Sorry about starting two threads on this subject, but I wanted to approach it from a different angle here. We have a number of new members to OzPolitic (welcome Sam) who are Muslim, many of them 'born again' Australian or American Muslims. I'd like to hear their personal views on the apparent clash between Islam and democracy. Do you share the view that Islam opposes democracy? Do you share the goal of a theocratic, Islamic caliphate? If you lived in a state that was majority Muslim and also democratic (eg Turkey), would you support the dismantling of democracy? What about a state where Muslims are not the majority, but are nevertheless a powerful group? Or would you prefer to live in a democracy, even if you had a choice and it went against Islamic teachings?

Please clarify what you mean by Democracy freediver.

1) Just a state in which the leader is popularly elected through the choice of the people

2) A State in which there is a broader ideology implemented, that involves inidividuals making their own legislation (right and wrong for society, or halal and haram in Islamic terms) in a parliament, even if it contradicts Islamic teachings. And in which freedoms, of speech, association, sexuality etc. are sanctified and considered to be basic rights.

Actually I would prefer a more direct form of democracy, but not at any cost:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#direct-democracy

I don't distinguish between the two forms of demcoracy in asking my question, but you are welcome to make that distinction in answering it.


Quote:

that involves inidividuals making their own legislation (right and wrong for society, or halal and haram in Islamic terms) in a parliament, even if it contradicts Islamic teachings

That is more what I was getting at. I understand Islam allows demcoracy, but removes the mandate usually ascribed to democracy by westerners. So yes, I do mean a democracy that allows Muslims to vote in laws that are against Islam.


Quote:

And in which freedoms, of speech, association, sexuality etc. are sanctified and considered to be basic rights.

Freedom of speech is usually necessary for democracy to function properly. But that freedom need only extend to political issues for democracy to function. For example, even in the US freedom of speech is significantly restricted, at no cost to their democracy. Freedom of sexuality is not necessary for democracy to function. I'd prefer to keep it simple and just stick to democracy for the moment. Obviously this would involve allowing freedom of sexuality if the majority wanted it, but not allowing it if that's what the majority wanted.

This is an excellent question! And thanks for the welcome, freediver. I don't have a chance to put down my thoughts right now, have a class to go to, but I will try and put up something soon insha'Allah.

Quote:

Actually I would prefer a more direct form of democracy, but not at any cost:

Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted to clarify.

You believe in direct democracy, ie. that form of government which encourages or requires citizens to decide, by sheer numbers what policies should/shouldn't be implemented. So if the majority of people want homosexuality or incest or prostitution legalised, then it's legalised. If the majority of the people want to ban the call to prayer from mosques, then it's banned, if the majority of the people want to ban the Qur'an then it's banned etc. Right? This is what you ultimately believe democracy is about?

Rather than just the people deciding which candidate wins an election and rules the country.


Quote:

but you are welcome to make that distinction in answering it.

I won't answer it, as it's clearly directed at the new Muslim members. You already know my view anyway I think.

I don't think the distinction needs to be made between option 2 that I specified and direct democracy, as they are just two different levels of the same thing. But option 1 which I specified is something completely different, as I've mentioned to you before, it's more correctly known as a republic, not a democracy.


Quote:

Freedom of speech is usually necessary for democracy to function properly.

Really freedom of speech is a very relative term. For instance, in Islam, it's permissible to correct your leader, if he strays, and I'd consider that freeedom of speech, but blasphemy is not permitted, as neither is public slander, yet in the West they are mostly fine. Likewise, we see some people on here claiming that believing in and speaking in favour of Islam shouldn't be allowed, inidicating they don't think that speech should be that 'free''.


Quote:

Freedom of sexuality is not necessary for democracy to function.

I really can't see any country that has capital punishment for homosexuality and adultery being considered Democratic... can you?

Quote:

You believe in direct democracy

As distinct from the indirect form that relies on elected representatives? I think 'believe' is the wrong word. I prefer it, but only because technology allows it now. Back in the old days elected representatives were the better option, due to the cost involved in having too many people (ie everyone) involved in every decision. It 'should' achieve the same outcome as direct democracy. Where it doesn't, it should be regarded as a flaw. Except of course where legislations becomes so detailed that most members of the public couldn;t be bothered thinking about it. However, GWB for example opposed the ratification of Kyoto, as did lower house representatives from both major aprties in the US, even though the majority of Americans were in favour. Likewise, Howard managed to hold up ratification in Australia for a decade or so after public opinion changed. These are flaws that direct demcoracy would resolve.


