PDA

View Full Version : Democracy is incompatible with Islam


Rob
14th February 2003, 09:28 AM
I was watching a TV debate on BBC1, last night, called Britain Decides. It was a debate about whether or not there was justification to go to war with Iraq. There was a senior Saudi diplomat ( one of the ruling family, he may have been the Saudi ambassador to Britain ) on the program, and he was asked whether there should be more democracy in the Arab countries. His reply was, that he did think it was important to have 'participatory government'. The presenter then asked him, 'you mean democracy ?'. He was noticeably resentful and uncomfortable about this line of questioning, and then he grudgingly replied that, 'no not democracy, but participatory government, it is my belief that democracy is not compatible with Islam !'

You have to laugh at the Saudi royal family !, how patronising !, they in their wisdom, know what is good for everybody else !

I can imagine that there is a taboo within the Al Saud family, that the word democracy is never used. If any senior menbers are ever unfortunate enough about being questioned about it, they must immediately replace it with the words participatory government.

If that Saudi was honest he would have said, ' democracy no, we will only support ( if we are forced to ) a token representative government ( a powerless consultative body ), only if we appoint the representatives, and only if they are no threat to the power, and longevity to the House of Saud ( the Saudi ruling family ).

Democracy is not compatible with Islam, but a ruling family of over 10,000 princes and princesses, is compatible with Islam !

Panoramic
14th February 2003, 09:35 AM
Rob yeah he was the Ambassador to London Althu I thought Ghazi Alqusaibi was the man for it.

I dont know what he said I caught parts and bits of it but I would love to read a script if available.

anyways back to Islam and Democracy I think what he meant is" NO we dont want ppl to elect who rules but we dont mind the ppl elect representatives and form a councel to help the governement carry its duties.

I think Democracy is a broad term and doesnt neccessarly means "what the ppl want or what the majority wants"

I believe America and Britains Democracy is not very far from the islamic democracy that they criticize!

Rob
14th February 2003, 10:08 AM
Panoramic, the whole point of democracy is that the government is held to public account. That peoples performance and honesty, can be measured.

There is nothing broad about the term democracy ! You either have it or you don't, it is black and white.

Any normal society must aspire to democracy.

Anything less than democracy is not accountable to the society that it represents.

There is no majority in any country, that wants anything less than democracy.



Your comment, 'I believe America and Britains Democracy is not very far from the islamic democracy that they criticize!'

Are you suggesting that there is Islamic democracy in some Arab countries ?

Are you suggesting that the current ruling stuctures of most Arab countries is satisfactory, and that the Arab masses of these countries are quite happy with the way that their countries are governed ?

Panoramic
14th February 2003, 10:28 AM
Rob I agree with you.
I dont like what HH the R prince said either.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
Any normal society must aspire to democracy.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
agreed.

I dont mind when I live in a country where there is a constitution that says this is a monarchy so Leadership is inherited. fair enough. However to claim this is Islamic I abhor.

now back to what he said
Democracy is incompatible with Islam ... I would have said to him just like you would say
What Democracy and what Islam are you talking about it!!

but you ask me about Arab Countries.

Let me make this clear the only Arab country that is practicing Democracy is Lebanon.
other than that We have either Monarchy or dictator to rule us
in syria it was proven that it is inherited.
it will be inherited in Egypt.
Iraq is a dictatorship.


Democracy has changed from ppl's governement to "few ppl's governemnt" to "rich ppl governement"

The way I see islamic Democracy is ( as in the dictionary) "Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority".

theman
14th February 2003, 10:50 AM
according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

<font color="blue">

democracy



\De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.]

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the <b>supreme power</b> is retained and directly exercised by the people.



2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the <b>supreme power</b> is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.



3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. --Milton.

<!--color-->[/color]



i would have to say that the above is fairly accurate in defining the word democracy.



now lets see if this democracy is compatible with islam



democracy - "Supreme power is retained by the people"

islam - Supreme power is retained by God, all sovereignty belong to him and to him alone



democracy - "the people are regarded as the source of government"

islam - The Quran and Sunnah are regarded as the source of government



This is the fundamental difference between islam and democracy. They are mutually exclusive terms.



Think what the prophet(pbuh) would say if someone proposed democracy in Medina during his(pbuh) time.

