Can Islam and Democracy co-exist?

@ladyluna (7004)
United States
December 7, 2007 12:01pm CST
Please share your thoughts on whether and how these two ideologies can peacefully co-exist. This question is posted under the "debating" category, so please feel free to interact with other respondents. I will, however request that civility be maintained. I have every confidence that we can have this intellectual debate while still conducting ourselves respectably. Thanks! I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this.
6 people like this
12 responses
@ESKARENA1 (18300)
7 Dec 07
in my humble opinion they are mutualy incompatable. Islam dictates submission to the word of god, this is decided by a gang of others who dec ide what god meant when he told his wisdom to a poor shepherd somewhere in the middle east. Now, democracy on the other hand relies on people thinking for themselves. This seems to be against the basic principle of Islam which looks to me like only think if its about god
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Dec 07
Hello ESKARENA1, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. You make an interesting point about submission to Allah vs. free will.
1 person likes this
@tatzkie (644)
• Philippines
8 Dec 07
Isnt it that democracy also ensures the freedom of religion? i think it can co exist. In the level of the state, i think democracy must be reflective of the commonly shared values of people and that this means that a government is democratic enough relative to established norms. True or real sense of democracy is a democracy that works. If democracy is being forced on a country with a varied socio cultural and historical experience, i think it would have a lot of problems and resistance. Like the IRAQ and Afghanistan, I dont think it would be easy for the populace to embrace democracy, when in fact, this type of government is marred with war and deaths of their fellow countrymen. I have nothing against democracy, but if we force democracy and install a so called democracy from the outside, i think it can easily be seen as another tyranny of the ruling clique. Democracy must be appreciated little by little by people by having the people to experience the fruits of democracy down to the grassroots. this is my humble opinion.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Dec 07
Hello Tatzkie, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue. Yes, Democracy does insure religious freedom. That may represent its downfall, unless the people of this planet figure out how to allow religious freedom, and secular governance to coexist. Hence, the reason for the question. (quote - Tatzkie) "...democracy must be reflective of the commonly shared values of people ..." Hmm, this raises a significant red flag. No state is completely homogenous. For example: Mahmoud Ajmadinejad's recent ludicrous statement that there are no homosexuals in Iran. And, the mass exodus of non-Muslims from Islamic states, for fear of life and limb. Case in point: Damascus, Syria once had a large and vibrant Christian population. Though, most have relocated, not out of desire but in hopes of survival. (quote - Tatzkie) "Democracy must be appreciated little by little by people by having the people to experience the fruits of democracy down to the grassroots." I certainly cannot dispute the wisdom of this statement. Yet, how can the grassroots develop a love of freedom, until a system of governance is in place that allows them to experience the fruits of democracy?
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
10 Dec 07
Hello Tatzkie, Thank you for both the follow up, and a glimpse into the Phillipine reality. Very interesting! (quote - Tatzkie) "I would then agree on your point that having a democratic government installed these muslims had assimilated itself to the system and have soften the clamour for an independent islamic state unlike those few." Yes, but in softening the clamour, have they/are they developing an appreciation for democracy's inclusive nature, or do they remain separtist, i.e. isolated in predominently Muslim communities? (quote - Tatzke) " ... global sharing of ideas...." A very potent point! So, how then do we realize that all important global exchange of ideas in an isolated theocracy, such as Iran? Although there were more student protests in Iran today, the hard-line theocracy is going to great lenghts to ensure as little contact with the outside world as possible. Kim Jong Il, of North Korea has employed this same isolationist tactic with great success. Though not a Muslim state, N. Korea's governance is comparably hard-lined, isolationist, oppressive and radical. (quote - Tatzke) "I would like to believe that ordinary citizens in these countries doesnt really like the war and see the need of fighting a war." I would also like to believe this. Yet, the predominance of theocratic education combined with isolationist practices, and a cultural history consisting of thousands of years of brute force domination leave serious questions about the feasibility of this belief becoming reality. The Middle East, from its early history of nomadicism through its imperialist empires -- one after another, after another, seem to indicate that its cultural roots lead toward militaristic dominance, and the resulting submission. (quote - Tatzkie) "But i think through time and as democracy roots to these societies, people will embrace it slowly." Hmmm, interesting. Do you then support the West remaining in Iraq until their fledgling democracy has time for its tender roots to take hold?
@tatzkie (644)
• Philippines
10 Dec 07
about the philippines... I would say that muslim separatist are isolated. Muslims in our place are well adjusted to the democratic space and infact their trade and businesses had flourished and reached the main key cities of the country which are predominantly christian. The predominant christian government has the so called cultural leadership over the country and muslims have tried to gain their representation through the ballots and through the autonomous region of muslim mindanao. I believe the peace talks have its gains already. about iran and N.korea isolation... hmmm... while it is true that both the theocratic and the socialistic countries are adopting this international isolation policy. An internal movement must create the condition from within the country, to give people the oppurtunity to contemplate on the state of their country in relation to the world. I think no country can isolate itself for so long. it is just a matter of time and the leverage. about US in IRAQ.... they have no choice but to stay. for now. However i believe that their stay must be coupled with concrete moves to rebuild iraq. A gradual pull out will help out too but it must be done after ensuring the internal security forces can protect vital installations.
1 person likes this
• United States
7 Dec 07
The country of Turkey is Islamic and a democracy, isn't it? Even Iraq is tentatively a democracy and is Islamic. Without getting out an atlas, I think there are others. So, yes I think Islam and democracy can co-exist in the same country. The people favoring democracy are just going to have to be aware that Islam believes in theocracy and do what it takes to make them understand Muslims are free to worship as they please but not to impose their beliefs through the power of government. Or did you mean co-exist in the world? Of this, I'm sure. Islam and democracy currently co-exist in the world. There are problems, but I'm confident these will be worked out.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Dec 07
Hello Red, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Yes, you are correct. Turkey is a secular Islamic nation. Good point! "... do what it takes to make them understand ..." Any ideas how Democratic citizens or governments might accomplish this lofty task?
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Dec 07
Hello Red, I do appreciate you're follow up. I cannot help but wonder if Muslims would feel that they are practicing Islam if large blocks of the Quran are somehow incised out of the religion. As we all know, the Quran is based on Muhammed -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. I'm wondering if it's possible for Islam to reform in such a way as to contradict the bad and the ugly. I suspect that you may be on to something though, because not all Muslims embrace Sharia, or Muhammed's call for violence. Yet, they don't vocally denounce it either. This makes me wonder -- why? Your analogy to Shintoism is profound. Once rabid nationalism & loyalty to the former Japanese Emperor were removed from the equasion, the practice did morph into something much less radical. Yet, Islam is borderless, and espouses loyalty to a deity. So, short of a modern day prophet denouncing the Islamic bad & ugly, do you believe it's reasonable to expect reformation from the Imams & Islamic missionaries? As for Turkey today: Hmmm, maybe there's more to the story that many of us had thought. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015274.php I found the comments section particularly interesting. Again, I really appreciate your input.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Dec 07
Hello Sndcain, I very much appreciate your participation. I know that you have done much research into the many levels of this question. I posted a link in my latest response to Redyellowblackdog (above). The author of the article suggests that only approx. 1/4 of Turkey's citizens are actually secularists, even though 99% of the Turkish population is Muslim. From the article, it would seem that Turkey's inclusion in N.A.T.O., and their desire for acceptance into the European Union, for financial reasons, are more responsible for the continuation of a secular gov't than a true secular infusion into the mindset of Turkish Islam.
• United States
15 Mar 08
no way no how democracy depends on freedom Islam has no place in it for independant thinkers!
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Mar 08
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, Revdauphinee. I would agree with you about free thinkers being discourages within the organization of Islam.
• India
27 Feb 08
I don't think it is possible for democracy and orthodox Islam to co-exist. I think so because in 'freedom of speech' is an essential component of democracy... we can't make sense of democracy without freedom of speech. But it seems to me that Islam will never give its adherents that right/freedom.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
28 Feb 08
Hello Headhunter525, I would tend to agree. As long as the freedom of speech is hindered, Islamic orthodoxy and Democracy are incompatible. Good point!
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
14 Dec 07
In its present form, I do not believe that Islam and Democracy can co-exist. The two factions Sunnis and Shiites are always so close to civil war or just annihilation from one country to the next, that they cannot even have true peace between countries. Some form of Totalitarian government or very strong Kingship is about the only forms of goverment that would last. No matter what form of government they form, their religion is the top order. That right there starts messing with freedoms and then its downhill from there.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
15 Dec 07
Hello Adoniah, Sorry I missed your response here, silly me. Anyway, thank you for sharing your perspective on this pressing question. Sadly, I believe your points are merited.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Dec 07
Of course they can. it would have to be up to the people like everything else.There can be a ruler who is Muslim whose country is a democracy.Where or when is other questions.But I can see it happen.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
9 Dec 07
Hello Sarahruthbeth, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this question.
1 person likes this
@ssh123 (31104)
• India
7 Dec 07
You see only military commanders or monarchs leading the countries where majority are muslims. Probably because of religious background to keep everything in check including the freedom of all sorts, this happens and the religious leaders are pleased because punishments are meted out easily to violators of their religion through autocrats, dictators. Some of the types of punishment existed and dates back to 3000 years of civilization.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Dec 07
Hello Ssh123, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this question. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your take is that an Islamic Theocracy can only be sustained by dictatorial measures?
@men82in (1270)
• India
16 Dec 07
For debate democracy subject can be taken towards any coutry or regions. What is the necessity towards taking particular religion islam and related querries. Democracy in the sense and meaning itself common to all religions and sorts of people . Then is there querries with you of democracy opt the subject with democracy and dictatorship. Pin pointing on particular religions' existence and flexibility towards democracy with religion is and will not be a good debate upto my consent under presence situation. This debate seems particularly judging islam towards democracy.
1 person likes this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
16 Dec 07
Helo ladyluna, This is a very intriguing question and requires a lot of deliberation. Short answer is yes and no! To explain my response, I will have to go briefly into some of the very basic concepts, which people usually tend to, either ignore or misperceive or even attribute such things to concepts that are not actually part of those concepts. To start with, democracy can not even start to exist with itself i.e. no democratic Government can function beyond a short period, owing to its very fragile and unrealistic nature. Hence, like Marxist communism, democracy never existed and would never have a chance to subsist due to its very impractical nature. Marx was honest enough to acknowledge the fact that for communism to come to reality, a nation/society will have to go through an intermediate stage which he described as “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. He never claimed that his communist model is workable in the prevailing conditions, and so, as a matter of fact, most of his work concentrates on this transitional phase rather than an actual Communist State which was very vaguely discussed. Yet, this practical model, as perceived by Marx, wasn’t deemed workable, and so, we had Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist and other forms of Communism which were very different from each other in their details, yet having Marxism as their basic driving force. On the other hand, while there is no democracy existing on the face of earth, yet, champions of democracy never seem to admit the fact that what they have isn’t democracy. What we see are manifestations of facets of democracy, not the democracy itself. Thus the basic question that whether or not democracy and Islam can co-exist is not a real or pertinent question; proper question, probably, could be, whether or not American democracy or British democracy or Indian democracy or Australian democracy (all have different working models of manifestations of democracy) can co-exist with Islam. One can further implore to delve into whether one of above mentioned manifestations of democracy can replace the other…answer to that question would not be as simple as it may seem. Humans do not just have political lives. They are real living beings with political, social, cultural, economic, spiritual (not all) and personal responsibilities as well as aspirations, to live with. Any system of Government that doesn’t take into account the collective nature of the populace is bound to fail. Thus, as democracy cannot exist in its pure form, it must be tailored and tampered with to form a more workable and feasible model according to collective national aspirations of people who are willing to adopt this system of Government, and that is just what Nations have done with it. Thus, while we see perceived democracies in many countries, none is similar to other. It must also be combined with other social and economic models to make it work. Thus, we see that, in America it is combined with Capitalism, in France with a Socialist slant, in Russia with communism (Yes, however poles apart they might look, communism and democracy can perfectly co-exist with little tampering with both). Religious, collective spiritual and cultural aspects of populace will also have its impact (after all, in democracy, majority rules). So, we see that the countries who have declared secular constitutions aren’t actually secular. The colour of majorities’ religions is clearly visible from outside; again, America, Britain, France and India are worth noting examples. Sometimes, some people try to connect some noble concepts to democracy and present the both as if those noble concepts are integral part of the democracy, which, in its very nature, is actually inert to such concepts. Freedom, love for humans and nature, truthfulness, accountability, welfare, rule of law, justice etc, etc have no direct relation to democracy per se. If the participating entities are good humans, they will make democracy look good and if they aren’t good, democracy will be as bad as them. If participating entities are ignorant, gullible and easily manipulate-able, democracy will be a terrifying experience as I see it in some places on earth today. Especially, when capitalism is added to democracy (ironically, the two systems are utterly irreconcilable unless they are both corrupted) one will have a lust-ridden system setout on the road to imperialism which is again a historically observable fact/experience. Another grave misperception that some people have is that they think of democracy and secularism as partners or essentially inclusive of each other when, actually, they are quite distinct concepts and can well be mutually exclusive too. A democratic government can be non-secular and a secular government can very well be undemocratic. Democracy is just a neutral political philosophy; it is neither noble nor harmful in itself, for the people themselves construct the very face of democracy. So, it can be anywhere between great, fairly good, working, bad, very bad and an evil or even a curse on society, depending upon who are the people participating in it and how they determine its course. This fact is also acknowledged by the self proclaimed champions of democracy themselves, so while they support a democracy at one place, they vehemently oppose it on others (but they do try to save their hypocritical faces by paying lip service for a need for democracy in places where they actually and practically oppose it). It is also true that much of the terror, destruction and the horrible state of the world, that we are living in now, is brought upon us by the very States and Governments who call themselves democratic (America, Britain, France, Spain, Israel), with some undemocratic (dictatorial) Governments supported by above mentioned democratic Governments along side some examples of secular but undemocratic States like Russia and China. Moreover, with the fact that the crime rates are at their peaks in the countries who are self-proclaimed (falsely so) champions of democracy, it is just natural for a normal person to think that democracy causes terror, imperialism and rule of force rather than force of rule. But, as I don’t judge a system or an institution by the way of its perceived followers, like many illiterate and ignorant people do, while judging other religions, systems or institutions, so no, even given all those facts, I won’t judge that democracy is destructive all in all, it can be very constructive when it’s at its right place, in the right people and most importantly at the right time with the right understanding of what actually a democracy is and how can it be positively applied. Moreover, when considered theoretically, democracy does mean that voice of 51 fools--illiterates--ignorant--gullible is more important and weighty than 49 wise--knowledgeable--intelligent men/women. Though I personally believe that over whelming majority of humans have great potential and are given great capabilities at the time of birth, yet, while growing, we make our choices depending upon family, friends, environment, personal economic realities, general social conditions and personal liking/disliking, which make us grow either wiser and smarter or ignorant and unconcerned. If you consult any psychologist specialising in decision making behaviours, you will get an idea of just how many people make an educated choice while voting and how many remain unconcerned, and seeing the low turn outs or electoral procedures (election of Blair and Bush), it hardly remains a democratic government when compared to its recognized definitions. Couple it with the fact that in a capitalist system, people are too busy in competition and in the vicious monetary circle to have much spare time and mind to ponder deeply over worlds’ or domestic political affairs, one will get a populace which can be easily manipulated owing to the fact that they mainly get what they are fed with…et voila…you have a completely bastardized system unable to handle or even see the problems wisely, and hence the mess we are into. Corporate cultures have been successful in ensuring that democracy is non-existent within a democracy, that educated remain ignorant, that the actual ruling entities are different from the elected entities and that more power is available to few individuals and families than populace in general. Now coming to the question of possibility of co-existence of Islam and democracy; yes it is possible. In fact, early Islam was much more democratic (even more than present day democracies in some aspects and undemocratic in others). People were gathered in mosques or open areas and critical questions were put to public. Though the Prophet and the Caliphs had the final say yet there were many, many decision made from direct public consent and opinion with many others decided by the Prophet or Caliphs themselves after consultation with the experts in the field. Even in these decisions, they don’t differ much with present democratic governments where decisions are made by the cabinet and approved by Assemblies or the other way around. It may surprise you but there are only about less than 550 verses in Quran (out of more than 6500) on which the whole Islamic jurisprudence/law is based. Rest of the Quran contains selected stories of some of the earlier prophets, description of nature, general guidance about social justice and harmony, foreign policy and law making process, leaving much for the people to decide for themselves, especially the learned people. Quran and Islam have only given few basic laws leaving all others to be decided by the people as the time changes. The laws that Quran has prescribed are called Hadoods, others are called Tazeers or with some other names. It may again come as a surprise to you that very, very small percentage of laws is hadood and rest is all Tazeers i.e. decided by the represe
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
20 Dec 07
Hello ladyluna, Sorry for responding late as I was again offline for a couple of days. We are well and I hope the same at your end. My son got hospitalized for traveler’s diarrhea, lost 3 kgs of weight, though he is still in normal weight range, as he was quite healthy earlier. He finally was discharged from hospital day before yesterday. Illness has caused some loss in his adventurism but I hope he will recover soon. I myself have been academically and politically busy, as not only this quarter is one of the busiest academically, but my country went through turbulence in last couple of months. I would like to know your understanding of sovereignty and especially, where precisely, according to you, such sovereignty is existent? I am asking not only to understand your standing on the subject, as you have put emphasis on it (in a democracy) but also to address it in more understandable terms. Moreover, I found your following paragraph interesting as well as (basically) self contradictory. I’ll address these contradictions, after I get to know your pre-processors. “ I'm sure that given your national residence---This would mean that a single set of laws applies to all sovereigns -- men, and women, Muslim, and non-Muslim.”
1 person likes this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
30 Dec 07
American Sovereign Citizen: I have argued that there is no such reality as “sovereign Citizen” but as you have raised this issue in the context of America, I’ll discuss it accordingly! True, that founding fathers of America founded it on neat ideals but it’s also true that they never lived up to those ideals themselves or even close to them. Slavery continued to be practiced, severe discrimination was common, people were denied rights and ‘the people’ who tried to exercise their sovereignty were brutally crushed. I respect American founding fathers for their freedom struggle from the Crown (as much as I respect and openly support freedom struggle of Palestinians or even in America), yet, simultaneously, it was on the cost of sovereignty of Indians to whom America actually belonged. Those people are still fighting for their right to sovereignty and independence. And, the way, the powers in Washington have responded to them in history and today, explains just how much sovereign American citizens actually are. I once asked a Jewish (orthodox) friend that why, in his view, America and Americans support illegitimate claim of Zionists over occupied Palestine? He replied “Birds of same feathers fly together!” I asked what he meant and he replied that foundation of New America and Australia is based on barbarism, cruelty, blood, theft, robbery and usurpation of others’ lands. Europeans and their “sons” believe in the principle of might is right rather than right is might. So, it is only natural that they will support the principle of might is right and thus the usurpers of others’ land. To me there could be three possibilities… 1. Americans don’t know what atrocities America has brought and is bringing to ‘the people’ of America and that of the world so they supported and didn’t speak against their governments. In this case, they don’t even understand the meaning of freedom. 2. Americans knew exactly what was and is going on and still supporting their government. In this case they are equal culprits with their Governments and don’t have the right to be respected or to dictate others. They should be treated as they treat others. 3. Americans know and do not support these cruelties but they don’t have the power to stop their successive Governments from doing that. In this case, they are one of the least of sovereign people of the world. I can not imagine that the 2nd could be true, my own opinion is that the situation on ground in America is in between 1st and 3rd or a mixture of the two. Especially, when there is compliant and soothing corporate media which doesn’t care what the truth is but what’s on agenda? It reminds me of a quote from Goethe, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”. I remember analyzing a media (CBS) report/article referred by you in one of our earlier discussions, which really sent shivers down my spine… as I helplessly thought that if the intelligent and thinking people in America, like you, can be so easily misled by media then what would be the state of ordinary Americans? To me, there are basically two distinct realities…Collective sovereignty and individual sovereignty. For me, Collective sovereignty and conscience is much more important and crucial in the lives of nations than individual sovereignty, for, Collective sovereignty ensures and guarantees a dynamic and progressive national life with inherent respect for all humans, with freedom and a tendency to stay away from national criminal behavior. Collective sovereignty can hold individual sovereignty, not the other way around. In my view, what Americans have are limited individual freedoms that too at the cost of collective conscience, sovereignty and freedom. It is like a young boy/girl given a separate room where he/she can do whatever they like, they can build their own small world there, but on the condition that they don’t mess-up with the elders and don’t take part in decision making. This young boy/girl is/are American citizens and the elders are those few individuals and groups who control America, to which many American Presidents alluded, and against whom they found themselves powerless. Now thinking of American Citizen’s sovereignty, I wondered…Can an American have a full claim over his/her rightful property without being bothered by IRS? Can an American have his lawfully earned full income? Can an American declare his/her house to be an independent sovereign state announcing that no state or federal law is applicable over his house because he/she is sovereign? Can ‘the people’ of a state, if they wish so, declare independence on their own and will they be allowed to survive? (a look into the history as well as a US Supreme court’s decision may help in responding to that question) How much sovereign American people felt about themselves as well as the myth of one man one vote when a Presidential candidate winning popular vote, with a margin of half a million, couldn’t become the head of the state? When was the last time an American president was the choice of majority of “the People”? (some time ago when I worked out (partial list going back in some 30-40 years elections records), I couldn’t find an American president having more than 20-22% of eligible voters’ votes ). Following 9/11, when less than 2800 Americans were abhorrently killed, Patriot Act was passed which has been referred, by many world as well as American leaders, as to make America a police state taking away or restricting further the “inalienable” rights. Yet, when the governments, who have constantly been targeted by terroristic organizations, like CIA and MI6 with damages 100s or 1000s of times higher than that of 9/11, take some security measures and restrict some freedoms, American Governments speak out loudest against them just because by these measures its terroristic organizations get constrained. Again, Iran would make a good example, which has undergone no less than a holocaust in past 55 years and which is still under several CIA’s and Mossad’s covert terroristic operations in North-west, East and South-east…when such a country who has went through such massive turmoil, exercises some security measures, they are called oppressive and tyrannical, subjugating the people, while America who has went through nothing (comparatively) can still enjoy to be ‘called’ to have “sovereign citizens” even with the Patriot Act!!! This is the power and magic of media:-)
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
30 Dec 07
Hello Drawmoney! Thank you for your kind words. I think the real problem is our prejudices and preconception as well as misperceptions about others, their beliefs, practices and ground realities. We all have it, some more and some less. These preconceptions make us look into anti type of material which is usually filled with absurdities. I have seen many people here on mylot citing Anti-Islamic sites, most of which try to deceive people by using discarded materials, mistranslations and distorted history. They go on to cite things which were never present in the original works believing that people won’t bother to go to original works. Then there is problem of crime association and mindless generalization. It is not difficult for any person who has read war history and is current about resent security, ethnic and religio-political issues to make a case against any religion. Islamists are still far behind other religions’ extremists’ actions, even still behind the extremist Hindus in India who have killed more people in the name of religion in last 5 years than Islamists have killed in last 10 years. Similarly Christians have killed others in India, Lebanon, Indonesia, former Yugoslavian states, some African countries and even in the US on the basis of religion in the last 10 years and yet none of other people are mentioned as much as Islamists are mentioned just because it’s on Agenda. Taking small percentage of people in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism to blame all or the religion is just absurd to me. And, you are so right about the media war being waged against not only Islam but religion in general. In fact, Religion, in general, is being presented as a killing machine, citing to some instances in history like crusades, inquisitions, holy wars and such, and sporadic events in today’s world. People try to make others believe that Religion must be taken out for the society to grow. Yet, much more atrocious events aren’t mentioned where secular forces have killed much more than all religions’ people combined.
@Harley009 (1420)
• India
12 Dec 07
It will be great if you can explain your questions a bit more. You mean democracy in a place where all Muslims live ? Or democracy based on Islamic teachings ? When talking about Islam, many try to compare with Saudi Arabic, Saudi Arabia do not completely resembles an Islamic Sharia Law, they have their own added strict rules. It's possible to co-exist both democracy and Islam, Islamic sharia Laws are supposed to follow only by Muslims, the govt. can choose appropriate rules for non-Muslims in special cases. But in punishing Criminals they may choose Islamic rules. eg. A Muslim woman is supposed cover her body excluding face & arms, Imposing such a rule to all people including non-Muslims is not fair. Also compelling to close all shops on prayer time is not fair, it's ones on will to do it or not. I don't find problem in driving vehicle and all.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
12 Dec 07
Hello Harley009, First, let me welcome you to MyLot. I hope you enjoy your time here. This question was posed in a specifically vague manner. My intent is to allow the respondent the opportunity to utilize their own understanding of both Democracy and Islam, as the responsdent frames their answer. The intent of the question is: Can the two ideologies coexist on this planet, given the drive of each to dominate? And, if the answer is no, because of the 'all or nothing' aspects, then what changes must occur to one or both, for harmony to exist?
@Harley009 (1420)
• India
13 Dec 07
:) I said both can easily co-exist, I don't find any big barrier to co existance. A democratic system will have some clear cut rules, how to manage everything, even if to consider any religious things too. Both Islam and Democracy in same govt itself can co-exist, I mean an Islamic democracy govt. No harm for Muslims to live in a normal democratic system, as long as it do not hurt any Islamic feelings. On the contrary Let me ask one thing, Do both Democracy and other religions Co-Exist, in the same way as you think about Islam? And why it's asked only about Islam and not common for religions or any other religion?
@Harley009 (1420)
• India
15 Dec 07
Representative Democracy is only practical in most cases either Islamic or non-Islamic. Any govt will have their own well defined rules, when a govt is based on Islam, they extract it based on Islamic point of view. 1. "O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty." [Quran - 2:178] This verse states that the Murder can pay compensation blood money if the brother/relative of the killed agree with it. Scholars suggest about Hadith you quoted, to prefer the Competition instead of killing the Convict. 2. About the punishment of 200 Lashes, Islam recommends a woman go out with close relatives but do not recommend any punishment to be carried out on that, it's only a suggestion. But Saudi Arabia itself declares some strict rules other than Islamic rules, Myself hate such rules. It's not an Islamic rule. I feel so sorry about that girl, Islam never punish a rape victim. "The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case" (Al-Muwatta 2/734) 3. God created both men & women, God knows better about their emotions and their body, God advised the right dress. For woman, Quran mainly concentrate on covering the major areas and the chest, to draw garments over their chest and prophets advices to cover excluding face & arms. Man turns on faster than woman and man turn on on vision, but woman is starting slower in it. Also why only men are rapists? It's coming from the combination of their higher urge and their power, and it is better to avoid igniting one sexually. What is the harm if one girl choses herself to show only her face & arms? Don't she have the right to wear it ? The verse 4:59 is not about formulating a govt. It's what the Basic method of following Islam, follow the direction of God and the practical way shown by prophet Mohammad. It's only for the believers.
@addysmum (1225)
• Canada
8 Dec 07
My opinion is that they are able to co-exist. One is a religion and a way of life and the other is a governing body designed to control the people. The was a time in North America and Christian European countries that no law could be past that went against the word of Christian God but now look at our laws many go directly against the word of Christian God.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Dec 07
Hello Addysmum, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this pressing question. I cannot say that I'm on board with your distinction between the religious and governing aspects of Islam. It seems to me that throughout most of the Muslim world -- Islam is governing. Iran is a perfect example: though they have a president -- he is a figurehead. The real power in Iran lies with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, their revered Islamic leader. As for most of the rest of the Muslim world, as far as I'm aware, the ruling mandates come from their leader's submission to Islamic tenets. If I'm mistaken, I welcome corrective data. If I'm understanding you correctly, then what you're saying is that to coexist, Islamic orthordoxy would need to be watered down, just as Christian orthodoxy has?