Is Islamic belief compatible with democracy?

Eclectic Mystic said:
You are being hypothetical and making an assertion at the same time. Even if I were to accept this claim, I could still argue that such "preference" and "discrimination" occur only incidentally. There is nothing inherent in the constitution causing any such preference or discrimination. In fact, such preference or discrimination could only occur if the Constitution were not upheld.

I also notice in this thread that many people are equating "democracy" with Constitutional Law. Democracy in its raw form is essentially fickle mob rule. It is only by such mob rule that dictatorship is enabled. The purpose of a constitution is to protect against such things.

Regarding Shariah law, I know that under a religious context alone it is considered to be "law," but that does not necessarily mean political theocracy, right?[/QUOTE

Islamic belief that everyone should be muslim is wrong. Politically its about good moral values and not trying to take over the world.
Click to expand...
 
donnann said:
Eclectic Mystic said:
You are being hypothetical and making an assertion at the same time. Even if I were to accept this claim, I could still argue that such "preference" and "discrimination" occur only incidentally. There is nothing inherent in the constitution causing any such preference or discrimination. In fact, such preference or discrimination could only occur if the Constitution were not upheld.

I also notice in this thread that many people are equating "democracy" with Constitutional Law. Democracy in its raw form is essentially fickle mob rule. It is only by such mob rule that dictatorship is enabled. The purpose of a constitution is to protect against such things.

Regarding Shariah law, I know that under a religious context alone it is considered to be "law," but that does not necessarily mean political theocracy, right?[/QUOTE

Islamic belief that everyone should be muslim is wrong. Politically its about good moral values and not trying to take over the world.
Click to expand...

What shriah law says its ok to do what you have been doing? Isnt the 10 commandments pretty much the same thing?
Click to expand...
 
moonymoony said:
I was amazed when i found these qoutes of non-muslims about Imam Hussain. obviously they know Imam Hussain more than some muslims do.

ahatma Gandhi (Indian political and spiritual leader): “I learnd from Hussein
how to achieve victory while being oppressed.”

Thomas Carlyle (Scottish historian and essayist): “The best lesson which we get
from the tragedy of Cerebella is that Husain and his companions were rigid
believers in God. They illustrated that the numerical superiority does not
count when it comes to the truth and the falsehood. The victory of Husain,
despite his minority, marvels me!”


Edward Gibbon (English historian and member of parliament): “In a distant age
and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Hosein will awaken the
sympathy of the coldest reader.” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London,
1911, volume 5, p. 391-392)


Charles Dickens (English novelist): “If Husain had fought to quench his
worldly desires…then I do not understand why his sister, wife, and children
accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore, that he sacrificed purely for
Islam.”


Antoine Bara (Lebanese writer): “No battle in the modern and past
history of mankind has earned more sympathy and admiration as well as
provided more lessons than the martyrdom of Husayn in the battle of
Karbala.” (Husayn in Christian Ideology)


Dr. K. Sheldrake: “Of that gallant band, male and female knew that the
enemy forces around were implacable, and were not only ready to fight, but
to kill. Denied even water for the children, they remained parched under the
burning sun and scorching sands, yet not one faltered for a moment. Husain
marched with his little company, not to glory, not to power of wealth, but to
a supreme sacrifice, and every member bravely faced the greatest odds
without flinching.”


Ignaz Goldziher (Hungarian orientalist): “…Weeping and lamentation over
the evils and persecutions suffered by the ‘Alid family, and mourning for its
martyrs: these are things from which loyal supporters of the cause cannot
cease. ‘More touching than the tears of the Shi’is’ has even become an
Arabic proverb.” (Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, Princeton, 1981, p.179)


Edward G. Brown (Professor at the University of Cambridge): “…a reminder of
that blood-stained field of Karbala, where the grandson of the Apostle of
God fell, at length, tortured by thirst, and surround by the bodies of his
murdered kinsmen, has been at anytime since then, sufficient to evoke, even
in the most lukewarm and the heedless, the deepest emotion, the most
frantic grief, and an exaltation of spirit before which pain, danger, and death
shrink to unconsidered trifles.” (A Literary History of Persia, London, 1919, p.227)


Sir William Muir (Scottish orientalist): “The tragedy of Karbala decided not
only the fate of the Caliphate, but also of Mohammadan kingdoms long after
the Caliphate had waned and disappeared.” (Annals of the Early Caliphate,
London, 1883, p.441-442)

Dr. Radha Krishnan
“Though Imam Hussain gave his life years ago, but his indestructible soul rules the hearts of people even today.”