Quote:

So if the majority of people want homosexuality or incest or prostitution legalised, then it's legalised. If the majority of the people want to ban the call to prayer from mosques, then it's banned, if the majority of the people want to ban the Qur'an then it's banned etc. Right? This is what you ultimately believe democracy is about?

There you go. Democracy and freedom are not the same thing after all, are they?


Quote:

But option 1 which I specified is something completely different, as I've mentioned to you before, it's more correctly known as a republic, not a democracy.

A democracy and a republic are not mutally exclusive. The people who claim otherwise are stuck with an ancient definition of the word democracy. The modern definition of democracy means a range of things that broadly mean the will of the majority over the minorty. Direct democracy refers to the 'purist' form. It is nothing more than intellectual snobbery to insist on the ancient definition.


Quote:

I really can't see any country that has capital punishment for homosexuality and adultery being considered Democratic... can you?

Sure, if that's what the people actually want. As to whether the people actually want that (even self identified Muslims), well that's a different matter.

You'll get a wide range of views in the muslim community from HT and such to the other end in the Sufis like Gulen.

A bit like how not all people in USA or Aus are totally 100% behind democracy ;)

Quote:

You'll get a wide range of views in the muslim community from HT and such to the other end in the Sufis like Gulen.

Can you translate that into english for me please?

Where do your own views fit in?

HT = Hizb ut-Tahrir (Islamic Liberation Party), an Islamic political party, whose sole goal is to re-establish the Caliphate.

Sufi = Islamic Mystics. Some modern day Sufis are often fairly apathetic, and don't bother themselves with political affairs. Although in the past, they were not like this. I guess Phillip is referring to the new-wave Sufis who have mixed Islam with Western philosophies and therefore would probably not be opposed to Democracy.

Don't know what Gulen is, perhaps a kind of Sufi order or something? Have to get Phillip to explain that one.

I thought Gulen might be a member of MV. I had heard of Sufism before, but for some reason thought they were an eastern religion, like a branch of Hinduism. Is that where it arose?

Quote:

I had heard of Sufism before, but for some reason thought they were an eastern religion, like a branch of Hinduism. Is that where it arose?

There are a number of people who call themselves 'sufis' and have links with hinduism, but this is a later corruption of Sufi thought. Sufism is the English translation of the science of Tasawuf, which focuses on the purification of the heart. It is about worshipping Allah (swt) 'as though you see him'. Many can aim to be Sufis, but few achieve such a status. I am not equipped to adequately define or describe Sufism other than to say it is an established tradition that goes all the way back to the Prophet (sws) and is one of the most benificial means of perfecting ones character and faith.

In order to discuss democracy we must first define democracy, so I ask you:

do you refer to 'liberal-democracy'? Or Socialist democracy? You seem to describe a democracy without Liberalist thought, which would imply a socialist view of democracy on your part? So a system that is unlike that Australian one?

In order to answer your question, I need to understand what you are talking about.

Welcome to OzPolitic Rintrah.

I do not make a distinction between liberalism and socialism. You are welcome to do so in your answer. As far as I can tell, neither are characteristics of democracy itself. Rather they are the choices people make which can be reflected in government policy.

as-salaamu alaykum Rintrah,


Quote:

other than to say it is an established tradition that goes all the way back to the Prophet (sws)

Just a correction here, Sufism was not mentioned at all by the Prophet (pbuh) nor by any of his companions. Even Sufis themselves don't normally trace it back further than Hasan al-Basri, and even Hasan al-Basri never explicility spoke about Sufism, perhaps just some concepts that later became identified with Sufism.

Quote:

Welcome to OzPolitic Rintrah.

Why thankyou :)

Quote:

I do not make a distinction between liberalism and socialism. You are welcome to do so in your answer. As far as I can tell, neither are characteristics of democracy itself. Rather they are the choices people make which can be reflected in government policy.

I think there needs to be a distinction between the two, especially within 'democratic' systems. Because democracy has an emphasis upon 'majority rule' in a sense, liberalism can be seen as directly oppositional in that its emphasis is upon the rights of the individual above the majority. The two exist in liberal democracies because they are believed to exist in conflict and thus balance each other out and avoid tyranny. Which you place more emphasis on is important in that it gives us an understanding as to what is more important for you. I mean a liberalist emphasis is based upon limited and small government and the free market. While socialism has an inevitable emphasis on large government and regulation of the market. Each has different issues within an Islamic world view.

