker]

When we compare the relative political stability within the Ottoman Empire to Western Christian nations between 1900 and 1400, we also note that the Ottoman ecomomy was indeed stagnant. However, muslims within the Ottoman domain didn't know any difference, and I submit that many still don't, and nor do they care.

Furthermore, left to their own devices, without western influances, they would probably peacefully go about their business of eating sheep guts, trading camals, marrying their 5 wives, and praying to Allah 5 times a day.

Are we talking about the same Ottoman Empire here?
The Empire which besieged Constantinople in 1452,
Fought an aggressive war against Venice from 1463 to 1479
Fought more or less continuously to Lepanto in 1571
Besieged Vienna in 1683 after which their military stagnated (no more victories) but still fought numerous battles and wars including during the Napoleonic era (against Russia - as anyone familiar with John Paul Jones might know) and the Crimean war (with Britain and France propping up the decaying Ottoman military) and even got into WWI when the allegedly peaceful empire fell apart?
Somehow, your definition of peaceful leaves me doubting the actual conditions under which the Islamic populace lived during Ottoman rule, to say nothing of the rest of the people in their far flung empire.

As a side note - the Icelandic democracy has existed in relative peace for centuries despite being founded by ferocious Norse pagans. Ditto Switzerland for a country with a long democratic tradition.

 

[Samson]

When we compare the relative political stability within the Ottoman Empire to Western Christian nations between 1900 and 1400, we also note that the Ottoman ecomomy was indeed stagnant. However, muslims within the Ottoman domain didn't know any difference, and I submit that many still don't, and nor do they care.

Furthermore, left to their own devices, without western influances, they would probably peacefully go about their business of eating sheep guts, trading camals, marrying their 5 wives, and praying to Allah 5 times a day.

Are we talking about the same Ottoman Empire here?


Somehow, your definition of peaceful leaves me doubting the actual conditions under which the Islamic populace lived during Ottoman rule, to say nothing of the rest of the people in their far flung empire.

Did I define "peaceful" = Ottoman Empire?

No, I said RELATIVELY. Do you know what that means? I mean I'm comparing apples to apples here: not making some idiotic comparison between a small, isolated, island nation, and a large Empire made up of a wide variety of races, ethnicities, religions.

As a side note - the Icelandic democracy has existed in relative peace for centuries despite being founded by ferocious Norse pagans. Ditto Switzerland for a country with a long democratic tradition.

Yes, Switzerland has a "long democratic tradition?" REALLY??!!!

Since 1848.

Apparently your definition of "long" and my own are a tad different.

It it "Post like a Typical American" Day in your world Charles?

 

[Kalam]

You can do you name calling and smiley posting without my help .
We're done here.

You exhausted yourself pretty quickly.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Yes, Switzerland has a "long democratic tradition?" REALLY??!!!

Since 1848.

Apparently your definition of "long" and my own are a tad different.

Do you know ANY history?
Swiss cantons formed a confederacy in the 13th century, which is a bit prior to the Ottoman empire's 15th century conquest of Constantinople. Learn a little before posting more "go go Islam" unfacts.

 

[Samson]

Yes, Switzerland has a "long democratic tradition?" REALLY??!!!

Since 1848.

Apparently your definition of "long" and my own are a tad different.

Do you know ANY history?
Swiss cantons formed a confederacy in the 13th century, which is a bit prior to the Ottoman empire's 15th century conquest of Constantinople. Learn a little before posting more "go go Islam" unfacts.

Why not compare a chicken with a walrus, and show everyone how bright you are after concluding they are different animals, moron.

 

[Kalam]

Islamic governments must be developed according to the revelations of Allah (SWT).

Whether or not non-Muslims deem these governments "free" by their standards is of no real concern to us.

Which is why no sane person would ever want to live in an Islamic government.
Not Islamic = no rights.

"No rights":

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi: ...'Umar replied, "O son of my brother!... I recommend my successor to be good to the early emigrants and realize their rights and to protect their honor and sacred things. And I also recommend him to be good to the Ansar who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith. He should accept the good of the righteous among them and should excuse their wrongdoers. I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities." - Sahih Bukhari, al-Janaaiz, no. 475

Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi: We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, "O Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents." - Sahih Bukhari, B. 53, no. 388

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: ...'Umar added, "I recommend that my successor takes care of the early emigrants; to know their rights and protect their honor and sacred things... I also recommend him concerning Allah's and His Apostle's protectees (i.e. dhimmis) to fulfill their contracts and to fight for them and not to overburden them with what is beyond their ability." - Sahih Bukhari, Companions of the Prophet, no. 50

"This is a document from Muhammad the prophet between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them. They are one community to the exclusion of all men... To the Jew who follows us belongs help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided... The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers, their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families... The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha ‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves... The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped..." - Muhammad (SAWS), the Madinah Compact​

 

[The Rabbi]

I assume that Islam, like Judaism, has no notion of "rights" as we understand the term. There are merely obligations owed.

That last quotation was interesting. I wonder how it squares with that Ishmaelite wiping out the Jewish communities in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Kalam]

I assume that Islam, like Judaism, has no notion of "rights" as we understand the term. There are merely obligations owed.

Dhimmis have the right to autonomy and free worship (short of proselytization).

That last quotation was interesting. I wonder how it squares with that Ishmaelite wiping out the Jewish communities in Saudi Arabia.

Not too long after the compact was written, the Muslims and Jews in Yathrib were besieged by the pagan Quraysh. One Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, betrayed the people of Yathrib and held secret negotiations with the besiegers. Their treachery was discovered and they were executed after the battle was won. Many other Jews embraced Islam, including Saad ibn Muad, the arbiter who sentenced the traitors of the B. Qurayza to death. Those who remained in the Arabian peninsula either assimilated or went elsewhere over the next few centuries.

 

[Anguille]

Islamic governments must be developed according to the revelations of Allah (SWT).

Whether or not non-Muslims deem these governments "free" by their standards is of no real concern to us.

Which is why no sane person would ever want to live in an Islamic government.
Not Islamic = no rights.

Back when Christian and Jewish women had zero rights at all in Europe. Muslim women in the Middle East enjoyed much fairer treatment in law courts and for a much longer a time in history than in western nations.