Mahatma Gandhi
“My faith is that the progress of Islam does not depend on the use of sword by its believers, but the result of the supreme sacrifice of Hussain (A.S.), the great saint.”

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
“Imam Hussain’s (A.S.) sacrifice is for all groups and communities, an example of the path of righteousness.”


Reynold Alleyne Nicholson
“Hussain (A.S.) fell, pierced by an arrow, and his brave followers were cut down beside him to the last man. Muhammadan tradition, which with rare exceptions is uniformly hostile to the Umayyad dynasty, regards Hussain (A.S.) as a martyr and Yazid as his murderer.”
[A Literary History of the Arabs, Cambridge, 1930, p197]

Dr. Rajendra Prasad
“The sacrifice of Imam Hussain (A.S.) is not limited to one country, or nation, but it is the hereditary state of the brotherhood of all mankind.”


Dr. Radha Krishnan
“Though Imam Hussain (A.S.) gave his life almost 1300 years ago, but his indestructible soul rules the hearts of people even today.”

Swami Shankaracharya
“It is Hussain’s (A.S.) sacrifice that has kept Islam alive or else in this world there would be no one left to take Islam’s name.”


Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
“I congratulate Muslims that from among them, Hussain (A.S.), a great human being was born, who is reverted and honored totally by all communities
Click to expand...

The truth is that picking on a small country ganging up on them is wrong. The jews have a right to exist and there should not be any fighting. They have been in the middle east the whole time and its wrong. Dont you know we are all human?
 
moonymoony said:
Fighting and uprising against evil does NOT lead to fitna. it leads to justice and liberation from slavery and oppression of all kinds.

abu sufyan, muawiyah and yazid (the axis of evil) dedicated their life to fighting Islam with all possible means.
they pretended to be muslims to fool people.
they starved, killed and tortured people who were loyal to Ahlulbayt.
they hired some people and paid them thousands of gold coins to fabricate and spread false hadiths in the name of Islam.

people did not elect muawiyah willingly. they elected him out of fear because he was a tyrant. they were worried about their lives.
their fear made them abandon Imam Hassan who was the legitimate leader of the Muslim ummah. they supported him in their hearts but they were afraid to go into battle with muawiyah

yazid slaughtered Imam Hussain (brother of Imam Hassan) in the battle of Karbala, but how can anyone stand before God with his hands stained of the blood of Imam Hussain?

Ahlulbayt teach people to uprise against tyrants and live with honor and dignity but the ummayads want to step on people thats why some false scholars today tell people it is haram to uprise against your leader no matter how corrupt he is, and they try to hide the history of Ahlulbayt because Ahlulbayt support the poor and the needy while the ummayads support tyrants.

the Shia tv channels that appeared after the invasion of Iraq taught people about Ahlulbayt and showed the real history of Islam.
people realized that obeying a corrupt so-called muslim leader is an ummayad rule that has nothing to do with Islam. the revolutions we see today in many arab countries are because of the awakening that has happened after knowing who Ahlulbayt are.

Imam Hussain got killed in Karbala battle but he was the winner.
his sacrifice has been influencing people until today. people now realize that they have rights just like their leaders. they have the right to speak their mind without fear. thats why the ummayad leaders of today prohibited studying the history of Ahlulbayt because they wanted people to follow them like a flock of sheep.
Click to expand...

Another thing men harming women and children is wrong. In no law politically or religiously does it say you can do that.
 
donnann said:
Another thing men harming women and children is wrong. In no law politically or religiously does it say you can do that.
Click to expand...

So you have to look in your own community and realize that the way arabs are treating their women is wrong!!!!!! And children. What moral law)(political) or religious law says you can do that. Universal Declaration of Basic Human Rights and that is the humane laws. I think the arab name for god allah is mad at you.
 