If you really thought about it you also would conclude that this "democracy" that the west holds dear is as valuable as a grain of sand in the sahara.



therefore "islamic democracy" would be an oxymoron.



The <b>elected</b> leadership of an islamic government would be incharge of <b>executing</b>administration according to laws in quran and sunnah.



And the <b>elected</b> representatives in an islamic government would be incharge of voicing their respective jurisdictions' concerns and problems that need to be attended to.



So if people think that "voting" and representation is alien to islam then they are wrong.



If i am wrong on any islamic subject then please correct my mistakes.

speak_freely99
14th February 2003, 11:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
democracy - "Supreme power is retained by the people"
islam - Supreme power is retained by God, all sovereignty belong to him and to him alone

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

... except when fanatical rulers decide otherwise.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
democracy - "the people are regarded as the source of government"
islam - The Quran and Sunnah are regarded as the source of government

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

... depending on the interpretation by the mullah currently in power.

Ugly_Truth
14th February 2003, 12:30 PM
So, how exactly are your leaders selected?

Or is it kinda random?

If they are selected, that is a form of democracy. Then again, if nobody has a choice of their leaders, that's a form of tyranny, if your leader kills your own people, you're Saddam.

So, which is it? How are your religious leaders selected? School, training, inheritance, who selects?

FooFoo
14th February 2003, 01:07 PM
If the supreme power for government is God, then who speaks for him? Does he descend from the heavens to give edicts? Does a burning bush appear to deliver instructions?



No. What happens is someone (ie. human being) is responsible for "interpreting" what God wants. That is a problem that cannot be solved.



Here's an example. If an elected leader like, say, George Bush decides that the people want him to go to war with Iraq and acts on it, then he would be answerable to them come the next election. Now if he miscalculated (which I personally believe he is doing right now) and the people didn't want to go to war, he can be thrown out of office. Lyndon Johnson is a prime example of a president that continued to prosecute the war in Vietnam, even though the majority of Americans were against it. It's no wonder that he opted NOT to run for office after his first term.



Now back to "God" running the show. If a leader of a theocracy decides to, say go to war, because he believes it is what God commands him to do, then the wishes of the people do not matter. After all, they are not God. He is not God. Only God is God. And oh, by the way, God's not exactly calling on the phone to be specific here. If this leader believes this war is right, irrespective of what is true, then who is left to dispute him. In the end, he plays "God" under the premise that he has a <i>mandate</i> from God. Now that is beyond dangerous. That is suicidal.

theman
14th February 2003, 02:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

So, how exactly are your leaders selected?


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
the leader would be elected by a council of scholars, one among themselves, like how the first 4 khalifas were selected.
after they elect the khalifa then he remains the leader of the muslims until death, or if it is determined that he is not executing the quran and sunnah by the council of scholars can remove him from office, but as long as he is leading the muslims in the path of islam then he will rule until death. there is no place for inheritence of power in islam. the leader will be elected on his islamic stature. Who else could be leader and implement islam except for the highest of scholars in islamic knowledge. The prophet(pbuh) said to his companions, "choose as amir the best among you"

after the process of selecting the leader ALL muslims must give him their allegiance(bayah).

Your reaction would be... WHAT the people don't vote.. yeah if they voted a guy like michael bloomberg(muslim version) could get voted in because of his MONEY. have you ever heard the phrase "the masses are asses" my highschool teach used to say that.

we want a sincere leader who doesn't answer to special interest, and who looks after the affairs of his people.
This is so he can see the long term benefit of policy and projects, instead of having 4-8 year horizon where one of the objective is to payback with favors those who paid for his position in the first place.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
If they are selected, that is a form of democracy.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No as i spelled out in my previous post that democracy as defined above can have nothing to do with islam because of source of legislation.

democracy doesn't have a monopoly on voting, theres no exclusive use clause.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

How are your religious leaders selected? School, training, inheritance, who selects?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The council of scholars have certain requirements to meet before one can become a islamic scholar. the specifics unfortunately i do not know but this is one subject i will be researching soon.

Its not based on inheritence, nor are they selected. It would be like that of a University, but this would be a university of the highest order.

open to any and all who wants to seek knowledge, but only the scholars that meet the requirements would form the council of scholars.

