Keep it civil lads.
Your opinion?
Printable View
Keep it civil lads.
Your opinion?
No way.
No way.
I'll do my best.Quote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
Yes but Democracy means very different things to many different people. No one size fits all.
islam forms the perfect democracy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom O
They're actually! Many in the West believe that tolerance and equality is something alien to Islam. It ain't true. Islam is committed not only to tolerance and equality but to the principles of democracy. The Holy Quran says that, "Islamic society is contingent on 'mutual advice through mutual discussions on an equal footing'".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallalai
Fat chance!Quote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
Rubbish ! Rubbish and rubbish. Tolerance my ass. And equality ? Are women equal to men in islam ? You're a liar like all the muslims and arabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
Islam is a law in itself, and only want to replace our occidental rules by the one of the Coran. The muslim migrants cannot integrate coz they put the islamic rules higher than the law where they live.
Maybe you should look in Europe where the "ethnical and religious war" has already beginned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
I'm not challenging your notion or knowledge of Islam being committed to democracy.
But why is an Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia, not democratic?
Egypt? Iran? Kuwait? Syria? Libya, etc.
These are "Islamic nations."
I can tell you about Islam only if you keep it civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallalai
Mohammad accepted women as equal partners in society, in business and even in war. Islam codified the rights of women. The Quran elevates the status of women to that of men. It guarantees women civil, economic and political rights.
For your information, the world's first person to embrace Islam was women.
You can't blame Islam for that. They're simply misguided.Quote:
The muslim migrants cannot integrate coz they put the islamic rules higher than the law where they live.
There's a long history behind these countries which I'll post in bits.Quote:
Originally Posted by MilkmanQuote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
I'm not challenging your notion or knowledge of Islam being committed to democracy.
But why is an Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia, not democratic?
Egypt? Iran? Kuwait? Syria? Libya, etc.
These are "Islamic nations."
Maybe you've not see this video I posted in another thread, can you tell me where you can see an ounce of tolerance there ?
YouTube - Arab Festival 2009: Sharia in the US
I haven't and don't wish to watch it because they are prolly a bunch of misguided Muslims. You can't blame Islam for the the actions of a handful Muslim nutters.
I'll post my side of argument and you can question me whenever you feel like.
I'd agree with you Macha if I could see some examples of where Islam and democracy actually does work.
Indonesia is an exception, but most Indonesians subscribe to red Islam, the local laid back tolerant version which isn't seen anywhere else.
Turkey ? you might like to ask the Armenians about Turkish democracy.
Then try to bring all the misguided muslims and their imams on the right way and come back ... let's say in 5 or 6 centuries to ask the question in your OP. Actually islam in not compatible with democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
Jesus said something like 'Pay Caesars dues to Caesar, but God's dues to God'. Or so a Jehovahs Witness told me. They won't do stuff like salute the flag, sing a national anthem or join an army. That got them into a lot of strife In Hitlers Germany, but they have no problem co-existing in a democracy.
I think the answer as to whether Islam and democracy can coexist comes down to your interpretation of Islam. Strict Fundamentalists seem to think the only acceptable government is a Theocracy- so no go there. JW's are 'Fundamentalist Christians' and they see the current form of national governments as a temporal thing (come the Apocalypse and all that), & I think religious Jews have a similar philosophy. In Turkey and Indonesia there is democracy. Libya is a dictatorship, but basically secular. Iran is a kind of hybrid theo/democracy.
The struggle between Fundamentalism and secularism within the Islamic world is more interesting to me than the media saturated 'Jihad terrorism' actually.
maybe not BUT surely Islam can be asked to address this problem .Quote:
You can't blame Islam for the the actions of a handful Muslim nutters.
In several quarters it is, and it should certainly be encouraged. Sensationalist media coverage unfortunately does not help, in both the Islamic and Western world.
that is true , however where is the fair media coverage ? Whilst I am not doubting your word , In several quarters it is, this is next to useless if played out behind closed doors .Quote:
Sensationalist media coverage unfortunately does not help, in both the Islamic and Western world.
You will find the odd article about Muslims speaking out against Jihadists, or the secular and womens rights advocates in Iran and so on. Recently there was an article about a Mullah in France who advocates a very reasonable, even liberal, form of Islam, and is in favour of the Burkha ban.