"Democracy" does not equal "Constitutional Republic" (or as I like to say good old enlightened liberal state--read Locke, Paine and Jefferson). Nor does "Shariah Law" equalte to "theocracy" or "The One World Caliphate".

Plenty of Christians in the US of A don't really like the Constitution (like Dominationists, or note the many sects that are aligned with the militia or racist right or how about those Texans or Minnesotans who just can't stand the idea of little brown new borns being citizens)

Many Muslims really do not worrry a lot about Shariah Law (oh, like in the largest Islamic state, the second largest Islamic state, the third largest Ismalic state... and Turkey and Albania).

The answer to today's puzzler is: Indonesia, India, and Pakistan.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
 
I advise the author of the post to search "Medina Constitution" to give you a sense of what an islamic state, ruled by the religious islamic law should be like. Keep in mind that the Medina Constitution was developed by Prophat Muhammad pbuh centuries ago, so it may not be quite "democratic" to much of modern western requirements, but it was fairly democratic in its own right.

Now, you say that religious laws are anti-constitution in the U.S. and UK. I agree to some extent. We have laws that in those western constitutions that prohibit many bad behaviors that religious laws also prohibit, such as: no murder, no stealing, etc. Although those constitutions may not sanction a particular religion, at the same time those are not forbidding you of worshiping who you please. The only thing that I see religious laws (even Sharia law) being at odds with Western Constitutions is no clear rules about freedom to perform prayers in the public spaces, such as workplace. But, I am sure something can be worked out by individual believers and their employers.

As a Muslim (born Muslim, lived all my life in the West--Europe and U.S.), I see no problem abiding by western laws. Why should there be a problem? In fact, Islam teaches me respect. Now, if a western constitution would to pass a law making my belief illegal in any manner to the point if I would be jailed or executed for my beliefs, then that would be a problem for me. Unfortunately, as much as Islam does promote freedom of belief/even unbelief to people, the dictatoriships in the Arab world do illegalize non-Islam religions or atheism. Scary and sad at the same time. And people do get persecuted for being a non-Muslim such as Bahai's in Iran and elsewhere. This, I hope, Arabs (and Persians) change as it is anti-Islam. The only time Islam approves fighting non-islamic religious forces is if Islam itself has been attacked first--that is if one has to defend himself and his community because they are forbidden to be Muslims by those who attacked them. As everyone can gather from reading the Holy Qur'an, Qur'anic Revelation came as peace. People were encouraged to: "you have your Qibla, I have mine" and "you will not follow my religion, I will not follow your religion." Initial desire of Prophet Muhammad pbuh was to just remind people of Allah (God) SWT, not to start a military revolution. It took years before Muslims responded in a military manner to numerous acts of violence by pagan Arabs of Mecca.
 
Endless Jihad: The Truth about Islam and Violence | Catholic Answers

That Islam sees itself as a theocracy has enormous ramifications for how it regards itself and for the behavior of Muslims.

First, it means that Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political ideology. If the government of the Muslim community simply is God’s government, then no other governments can be legitimate. They are all at war with God. As a result, Muslims have typically divided the world into two spheres, known as the Dar al-Islam—the "house of Islam" or "house of submission" to God—and the Dar al-Harb, or "house of war"—those who are at war with God.

Second, it means that Muslims have believed themselves to have a "manifest destiny." Since God must win in the end, the Dar al-Harb must be brought under the control of Muslim government and made part of the Dar al-Islam.

Third, since the Dar al-Harb by its nature is at war with God, it is unlikely that it will submit to God without a fight. Individual groups might be convinced to lay down their arms and join the Muslim community by various forms of pressure—economic or military—that fall short of war. In history some groups have become Muslim in this way, either fearing Muslim conquest, desiring Muslim military aid against their own enemies, or.aspiring to good trade relations with the Muslim world. But many peoples would rather fight than switch. This has been particularly true of Christians, who have put up more resistance to the Muslim advance than have pagan and animistic tribes.

Because of the need to expand God’s dominion by wars of conquest, Islam’s ideology imposes on Muslims the duty to fight for God’s community. This duty is known as jihad (Arabic, "struggle, fight"). Although it is binding on all Muslims, it has been particularly incumbent on those on the edges of the Muslim world, where there was room for expansion. Only by continual jihad could the manifest destiny of Islam to bring the world into submission to God be fulfilled.