I hope i answered your questions to your satisfaction.
(again to the muslims with knowledge on this forum please correct my mistakes if i have made any)

theman
14th February 2003, 02:22 PM
Foofighter

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

If the supreme power for government is God, then who speaks for him? Does he descend from the heavens to give edicts? Does a burning bush appear to deliver instructions?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

God has already spoken to us by way of Quran, and the prophet(pbuh) enacted God's laws through his character, actions, and rulings, this is what we call the Sunnah(traditions of the prophet(pbuh)). See the quran can be interpreted in many different ways, as jerry falwell and pat robertson can show, We see the actions of the prophet as the interpretation of the quran. Aisha(radiallahuanha) said that the prophet was like the walking Quran, meaning all his actions were of the Quran. so i think this solves that unsolveable problem you purposed by differing interpretation of quran.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

If an elected leader like, say, George Bush decides that the people want him to go to war with Iraq and acts on it, then he would be answerable to them come the next election. Now if he miscalculated (which I personally believe he is doing right now) and the people didn't want to go to war, he can be thrown out of office. Lyndon Johnson is a prime example of a president that continued to prosecute the war in Vietnam, even though the majority of Americans were against it. It's no wonder that he opted NOT to run for office after his first term.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
you have to ask on what basis Johnson continued to prosecute war in Vietnam.. was it his gut feeling, was it what his wealthy defense contract constituents wanted. In this situation the islamic law on war would prevail, and the leader would have to act accordingly. i doubt islam would decide to carpet bomb the millions of vietnamese to death for seeking independence just to "contain" communism. If islam does go to war then it is defensive. If it is offensive, then it is because there is a material obstruction to the spread of the message of islam to those who are oppressed by their administration.

The decision for war isn't made solely at the whim of the leader, he will make the decision through consultation with the council of scholars and determine the islamic verdict(ijtihad) on the situation based on evidences from the Quran and Sunnah.

FooFoo
14th February 2003, 02:38 PM
Interesting THEMAN, but I'm still not biting. If God speaks through the Koran, then what if I don't believe in God. Or if I don't believe the Koran is the word of God? What if I believe the Bible, The Torah, Hindu scripture, etc. is the most divine writing? Are you telling me I need to be governed by something that I do not believe to be divine. After all, religion and its corresponding texts are articles of faith, not fact.

And also, how does the Koran determine whether or not something like human cloning should continue? What if it's, say cloning of organs to be used in transplants? How does the Koran solve the problem of when life is conceived if it just happens to be disputed by science? How does the Koran answer problems on Global Warming, Industrialization, animal rights, etc. etc. etc.

In my opinion it can't. Only human beings can make those decisions based on current science and what is considered moral and ethical for their time.

theman
14th February 2003, 03:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

What if I believe the Bible, The Torah, Hindu scripture, etc. is the most divine writing? Are you telling me I need to be governed by something that I do not believe to be divine.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

aren't you being ruled by something that you do not believe to be divine.
Don't worry the islamic laws in an islamic state doesn't apply to non-muslims living under the protection of the state. The non-muslims have their own representatives, and their own laws with some restrictions ofcourse.
and the faith of islam wouldn't be shoved down your throat and forced upon you... like Salahuddin, may god be pleased with him, gave the christians and jews a choice to either leave in peace from the conquered land or to stay and live and worship in peace among the muslims, under protection of islamic law.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

After all, religion and its corresponding texts are articles of faith, not fact.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
aren't the corresponding texts of the governing documents of the US articles of human ideology, not fact..
who can doubt the right our creator has to govern us. why should we let the whims of the majority, or the theory of locke govern us, what do they know about the creation of God, that God doesn't know.
we as muslims adhere to the principle that God knows whats best for us, even though it may appear likewise to our miniscule mental capability.
Like a parent governs their child, the child can't comprehend why he/she has to follow his parent's rules, but the parents know what is best for them.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

And also, how does the Koran determine whether or not something like human cloning should continue? What if it's, say cloning of organs to be used in transplants? How does the Koran solve the problem of when life is conceived if it just happens to be disputed by science? How does the Koran answer problems on Global Warming, Industrialization, animal rights, etc. etc. etc.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
you have raised many good issues that are facing us today, i suggest opening a new topic for each subject and we can discuss.
i will say that the derivation of laws through the uses of evidence from quran and sunnah aren't done by just anyone, it must be done by a mujtahid(islmic scholar).