But beheadings, jihads and bombings sell more papers. :rolleyes:
exactly , it is not enough , in fact it's almost the exception to the ruleQuote:
You will find the odd article
what is wrong in requesting folks to clean up their own backyard ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
Only amongst Muslims though , I fear!
Perhaps that would be the problem . 'Join us or your dead' isn't very democratic .
Another thread is talking about a group of Islamic scholars issuing a "fatwa" prohibiting Muslims from going through airport scanners. Fair enough but I was surprised to hear on a TV debate yesterday, India is only country where Islamic leaders have unanimously issued a fatwa stating acts of terrorism are against the principals of Islam.
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mid
Quote:
Originally Posted by machangezi
Islam compatible with democracy when:
- a muslim can give up his religion without fear of his family or government
- a muslim allowed to say negative things about islam or koran
the key word is freedom.
To the OP-
NO- it is a ridiculous notion, no religion is compatible with Democracy, that is one very good reason why we in the west have secular soceitys, If you imagine Christianity was given the same status as Islam, above the law and Government in our Western Country's, do you really think that Democracy would be retained? and that goes for every other religion in the world.
Christianity, Chatolichs ect. might today appear more tolerant and meek than the Muslim religion, but I am sure that is only because we are suppressing the religions and their importance and power in our Society's, we do not have to go far back in time when people where terrorized and killed by the Priesthoods of our religions.
That said the Muslim faith is one of the worst, and no matter how much you speculate in that the Muslim writings is being misunderstood today, the fact is how that particular religion is practiced by the vast majority of it's followers, it is a religion worshipping the worst and most evil tendency's in human beings.
Misconceptions in medieval times can be understood, but practicing medieval cruelty today is impossible to excuse.
And I do not buy the good Muslims everywhere argument, they are an absolute minority and subject to death threat's and prosecution from their own if they dare to open their mouths to wide, in my Country we have a few liberal Muslims gone into politics, they have to live with constant Police protection.
And that is why the Muslims do not clean up their own act, they cant because the ones that might want to are so very few and yield no power in reality.
All religions are basically about repression, and the attempt to make humans conform to one ideology alone, and most are accompanied by threat's if you don't, you go to hell ect. They are anti democracy in pure form.
Grow up, MilkieQuote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Valid points, but not necessarily answering the questionQuote:
Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
This is closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
First we need a definition of what democracy means in the context of religion as a whole and Islam in oparticular.
Off-hand I would say no . . . and I live in a majority Muslim country which has the dual legal system of Shari'a and Constitutional law. I have no problem with that as it only affects Muslims . . .
. . . the main problem or hindrance with Islam and Democracy bing compatible is that theoretically and practically a Muslim answers to no-one but God, or Allah if you prefer, and to no laws but the laws of Islam.
Theocracy? Yes, of course. Democracy as we know it? Not really, though there are exceptions like Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia.
I'm sure Macha has something up his sleeve and am interested to hear what it is
From Amar Lasfar, recteur de la mosquée de Lille Sud, président de la Ligue Islamique du Nord, is one of the leaders of UOIF (Union of French Islamic Organisations).
How can it be compatible with democracy 'Quote:
In Islam the concept of citizenship does not exist, but the community is very important because recognizing a community is to recognize the laws which govern it. We work to ensure that the concept of community is recognized by the Republic. Then we can establish an Islamic community, based on the laws we have in common with the Republic, and then apply our own laws in our community
This means assimilation for people based on Islamic terms in the population. This is excluded because it means the abandonment of Islamic law [...] There will be no exceptions to this rule.
Democracy is how islam is going to take over Europe as all muslims think alike so they will all vote alike. The downfall of western freedumb.
muzzies+west=Bunfight..
Whoever mixes the sexes should be killed: Sheikh Barrack
News | Saudi cleric backs gender segregation with fatwaQuote:
Saudi cleric backs gender segregation with fatwa
Shaikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak
RIYADH (Reuters)
A prominent Saudi cleric has issued an edict calling for opponents of the kingdom's strict segregation of men and women to be put to death if they refuse to abandon their ideas.
Shaikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak said in a fatwa the mixing of genders at the workplace or in education "as advocated by modernisers" is prohibited because it allows "sight of what is forbidden, and forbidden talk between men and women."