For example Islamic systems would be in agreement on certain things within Liberalism, for example the right to own property, however the Islamic system does not constitute an unregulated market.
Similarly the institution of Zakat is echoed in socialist welfare institutions. But Islamic institutions would be vastly different to the kind of homogenisation that is intended to occur within Socialist countries.

It is a complex question indeed, and thus i need to know in more detail your conception of what a democratic system consitutes in order to respond from an Islamic perspective (inherently flawed as it would be, as I do not claim to represent Islam).

Quote:

as-salaamu alaykum Rintrah,

walaykum salaam wa rahmetullah  ;D

Quote:

Just a correction here, Sufism was not mentioned at all by the Prophet (pbuh) nor by any of his companions. Even Sufis themselves don't normally trace it back further than Hasan al-Basri, and even Hasan al-Basri never explicility spoke about Sufism, perhaps just some concepts that later became identified with Sufism.

I referred to a history in Islamic teaching around the purification of the heart, rather than the established forms of tasawuff as they emerged. I am honestly not equipped to talk in depth on this matter as I am no expert  :-[ I just wanted to give a 'layman's definition' lol. Flawed as that is. Sorry if I misrepresented myself :-X  :)

I don't have any particular conception of demcoracy. Like I said, you are welcome to qualify your answer. However, it is a bit meaningless to say you support only liberal or socialist democracies, for two reasons. One, democracy in practice is always somewhere in between these ideals. Two, democracy imples that it is up to the will of the majority where a country places itself on that spectrum, not on the will of those who initially accept democracy. By accepting democracy, you inevitably leave the door open to everything, at the 'whim' of the majority.

Quote:

I don't have any particular conception of demcoracy. Like I said, you are welcome to qualify your answer. However, it is a bit meaningless to say you support only liberal or socialist democracies, for two reasons. One, democracy in practice is always somewhere in between these ideals. Two, democracy imples that it is up to the will of the majority where a country places itself on that spectrum, not on the will of those who initially accept democracy. By accepting democracy, you inevitably leave the door open to everything, at the 'whim' of the majority.

If you do not have a particular conception of democracy it becomes, as I said, hard for this to be discussed. If you are saying that democracy constitutes simply a group of people run by majority consensus then Islam has no problem with this, the practice of the majority of the believers is an important part of Islamic fiqh (juridicial reasoning). If you classify democracy upon representative democratic lines (not taking into account the many manifestations of this model) then the Khalif and Shura are an example of representative bodies.

Again, I really have no idea what we are supposed to be discussing here, do you consider Australia a democracy. Because Australia is specifically a Liberal Democratic, representative system with democratic (house of representatives) and liberal (I guess senate) elements. It is different in form and function from the much more liberal United States for example.

As I'm sure you would have discovered in your studies of Islam, non-Muslim communities have historically been given a large degree of self governance within their communities. Something which leans towards liberalism (a truly liberal PM in Australia, Fraser, encouraged the autonomous nature of minority groups for example). However such groups are expected to contribute to the state for the protection offered under the Pax Islamica (the Jews in Al Andalus for example, whom needed it considering what happened following the Reconquista, or the Orthodox Christians of Palestine considering what the Crusaders did to them), something more in line with democratic principles of obligation to the state.

I suggest for the purpose of debate you could maybe pick a democracy to represent your conception of what a democracy is, or at least if you, as you say, 'dont have any particular conception' of what a democracy is, then please make it easier for us to debate around it. It really is hard to say anything when the terms are simply not defined, no disrespect intended but how can we talk about something you don't have a conception of?

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

... If you are saying that democracy constitutes simply a group of people run by majority consensus then Islam has no problem with this, the practice of the majority of the believers is an important part of Islamic fiqh (juridicial reasoning). If you classify democracy upon representative democratic lines (not taking into account the many manifestations of this model) then the Khalif and Shura are an example of representative bodies. Again, I really have no idea what we are supposed to be discussing here, do you consider Australia a democracy. Because Australia is specifically a Liberal Democratic, representative system with democratic (house of representatives) and liberal (I guess senate) elements. It is different in form and function from the much more liberal United States for example.