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

In my opinion it can't. Only human beings can make those decisions based on current science and what is considered moral and ethical for their time.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
you have a right to your opinion, but another thing is that Quran and sunnah don't contradict with known and unknown sciences, as a matter of fact the Quran is 100% scientifically accurate, if there were flaws in it, no muslim can claim it to be the word of God, how can God be wrong about the science that he created. this is yet another subject.

will clarify at a later date.

speak_freely99
15th February 2003, 04:20 AM
Here are some observations on Khalifa. Note, all items in red require special attention.

<b>The Muslim Khilafa </b>
The following article is a paraphrased transcript of a series of four lectures delivered by Gharm Allah Al-Ghamdy to the Muslim Student Association at the University of Southern California. These lectures were given between November 1991 and January 1992, and took place in the MSA House located at 1144 West 37th Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90007. The subject of Al-Ghamdy's lectures was an examination of the processes involved in choosing and removing the Muslim Khalifa. The last Khalifa of the Muslims was removed in 1924 (though some say the position was strictly a powerless, figurehead office for at least 500 years before that).

<b>Definition of Khilafa and Khalifa</b>
Khalifa is an Arabic word literally meaning "one who replaces someone else who left or died" (English: caliph). In the context of Islam, however, the word acquires a narrower meaning. The Muslim Khalifa is the successor (in a line of successors) to Prophet Muhammad's position as the political, military, and administrative leader of the Muslims. The prophetic role of Muhammad is strictly not included in this definition, as the Qur'an and Hadith clearly state that Muhammad was the last of the prophets. Khilafa is a related Arabic word which, in the context of Islam, is used to denote the government of the Muslim state, of which the Khalifa is the head. A workable analogy of Khalifa and Khilafa is president and presidency or king and monarchy. The Khilafa is a fard kifaya on the ummah.
The duties and responsibilities of the Khalifa

The Khalifa of the Muslim ummah must strive to:

<ul type="square"><li>Safeguard Islam in its original form, and to protect against the introduction of new things (bid'a) into Islam.
Establish justice (including punishments for crimes) among the people.
<li>Ensure the protection of the ummah. People within the boundaries of the Muslim state (regardless of whether they are Muslims or not) should feel secure enough to be productive.
<li>Protect the physical boundaries of the state through the use of arms and other methods.
<li><font color="red">Defend the rights of Muslims abroad, and to see to it that Islam can spread freely in non-Muslim lands (including the use of force).<!--color-->[/color]
<li><font color="red">Organize jihad against any non-Muslim government which prevents Muslim da'wah from entering its land.<!--color-->[/color]
<li>Collect and distribute zakat and the spoils of war according to the Qur'an and Sunnah (and ijtihad, if necessary). This must be done without the use of fear as an incentive (unless a person refuses to pay). Zakat is not to be taken from the best or worst of people's possessions, but rather from the middle.
<li>Pay the salaries of Bayt-ul-Mal employees, i.e., those people whose job is the collection of zakat and other state-levied taxes. Their salaries should be reasonable and be paid on time.
<li>Hire honest people as helpers, aides, governors, etc. The Khalifa must appoint to public office those who are competent and who can give good advice. This especially applies to Bayt-ul-Mal officials.
<li>Be heavily involved personally in the acts of governing. The Khalifa must be actively checking and overseeing the duties of the government, and constantly be guarding against internal corruption.</ul>

<b>The prerequisites to becoming the Khalifa</b>
Muslim scholars have determined certain criteria which any possible candidate for the Khalifa must meet to be considered legitimate.
<ul type="square"><li>The Khalifa must be Muslim.
<li><font color="red">He must be a man. This condition is based on the hadith where the Prophet states that a nation would not profit under a woman as its leader. <!--color-->[/color]
<li>He must be knowledgeable in Islam, and be able to make independent decisions if necessary.
<li>He must be just, have good morals, and be trustworthy.
He must be physically able (non-handicapped), spiritual, brave, and helpful to protect the ummah against its enemies. His eyes, ears, tongue, and body in general should be in working condition. The point here is to stress an independent, dynamic leader for the sake of the ummah, not to discriminate against the physically handicapped. Today, for example, an artificial limb could be used to offset an otherwise crippling injury.
<li>He must be politically, militarily, and administratively experienced.
<li><font color="red">He must be from the tribe of Quraish because they used to be the leading tribe, the majority.<!--color-->[/color] The Prophet has said, "The Khalifas are Quraishi." However, many Muslim scholars have commented on this prerequisite. Al-Mawardi has written that the Khalifa should be Quraishi based on the saying of Abu Bakr that the Khalifas are Quraishi and their ministers are non-Quraishi. The majority of scholars are of this opinion. Other scholars have arrived at a different conclusion. Abu Bakr Al-Baqlani has said that the leader of the Muslims simply should be from the majority. Muhammad Riya-Ad-Deen and Abu Hanifa wrote that the leader must come from the majority to make it easy to follow him.
</ul>