As eminent French sociologist Jacques Ellul notes, "Jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfill; it is Islam’s normal path to expansion."

A fourth and final consequence of Islam’s view of itself as a theocracy is that in theory all Muslims should not only form one religious community but should be subject to one government as well—God’s government, a kind of Muslim superstate. Yet this has not happened. Muslims have been ruled by different governments since the early days of Islam.
Click to expand...
 
Gabriel, you are entitled to your views, but they are so very inflammatory. Someone or many several hundred some ones may agree with the kind of stuff you post. It only inflames me against the HCC (Holy Catholic Church). Even I (who do not readily read Arabic) understand that jihad is not holy war and expansionism the way your source characterizes it. It would be better if you make your own arguments against this vast conspiracy you see. Your sources provide nothing but outdated polemics and spurious charges; quite frankly they remind me of the kind of anti-Semitic remarks that led to a long history of massacres from the Rhineland to Shoah.

As long as you do not mind alienating fairly open-minded people and throwing petrol onto the flames of an already push-button issue (like we could be at war with Iran in a matter of minutes, Israel and Afghanistan are already at war against those who make the mirror-image charges to yours), feel good about these posts.
 
radarmark said:
Gabriel, you are entitled to your views, but they are so very inflammatory. Someone or many several hundred some ones may agree with the kind of stuff you post. It only inflames me against the HCC (Holy Catholic Church). Even I (who do not readily read Arabic) understand that jihad is not holy war and expansionism the way your source characterizes it. It would be better if you make your own arguments against this vast conspiracy you see. Your sources provide nothing but outdated polemics and spurious charges; quite frankly they remind me of the kind of anti-Semitic remarks that led to a long history of massacres from the Rhineland to Shoah.

As long as you do not mind alienating fairly open-minded people and throwing petrol onto the flames of an already push-button issue (like we could be at war with Iran in a matter of minutes, Israel and Afghanistan are already at war against those who make the mirror-image charges to yours), feel good about these posts.
Click to expand...

Those are not my views those are scholarly and historical view and I would agree with those facts, unfortunately many Muslims have problem accepting history, they are very adamant that the Bible is corrupt, they are very adamant that history is also corrupt. Too many Muslim scholars who have speak up and disagree with the main stream establish Islam are silence.

Muslim seems to view that the problem is us the West that is why they are very aggressive in proselytizing us instead of teaching Muslims in Muslims lands to embrace the peaceful Islam.

Zayd suffered major religious persecution for his views on Qur'an. In 1993, he was promoted to the rank of full professor, but Islamic controversies about his academic work led to a court decision of apostasy and the denial of the appointment. In a hisbah trial started against him by Muslim scholars, he was declared an apostate (murtadd) by an Egyptian court, and consequently was declared to be divorced from his wife, Cairo University French Literature professor Dr. Ibtihal Younis.[1] The basis of the divorce decree under Sharia law was that since it is not permissible for a Muslim woman to be married to a non-Muslim man, and since Zayd was an apostate, he therefore could not remain married to his wife. This decision, in effect, forced him out of his homeland. His case began when he was refused a promotion for the post of full professor. In May 1992, Dr. Abu Zayd presented his academic publications to the Standing Committee of Academic Tenure and Promotion for advancement. Among his thirteen works in Arabic and other languages were Imam Shāfi‘ī and the Founding of Medieval Ideology and The Critique of Religious Discourse.
Click to expand...

Historian Bernard Lewis explains: According to the historic Muslim understanding, there is no separation between religion and government—what in Christianity would be called the separation of church and state.

We are not speaking here of the secularist idea that the state should marginalize religion and discourage people from voting their consciences as Christians. We are talking about the idea that church and state are not the same thing and that they have different spheres of activity.

This idea of a separation between religion and government is not characteristic of most peoples in world history. It is a contribution to the world of ideas that was made by Christians—indeed, by Christ himself. In his book Islam and the West, historian Bernard Lewis explains:

"The notion that religion and political authority, church and state, are different and that they can or should be separated is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its origins may be traced to the teachings of Christ, notably in the famous passage in Matthew 22:21, in which Christ is quoted as saying: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ This notion was confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and in a sense even imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom. The persecutions endured by the early Church made it clear that a separation between the two was possible."

During much of Christian history church and state were united in that each Christian state had an official church, whether it was the Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox or Protestant churches. In many countries that is still the case. Nevertheless, the awareness remained that the two institutions were distinct and had different functions and different spheres of legitimate authority. They could in principle disagree and go their separate ways when necessary.

Most peoples in world history have not shared this understanding. In most societies, religion and government have been inseparably linked. This is true in Muslim society as well. Lewis explains:

"In pagan Rome, Caesar was God. Christians were taught to differentiate between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God. For Muslims of the classical age, God was Caesar, and the sovereign—caliph or sultan—was merely his viceregent on earth. This was more than a simple legal fiction. For Muslims the state was God’s state, the army God’s army, and, of course, the enemy was God’s enemy. Of more practical importance, the law was God’s law, and in principle there could be no other. The question of separating church and state did not arise, since there was no church, as an autonomous institution, to be separated. Church and state were one and the same."

This means that, in the historic Muslim understanding, Islamic society is or should be a theocracy—a society in which God himself is the monarch, reigning on earth through subordinates.

In the earliest days of Islam, the subordinate was the prophet Mohammed, who founded Islam and conquered the Arabian Peninsula. Thereafter the subordinate was the caliphs and in the centuries after Mohammed’s death they expanded Muslim society by conquering peoples as far west as Spain and as far east as India. In the process, they absorbed half of Christian civilization. Eventually, the power of the caliphs waned, and new leaders—such as the Ottoman sultans—were the subordinates. Throughout it all, God himself was regarded as the ruler of Islamic civilization.
Click to expand...

Muslim countries have a long way to go to be able to fully function as a democratic governemt.

Turkish authorities knew this that in the early 1900 they started to implement serious reforms separating Islam from State and up to now they are still struggling to keep Islam out of State politics and government.
 
The problem is still there. You rely on others (authority) to make and justify your arguments. Fine, that is an old trick of rhetoric. However, I still cannot follow whatever point you are making, since there is no context.

If Zayd was persecuted, so were Kung, Ehrman, Fox, and Spong. The point is that both sides are equally guilty. Godse assassinated a Hindu, Ashu a Muslim, Amir a Jew, and Ray a Christian. The political process in the United States has been more than once assaulted from the pulpit ("the clergy believe that any portion ofpower confided in me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I sworn upon the Alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion") like that of Iraq or Egypt or Tunisia.

The point (IMHO) of this forum is to reach over the corpses, leave the dead to bury their dead and focus on the evils that lurk in men's hearts (hatered, racism and fundamentalism).
 
There are basically three aspects to wether Islam is compatiable with democracy

1. wether the shariah law is compatiable to the extent where it accepts it as good and acceptable in the sight of God

2. wether Islam can 'live with it' in terms of finding it acceptable enough to have diplomatic relations and peace with

3. wether Muslims can live and function fully in a democratic state

the first is an absolute no no; God has not sanctioned it, thus it is a sign of mans arrogance

the second is yes, as many of the injunctions and rulings in a democracy are very similar to Muslim lands

as for the third, there is a principle of choosing the lesser evil in Islam, thus it might be ok for Muslims to become politicians/senators, etc, in order to try to make positive changes and stand for the principles that are compatiable with Islam, and in the case where they're not, then to stand for the lesser evil, thus with such a purpose being a politician will go hand in hand with Islam

an example of choosing a lesser evil will be, say there is a war mongering party up for elections and a more moderate one, then allthough both are evil according to Islam, yet the former will be far worse than the latter, thus a Muslim could aspire to be a politician for the latter party in order to win for it more votes so as for the greater evil not to prevail

voting in elections will be allowed based on the same principle

hope this helps
smile.gif
 
True Gabriel said:
Muslim countries have a long way to go to be able to fully function as a democratic governemt.
Click to expand...

that may be true, but western style democracy is not all its cracked up to be, in many ways its just as oppressive as islam and its really not even that democratic.
 
"Is Islamic belief compatible with democracy?"

--> Here is another way to look at it. In some ways, all religious authority is incompatible with democracy. Who among us is willing to stand up to their own group's religious authority figure, proclaim their own religious authority figure to be wrong, and risk eternal damnation?
 
radarmark said:
The problem is still there. You rely on others (authority) to make and justify your arguments. Fine, that is an old trick of rhetoric. However, I still cannot follow whatever point you are making, since there is no context.

If Zayd was persecuted, so were Kung, Ehrman, Fox, and Spong. The point is that both sides are equally guilty. Godse assassinated a Hindu, Ashu a Muslim, Amir a Jew, and Ray a Christian. The political process in the United States has been more than once assaulted from the pulpit ("the clergy believe that any portion ofpower confided in me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I sworn upon the Alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion") like that of Iraq or Egypt or Tunisia.

The point (IMHO) of this forum is to reach over the corpses, leave the dead to bury their dead and focus on the evils that lurk in men's hearts (hatered, racism and fundamentalism).
Click to expand...
Muslim rely on the Quran to justify their arguments, I rely on several sources and you say that it is a wrong approach? This is not an old trick it is pointing out the facts and the fact is Islam has a problem, many Muslims hate the West and we are trying to find out and understand why that is so, so that we will know how to deal with it. How about Muslims have they been trying to understand how to deal with Islamic extremism or are they ignoring it blaming us for it?

How do you differantiate the Afghan War against Russia & current war of Talibans against PAK USA? - YouTube

There is no doubt that Islamic extremist number by the thousands and another thousand of supporters and sympathisers. At the same time there are very few Muslims who dare to speak up against those terrorist and the establish Muslim authorities but worse is that we see Western Muslims blaming us for Muslim problems their solution to the Islamic extremist issue in my view base on what I have been hearing from Western Muslims is for us to convert to Islam. Ignoring the fact that Islamic extremism exists. Western Muslims such as Dr. Zudi Jasser of the American Democratic Islamic Association, Dr. Jasser strongly believe in the separation of Mosque and State and that Islam needs to be reform in order to solve the extremism that is wide spread in all Muslim countries.

IMO the abrogation rule should be applied to abrogate those violent verses that are the basis of Islamic extremism and have no place in today’s modern civilization.

The point is Muslims like Zayd are persecuted not because they are Kung, Fox or what ever but because they do not agree with the establish Muslim interpretation of the Quran which are outdated and leans towards more to the extremist ideologies. Muslims have a duty to make things right, back then illiteracy rate was very high Mohammed himself was illiterate, Muslims now have the opportunity to do what Mohammed could not do because he could not read and that is to consult the people of the Book as instructed by Allah:
Sura 10:94 “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt”.

Sura 10:37 “And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be invented in despite of Allah; but it is a confirmation of that which was before it and an exposition of that which is decreed for mankind - Therein is no doubt - from the Lord of the Worlds”.

No where in the Quran did Allah instruct the destruction of the Bible but what we find are verses to consult the Bible.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"Is Islamic belief compatible with democracy?"

--> Here is another way to look at it. In some ways, all religious authority is incompatible with democracy. Who among us is willing to stand up to their own group's religious authority figure, proclaim their own religious authority figure to be wrong, and risk eternal damnation?
Click to expand...

I guess, that is why lately there have been uprising against the Islamic authorities in Iran, Libya, Egypt, Syria and other Muslim countries are starting to feel the heat as well. The problem is, it seem to be one Islamic ideology uprising against another Islamic ideology little to do with democracy?
 
"...the Islamic authorities in Iran, Libya, Egypt..."

--> The Mubarak regime in Egypt was actually secular (and corrupt), so some Egyptians are wondering if a fundamentalist Muslim regime might actually be better. (Conditions in Mubarak prisons were the worst in the world, with prison guards regularly raping male prisoners.) We really can't blame them for thinking this way, even if they may be wrong.

But two wrongs do not make a right. Throwing out a corrupt regime does not automatically guarantee that the next regime will be any better, irregardless of secular/religious orientation.
 
TG. Most of the examples you inumerate are quite incorrec as Nick says. The only Islamic state (in terms of being a theocracy) on your list is Iran. The progressive, more democratic states like Indonesia and India and Bangladesh and Turkey have thus far been spared such turmoil for the most part.

Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia were not Islamic states in the normal sense of the word (anymore than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia were Christian states or ideologies).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top