The important mechanism of democracy is voting so people can express their will as the will for their government.
Were people in general allowed to vote for the Khalif and Shura?
I think better examples of Islamic democracy would be modern Turkey and Indonesia and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:

Because Australia is specifically a Liberal Democratic, representative system with democratic (house of representatives) and liberal (I guess senate) elements. It is different in form and function from the much more liberal United States for example.

What is specifically liberal about it? I don't see how the lower and upper houses are any more of less democratic or liberal than each other. As far as I can tell, the US is more liberal because of the values people hold.

Why don't you just answer by picking whatever version of democracy you prefer and explaining why you prefer it or why Islam prefers it? There's no point me picking as I have no idea why you are having difficulty answering in the first place. I would personally prefer any form of democracy over an undemocratic system.

Quote:

What is specifically liberal about it? I don't see how the lower and upper houses are any more of less democratic or liberal than each other. As far as I can tell, the US is more liberal because of the values people hold. Why don't you just answer by picking whatever version of democracy you prefer and explaining why you prefer it or why Islam prefers it? There's no point me picking as I have no idea why you are having difficulty answering in the first place. I would personally prefer any form of democracy over an undemocratic system.

Please read 'Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice' by Graham Maddox or another similar broad textbook. I may be reading you wrong, but the way you speak makes it appear as though you do not grasp the fundamentals of what constitute the ideas of liberalism or democracy especially in terms of their practice. Obviously the Senate is not a democratic institution in terms of 'pure' democracy, as those voted into the senate are not representative of the mass of the people, rather the senate was created to protect the individual states from the rule of the majority. This can be seen in terms of liberal checks and balances against fear of the 'mob rule' that democracy was often associated with.


Quote:

The important mechanism of democracy is voting so people can express their will as the will for their government. Were people in general allowed to vote for the Khalif and Shura? I think better examples of Islamic democracy would be modern Turkey and Indonesia and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is in terms of representative democracy, in no way is a representative democracy an unadulterated form of the will of the people, as no representative candidate will ever represent every individual, or even a single individual who voted for them. In the end voting is simply a compromise or a consensus among those within a 'democratic' system.

Besides 'democracy' in the form we observe it today is very much a historical aberation, it is reflective of the rise of the middle classes in industrialised European countries. This new power led to a need for representation of such groups, which in turn led to the end of the absolute monarchies that were previously necessary (themselves reflective of a world with slow communication lines and fractured nationhoods). Forms of government naturally evolve around the needs of the day. Any democracy emerging in Europe in the 11th century (Christian era) would have rapidly fallen apart. This is evident in the fact that similar systems have existed in similar circumstances throughout history, but usually were limited to prosperous city-states, and collapsed as expansion occured. 'Democracy' in the form that we see it today is simply a product of the economic and social situation in Europe and other industrialised, interconnected areas.

Sorry for the history lesson, I do not assume that you all do not know this, I merely post it for the purposes of expressing my own thought processes.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 3:43pm:

... Quote: The important mechanism of democracy is voting so people can express their will as the will for their government. Were people in general allowed to vote for the Khalif and Shura? I think better examples of Islamic democracy would be modern Turkey and Indonesia and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in terms of representative democracy,...

Do you really think that democracy is when people not allowed to vote or you just did not make yourself clear again?

Quote:

Do you really think that democracy is when people not allowed to vote or you just did not make yourself clear again?

would you say that the fact that several US presidents have not been elected by a majority vote would mean that the US could not be seen as a democracy? This is why I am attempting to question what exactly defines a democratic system? Is it purely that the majority of people vote for the candidates and the candidate with the most votes leads? Because as I'm sure you know, that would mean that the Senates of both the United States and Australia would be un-democratic.

Similarly as I'm sure you know it is more than possible for a candidate to be elected in Australia without even a majority of votes into the House of Representatives. This occurs because of our preferential voting system. So how then does one define democracy?

I must ask your forgiveness as I am increasingly frustrated by individuals refusal to engage with the issues I am putting forth, which leads me to a suspicion that the issues I am discussing are going over peoples heads. I do not wish to have this suspicion as it is indicative of bad adab and is not in line with what a Muslim desires for their character. Thus I beg your aid in showing me that you understand the issues being discussed, putting forth reasoned and logical arguments around them, or, if it is the case that you do not understand me, or the complexities involved, simply I would ask that anyone who feels this way should admit as such. There is no shame in ignorance, only in lying about it.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 4:21pm:

Quote: Do you really think that democracy is when people not allowed to vote or you just did not make yourself clear again? would you say that the fact that several US presidents have not been elected by a majority vote would mean that the US could not be seen as a democracy? This is why I am attempting to question what exactly defines a democratic system? Is it purely that the majority of people vote for the candidates and the candidate with the most votes leads? Because as I'm sure you know, that would mean that the Senates of both the United States and Australia would be un-democratic. Similarly as I'm sure you know it is more than possible for a candidate to be elected in Australia without even a majority of votes into the House of Representatives. This occurs because of our preferential voting system. So how then does one define democracy? ...Thus I beg your aid in showing me that you understand the issues being discussed, putting forth reasoned and logical arguments around them, or, if it is the case that you do not understand me, or the comple..

Haven't people voted in both USA and Australian elections you mentioned?

I am staying on topic instead of introducing new and often irrelevant complexities. You can help yourself to yourself by doing the same being precise and laconic.

Quote:

Haven't people voted in both USA and Australian elections you mentioned? I am staying on topic instead of introducing new and often irrelevant complexities. You can help yourself to yourself by doing the same being precise and laconic.

Life, existance, is complex. Simply posing a question 'are Islam and democracy incompatible' is hugely misrepresentative, because, in life most answers are yes and no. This is why I seek, and still seek clarification as to what is meant by democracy in this case. Do I believe we are represented simply because we go to a stall and vote? No. I certainly am not, and I doubt you would be either. A vote is simply a ticket we give to one man or another that gives him the 'permission' to do what he likes for the next 3-4 years. It is as though somehow voting is the definition of an equal society, when people have and always will be stuck within social circumstance and the power structures that surround them.

For thousands of years Europe lived under monarchs, and those monarchs delegated power. Today WE, as Australians, STILL have a monarch above us, STILL our head of state is not elected. We then, according to some definitions, are not a democracy. It seems so strange to me that we believe ourselves in a position to act as though somehow our position is so much better than all that has gone before. The idea that all our ancestors were dithering idiots and only WE, THIS GENERATION, have the capacity to deliver justice and equality in our society.

There is a part of this forum itself purely dedicated to 'politicians suck[ing]' and yet the subtext of this question is well, why can't Muslims see that democracy (which by the way we wont define) is superior to everything that has ever occured. As though the act of voting somehow erases economic and social differences that exist in every part of the world. It is no coincidence that democracy is only acceptable in south america when America's candidate is electable (see Venezuala, Nicuragua, Chile, Panama etc. etc.) simply inserting an undefined, loaded term: democracy, into an argument, does not make the argument less complex. It merely forces people into a world view of black and whites, and trust me, it is not like that.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 4:47pm:

Quote: Haven't people voted in both USA and Australian elections you mentioned? I am staying on topic instead of introducing new and often irrelevant complexities. You can help yourself to yourself by doing the same being precise and laconic. Life, existance, is complex. Simply posing a question 'are Islam and democracy incompatible' is hugely misrepresentative, because, in life most answers are yes and no. This is why I seek, and still seek clarification as to what is meant by democracy in this case. Do I believe we are represented simply because we go to a stall and vote? No. I certainly am not, and I doubt you would be either. A vote is simply a ticket we give to one man or another that gives him the 'permission' to do what he likes for the next 3-4 years. It is as though somehow voting is the definition of an equal society, when people have and always will be stuck within social circumstance and the power structures that surround them. For thousands of years Europe lived under monarchs, and those monarchs delegated power. Today WE, as Australians, STILL have a monarch above us, STILL our head of state is not elected. We then, according to some definitions, are not a democracy. It seems so strange to me that we believe ourselves in a position to act as though somehow our position is so much better than all that has gone before. The idea that all our ancestors were dithering idiots and only WE, THIS GENERATION, have the capacity to deliver justice and equality in our society. There is a part of this forum itself purely dedicated to 'politicians suck[ing]' and yet the subtext of this question is well, why can't Muslims see that democracy (which by the way we wont define) is superior to everything that has ever occured. As though the act of voting somehow erases economic and social differences that exist in every part of the world. It is no coincidence that democracy is only acceptable in south america when America's candidate is electable (see Venezuala, Nicuragua, Chile, Panama etc. etc.) simply inserting an undefined, loaded term: democracy, into an argument, does not make the argument less complex. It merely forces people into a world view of black and whites, and trust me, it is not like that.