<b>How the Khalifa may be chosen</b>
There are three ways in which the Muslim ummah may choose a new Khalifa. However, in all three cases, the people are obligated to give the new Khalifa their bay'a once the process of choosing him is over. People can send representatives to give their bay'a if the population is large. The three ways of choosing the Khalifa are by selection, by nomination, and by force.

[list]

<li>By selection. The Khalifa is selected by a group of the best, most Islamically knowledgeable people in the society (not by a general vote of everyone). This group is called the Majlis-Ash-Shura (Arabic for "consultative council"). The members of the Majlis-ash-Shura are chosen from experts who are learned in Islam, and they in turn choose the Khalifa.<font color="red"> If the society as a whole rejects their choice, the Majlis-ash-Shura must find out why, perhaps negotiate with the people, and in general try to resolve the problem - however, this situation has never occurred.<!--color-->[/color] The Majlis-ash-Shura must have at least three people by the definition of a jama'a (a group of three or more people). The Muslim scholar Al-Mawardi has noted that in the emergency case of no Khalifa and no Majlis-ash-Shura (the situation today), the people should create two parties: one being the Majlis-ash-Shura, and the other being a list of candidates for the Khalifa. The Majlis-ash-Shura then selects a Khalifa from the list of candidates.
By nomination.<font color="red"> The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa (as Abu Bakr did with Umar). The people have to accept him just as in the first case.<!--color-->[/color] If the old Khalifa appoints someone unworthy out of ulterior motives, the people must reject that appointee.
<li>By force. <font color="red">If the current Khalifa forces someone on the people to be the next Khalifa, but that person is righteous, the people must accept him as long as he remains righteous. Similarly, if there is no Khalifa (again, the situation today), it is permitted for someone to forcibly seize power and declare himself the Khalifa if he guarantees to abide by his responsibilities under Islam. <!--color-->[/color]
to be continued....

<a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/khalifa.html" target="_blank">The Khalifa</a>

TheMan, how many of these rules and regulations are you prepared ot accept ? More importantly, how many non-muslims will be willing to accept these terms ? How do you respond to the comments about force, gender, and inheritance ?

FooFoo
15th February 2003, 04:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

What if I believe the Bible, The Torah, Hindu scripture, etc. is the most divine writing? Are you telling me I need to be governed by something that I do not believe to be divine.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

aren't you being ruled by something that you do not believe to be divine.
Don't worry the islamic laws in an islamic state doesn't apply to non-muslims living under the protection of the state. The non-muslims have their own representatives, and their own laws with some restrictions ofcourse.
and the faith of islam wouldn't be shoved down your throat and forced upon you... like Salahuddin, may god be pleased with him, gave the christians and jews a choice to either leave in peace from the conquered land or to stay and live and worship in peace among the muslims, under protection of islamic law.


<i>As for being ruled by something that I know is not divine, it is not a problem for me. Since I don't believe the Koran (or any other scripture) is divine either, I don't see what I'm gaining.

As for living under the "protection" of an Islamic government you are in my opinion telling me I need to be a second class citizen. In my view it smacks of discrmination, especially when you say "some restrictions." That is the prime reason the people of the Balkans revolted against the Ottoman Turks. All human beings should be treated equally regardless of religious affiliation. If a Christian or Hindu wants to hold the highest position of power, he/she should not be barred simply because they aren't of your faith. That's like me telling a black person in America that they can't vote because of the color of their skin. It was wrong for governments to institute those policies years ago, and people like Martin Luther King Jr. strove to change that. In my view, your government is a step backwards. </i>

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

After all, religion and its corresponding texts are articles of faith, not fact.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
aren't the corresponding texts of the governing documents of the US articles of human ideology, not fact..
who can doubt the right our creator has to govern us. why should we let the whims of the majority, or the theory of locke govern us, what do they know about the creation of God, that God doesn't know.
we as muslims adhere to the principle that God knows whats best for us, even though it may appear likewise to our miniscule mental capability.
Like a parent governs their child, the child can't comprehend why he/she has to follow his parent's rules, but the parents know what is best for them.