"All of this leads to whatever ensues," he said in the text of the fatwa published on his website (albarrak.islamlight.net).
"Whoever allows this mixing ... allows forbidden things, and whoever allows them is an infidel and this means defection from Islam ... Either he retracts or he must be killed ... because he disavows and does not observe the Shariah," Barrak said.
"Anyone who accepts that his daughter, sister or wife works with men or attend mixed-gender schooling cares little about his honor and this is a type of pimping," Barrak said.
Barrak, believed to be 77, does not hold a government position but he is viewed by Islamists as the leading independent authority of Saudi Arabia's hardline version of Sunni Islam, often termed Wahhabism.
Western diplomats believe that King Abdullah's push for reforms is resisted by a mainly older generation of clerics who still control the religious establishment.
The monarch dismissed a cleric from a top council of religious scholars in October after he demanded that religious scholars vet the curriculum at a new flagship mixed-gender university.
The kingdom, a major U.S. ally, is ruled by the al-Saud family in alliance with clerics from the strict Wahhabi school of Islam who oversee mosques, the judiciary and vast parts of education, and run a religious police body.
The Saudi government pays a morals police squad that roams streets and shopping malls to make sure unrelated men and women are kept apart, that women are covered from head to toe and search for alcohol and drugs under the kingdom's austere interpretation of Islam.
In 2008, Barrak issued a fatwa that two Saudi writers should be tried for apostasy for their "heretical articles" and put to death if they did not repent after the two wrote articles that questioned the Sunni Muslim view in Saudi Arabia that Christians and Jews should be considered unbelievers.
He has also denounced Shiite Muslims as "infidels" in another edict that coincided with sectarian tensions in Iraq.
I don't see anything incompatible with democracy. :rolleyes:
Islam = Surrender of one’s willQuote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
Democracy = Freedom
Men and women were sleeping, eating, working, bathing together for centuries before the paedo prophet came to teach it was a bad behaviour and should be forbidden.
Islamonazism is not compatible with freedom, as are all the muslims who want to change the western society. You don't like crosses in schools and churches, you like veils, burkas and other trashbags on your wife -> go back in an islamic country FFS. AND NOW. Our borders are wide open.
Islam is only compatible with islam!
Not with freedom of speak
Not with democracy
Not with equal rights
Not with human rights
The defenders of islam may say what they want but islam is to turn the soceity back to the middle ages.
If you want that then go for it!
Let's start with Iran. Iran was the least of extremist country in the Muslim world. Iran was ruled by a succession of Shah dynasties till Islamic revolution of 1979. If you look back in time, you'll find out that parliamentary democracy was establishing a strong foothold in Tehran in the early 50's. The process was disrupted by a British-American collaboration that resulted in an August 1953 CIA sponsored coup against legitimate, democratically elected Iranian government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
This coup had an adverse effect on Muslims of Iran. It destroyed the democratic governance in Iran and made generations of Muslims skeptical and cynical about Western motives.
For a long time Persia (today's Iran) was a poster child of resource exploitation by colonial powers.
In 1911 the Anglo Persian Oil Company (later the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) began pumping oil out of Iran. In 1917 the Bolshevik Revolution resulted in Russia's renouncing its claims to Iran, allowing Britain to move in and take over the Russian interests and areas of control (Russia was in control of Northern Iran and British in control of Southern Iran). In 1919 the British signed the Anglo-Persian Agreement with Ahmad Shah, which essentially made Iran a British protectorate, giving it control of Iran's military, transportation system, communication and treasury.
Only two years later the Brits helped install a new strongman with whom they could work closely to control Iran. His name was Reza Khan. Khan signed the 1933 agreement between the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (controlled by the Brits) and the government of Iran, providing a small annual stipend to Iran and huge profits for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
Do I need to go in details of operation Ajax?
Events after 1933: in my next post.
history has a habit of repeating itself
BCE history of Persia tells a different tale
You mean Bell Canadian Historians or Before Common Era?
Macha, thank you for your post above, and I'm glad you're here and hope you visit more.
Always here, milky. :)
A pristine view of the democracy from an islam view:
Pakistani Christian burned alive, wife raped <em>by police</em> for refusing to convert to Islam - Jihad Watch
Islamic radicals beat fellow student to death
And these barbaric people claim more rights for their sect ?
That's like asking "Trolling and Forums", compatible?! :mid: