Thread: Democracy and Islam - compatible

Originally Posted by Milkman

But why is an Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia, not democratic?


Egypt? Iran? Kuwait? Syria? Libya, etc.

These are "Islamic nations."

Grow up, Milkie

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

- 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

Valid points, but not necessarily answering the question

Originally Posted by larvidchr

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,

This is closer.


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).

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.

How can it be compatible with democracy '

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

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.

News | Saudi cleric backs gender segregation with fatwa

I don't see anything incompatible with democracy.

Originally Posted by panama hat

First we need a definition of what democracy means in the context of religion as a whole and Islam in oparticular.

Islam = Surrender of one’s will
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!

Originally Posted by Milkman

Egypt? Iran? Kuwait? Syria? Libya, etc.

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.

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?!

I hate pakis as much as the next man, but this thread belongs on stormfront.com

Persia without Islam would be a land of deformed kissin' cousins... have you read the rules on Zoroastrianism lately?! There are hardly any Parsees left.

Don't forget, Islam is just a variation on Christianity, which is just a variation on Judaism, which is just a variation on bronze age tribal Semitic/Mesopotamian cults... it's all foreign muck - be a Druid!
The thing that's incompatible with democracy is politics, which is effectively the same thing as religion.

Religion demands certainty without evidence; reason demands evidence without certainty. (science is a circular argument; it's a shitload better than pol-igion; but not as good as philosophy: which trumps 'em all).

Originally Posted by machangezi

I'm surprised there was no outcry from mullahs in Pakland.

Surprising indeed . . . wasn't there some big brouhaha about some female tennis player wearing . . . tennis gear . . . or was that India and the girl/woman was Hindu/Muslim.

My memory is fading

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by machangezi

I'm surprised there was no outcry from mullahs in Pakland.

Surprising indeed . . . wasn't there some big brouhaha about some female tennis player wearing . . . tennis gear . . . or was that India and the girl/woman was Hindu/Muslim.

My memory is fading

Oh that girl. She's an Indian (Muslim though) tennis player who's about to marry a Pakistani cricketer. Shiv Sena's hardcore Hindu party has objection on their wedding. According to them if she was an Indian, she wouldn't marry a Pakistani.

I think the cricket player is already married or so goes the story. He married the lady on the phone sight unseen. Now he claims the pics she posted on the internet were not hers.

Originally Posted by machangezi

Oh that girl. She's an Indian (Muslim though) tennis player

Yes, that's the one

Originally Posted by Norton

I think the cricket player is already married or so goes the story. He married the lady on the phone sight unseen. Now he claims the pics she posted on the internet were not hers.

Oh dear, I hadn't realised they are one and the same.

Had a guy here in Malaysia try to divorce his wife via sms. Sent the 'I divorce you' text three times and thought he was home free.

The sha'aria (sp?) court quickly put the kabosh on that.

Honestly . . .religion may be a good thing in principle, but why do humans bugger it up so badly?

Ask a Muslim what is an infidel and what does he think of them. And then ask a muslim what he thinks of people who eat pork . And if he is honest with his answers then you will wonder how on earth can we live with these muslims . Chances are he'll give you a bull-shit answer with a stupid smile on his face.

Originally Posted by billy the kid

Ask a Muslim what is an infidel and what does he think of them. And then ask a muslim what he thinks of people who eat pork . And if he is honest with his answers then you will wonder how on earth can we live with these muslims . Chances are he'll give you a bull-shit answer with a stupid smile on his face.

So unless his answer fits in with YOUR preconceptions he's a liar?

That all whitemen are evil and that anyone who eats pork is dirty. From what i gather a majority of them think like this. Very few of them mix with the whiteman or the blackman . I have lived in an area amongst them and the only contact is when you buy from their shop. White ladies avoid them like the plague . They just don't mix well with people outside Islam. This is my experience of living with them for 10 years. Every other nationality in the area had a problem with them. And it is their attitude that is the problem.