<i> As for the articles governing the U.S, they are based on human ideology but are also fact. And I mean fact in the sense that there is no question as to who wrote them. As for the Koran, no one can prove God wrote it. I personally believe it was made up by man. Since one cannot prove the existence of God, one cannot prove that the Koran is the word of God. That is what is referred to as a "catch 22."</i>


<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

And also, how does the Koran determine whether or not something like human cloning should continue? What if it's, say cloning of organs to be used in transplants? How does the Koran solve the problem of when life is conceived if it just happens to be disputed by science? How does the Koran answer problems on Global Warming, Industrialization, animal rights, etc. etc. etc.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
you have raised many good issues that are facing us today, i suggest opening a new topic for each subject and we can discuss.
i will say that the derivation of laws through the uses of evidence from quran and sunnah aren't done by just anyone, it must be done by a mujtahid(islmic scholar).

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

In my opinion it can't. Only human beings can make those decisions based on current science and what is considered moral and ethical for their time.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
you have a right to your opinion, but another thing is that Quran and sunnah don't contradict with known and unknown sciences, as a matter of fact the Quran is 100% scientifically accurate, if there were flaws in it, no muslim can claim it to be the word of God, how can God be wrong about the science that he created. this is yet another subject.

will clarify at a later date.



<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


<i>I've never been shown (nor has any scientific authority I know of) any substantial proof that the Koran is "100%" scientifically accurate. For instance, prove to me how Einstein's theory of relativity is captured by the Koran?, or how does it account for the multitudes of Galaxies in our Universe? Or how does it answer the question of human evolution? In my opinion it doesn't.</i>

Rob
15th February 2003, 05:24 AM
Panoramic, I think it is a mistake to prefix the word democracy.
You either have democracy or you don't.
You can not qualify democracy.
This qualification is meaningless.
There is no such thing as :-
Strawberrys and cream democracy
Steak and kidney pie democracy
Banana republic democracy
European democracy
Christian democracy
Islamic democracy

Democracy was defined by the Greeks long before either Christianity or Islam.
Democracy is democracy, plain and simple.

Limerick
15th February 2003, 05:44 AM
Does the Koran lay out how a country should be governed?

FooFoo
15th February 2003, 06:02 AM
Rob, that is an interesting point about Greeks laying down Democracy. Watching a documentary of Sparta a few months back, brought up an interesting point. Sparta was an Oligarchy (a democracy of the few) which despised Athenian Democracy because in their view, "it was too war like" in its nature. And in some cases the Spartans were correct. The Athenians were often more likely than Sparta to make war.

theman
15th February 2003, 01:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

That is the prime reason the people of the Balkans revolted against the Ottoman Turks. All human beings should be treated equally regardless of religious affiliation.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You are right, each person should have the same right no matter the religion, i hope you understand that islamic law on a social level applies only to muslims. that doesn't mean that the non-muslims are reduced to second class.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

If a Christian or Hindu wants to hold the highest position of power, he/she should not be barred simply because they aren't of your faith.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

and what chances would a communist have to hold the highest position of power in the US?
isn't secular democracy an ideology, as is communism...

islam is also an idealogy, it is not just a religion., if a person doesn't hold to this ideology, what right should they have to hold the highest position of power to administer this ideaology.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

That's like me telling a black person in America that they can't vote because of the color of their skin.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
i would disagree with this analogy. This policy is not discriminatory on race, it is discriminatory on ideology.
what did McArthur do to the communists in the US? islam wouldn't go so far as blacklist individuals who hold opposing views.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

And I mean fact in the sense that there is no question as to who wrote them. As for the Koran, no one can prove God wrote it. I personally believe it was made up by man.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
you can believe that the quran was written by the elves, its up to you... but why does it matter if you believe that the source of the book is questionable? wouldn't you judge a literary work on its substance not what the auther looked like, or where he came from. What of the message?

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

I've never been shown (nor has any scientific authority I know of) any substantial proof that the Koran is "100%" scientifically accurate. For instance, prove to me how Einstein's theory of relativity is captured by the Koran?, or how does it account for the multitudes of Galaxies in our Universe? Or how does it answer the question of human evolution? In my opinion it doesn't.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

i didn't say that the quran contains 100% of all science, i said anything that is stated in the quran has been proven to be 100% consisted with science. No other book claiming to be divine can claim such a thing.
have you ever read the quran?
if yes, then i'm sure you would have noticed the scientific references, and if not, how could you judge a book by its cover?

FooFoo
15th February 2003, 04:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

That is the prime reason the people of the Balkans revolted against the Ottoman Turks. All human beings should be treated equally regardless of religious affiliation.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You are right, each person should have the same right no matter the religion, i hope you understand that islamic law on a social level applies only to muslims. that doesn't mean that the non-muslims are reduced to second class.




<i> By the very fact that I have to pay a separate tax and am NOT eligible for running for office, relegates me to a “second” class status. Telling a Christian you can't be leader is like us telling the Blacks "you can't fight for your country because of your skin color. Don't worry, we'll take care of you." Well we all know how well we took care of them.

Sorry, you can argue all you want, but you won’t convince me that this is a fair system. </i>



<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

If a Christian or Hindu wants to hold the highest position of power, he/she should not be barred simply because they aren't of your faith.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

and what chances would a communist have to hold the highest position of power in the US?
isn't secular democracy an ideology, as is communism...

islam is also an idealogy, it is not just a religion., if a person doesn't hold to this ideology, what right should they have to hold the highest position of power to administer this ideaology.




<i>Back up a minute. Communists have every right to run for office in this country. The fact that they won’t get elected is simply a result of the majority of the voting public not agreeing with the Communists ideology. In your system, they would never even get a chance. So by default, people are not allowed to serve in positions of power simply because of their religion. And we haven’t even discussed the issue of women holding power. Sorry, but it is discrimination. It’s wrong. And in my opinion your argument doesn’t hold up. </i>



<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

That's like me telling a black person in America that they can't vote because of the color of their skin.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
i would disagree with this analogy. This policy is not discriminatory on race, it is discriminatory on ideology.
what did McArthur do to the communists in the US? islam wouldn't go so far as blacklist individuals who hold opposing views.



<i> Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because you’re telling me “Islam won’t go as far” doesn’t make your position it right. As I mentioned before, you are promoting religious discrimination in my opinion. </i>



<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

And I mean fact in the sense that there is no question as to who wrote them. As for the Koran, no one can prove God wrote it. I personally believe it was made up by man.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
you can believe that the quran was written by the elves, its up to you... but why does it matter if you believe that the source of the book is questionable? wouldn't you judge a literary work on its substance not what the auther looked like, or where he came from. What of the message?



<i> Why does it matter to me? It matters quite a lot. Forget the message. Think about the concept we have here. A government is formed and leaders are chosen based on the principal that God is commanding it, and his chief vehicle for this is the Koran. What if the Koran is a forgery? What if God doesn’t exist? Then by that rationale what “God” is commanding, isn’t really what he’s commanding is it? That is the fundamental problem of forming a government based on “faith.” You cannot prove God exists and you cannot prove that the Koran is his word. Therefore, a government that is formed based on the “truth” of a religious model is automatically illegitimate. </i>



<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />

I've never been shown (nor has any scientific authority I know of) any substantial proof that the Koran is "100%" scientifically accurate. For instance, prove to me how Einstein's theory of relativity is captured by the Koran?, or how does it account for the multitudes of Galaxies in our Universe? Or how does it answer the question of human evolution? In my opinion it doesn't.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

i didn't say that the quran contains 100% of all science, i said anything that is stated in the quran has been proven to be 100% consisted with science. No other book claiming to be divine can claim such a thing.
have you ever read the quran?
if yes, then i'm sure you would have noticed the scientific references, and if not, how could you judge a book by its cover?




<i> No, I’ve never read the Koran and have no intention to. And again, I haven’t seen any proof from a legitimate scientific source claiming that it is “100% consistent with science.” You need to present hardcore data from Nobel scientists proving your point (as well as data backing up your assertion that other religious texts are not 100% consistent with science).





<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">