It is easier to reach the truth by going from simple to complex and not other way around. So it is better to first agree on what are essentials of democracy and after that to discuss how any particular model differ from those essentials or otherwise.

Quote:

Obviously the Senate is not a democratic institution in terms of 'pure' democracy, as those voted into the senate are not representative of the mass of the people

You could make the exact same argument about the lower house. But in both cases the outcome is still a reflection of the will of the majority.


Quote:

I must ask your forgiveness as I am increasingly frustrated by individuals refusal to engage with the issues I am putting forth, which leads me to a suspicion that the issues I am discussing are going over peoples heads. I do not wish to have this suspicion as it is indicative of bad adab and is not in line with what a Muslim desires for their character. Thus I beg your aid in showing me that you understand the issues being discussed, putting forth reasoned and logical arguments around them, or, if it is the case that you do not understand me, or the complexities involved, simply I would ask that anyone who feels this way should admit as such. There is no shame in ignorance, only in lying about it.

Rintrah, these are my thoughts on democracy:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html

Plenty of people have different ideas on what form of democracy is better. However that has never stopped them from indicating their general support for or opposition to demcoracy. Like I said, I would prefer any democracy over an undemocratic system. Would you? Are there some forms of democracy that would make you want to choose dictatorship, or theocracy? This seems more like an elaborate exercise in avoiding the question. Like if someone asked you to tell the truth in court about what you saw, you insist on a philosophically rigourous definition of truth before answering their question. So why is it that you need a precise definition of democracy in order to say whether you support it? Does your support depend on the type of demcoracy, and if so, why not just explain that?


Quote:

Simply posing a question 'are Islam and democracy incompatible' is hugely misrepresentative

It is not misrepresenting anything. It is a question. It is a very simple question. Why is it so hard to answer?


Quote:

because, in life most answers are yes and no

So why not explain how that is so, rather than expect the person asking the question to randomly stumble upon a form of the question that has a yes answer?


Quote:

This is why I seek, and still seek clarification as to what is meant by democracy in this case.

Nothing in particular is meant. It is a deliberately open question so that you can qualify your answer as is necessary. Do you really expect us to define 100 different types of democracy and get a different answer on each in the hope of getting some kind of explanation of Islam's view on democracy? Why not just explain Islam's view on democracy? Abu has already said it is opposed to any form of democracy where it relfects the will of the majority of the people - because it reflects the will of the people. It seems to me that you are trying to avoid saying that, rather than trying to explain Islam. You are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid giving an answer. Why?


Quote:

and yet the subtext of this question is well, why can't Muslims see that democracy (which by the way we wont define) is superior to everything that has ever occured.

Why not jsut start with the text? Why do Muslims always seem to ignore the text and focus on the subtext? Why not just answer the question, and add whatever qualifiers you feel are necessary. How is it polite (adab?) to carry on with these silly games and refuse to answer simple questions about Islam? It seems to me to be the opposite of polite. There is no subtext. It is all in your head.


Quote:

As though the act of voting somehow erases economic and social differences that exist

No-one here has said that. No-one has said that democracy is perfect. Why not just answer the question? Why fret forever about all the imaginary ways in which someone could possibly misinterpret your response?


Quote:

It is easier to reach the truth by going from simple to complex and not other way around. So it is better to first agree on what are essentials of democracy and after that to discuss how any particular model differ from those essentials or otherwise.

Exactly Tallo. This is getting totally absurd. I have never come across anyone before who demanded a thesis on democracy before stating whether they support it. It would be like demanding an entire room full of statutory and common law before saying whether you support justice. There is no reason for the answer to depend on the details, and even if there were, the onus is cleary on the person responding to give those details, rather than on the person asking to somehow guess what details are necessary for a question to be answered.

Quote:

It is easier to reach the truth by going from simple to complex and not other way around. So it is better to first agree on what are essentials of democracy and after that to discuss how any particular model differ from those essentials or otherwise.

As far as I am concerned, the essentials have at no point been expressed, if I am ignorant in this, please show me up.

Quote:

You could make the exact same argument about the lower house. But in both cases the outcome is still a reflection of the will of the majority.

No, you could not, leaving aside preferential voting, the house of reps represents people in terms of numbers, the senate does not, it represents a set number of candidates within States, regardless of the population of said states, as I'm sure you know.


Quote:

Rintrah, these are my thoughts on democracy: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html

Did you write that? Because it seems that that article, while making several points I disagree with, shows at least an understand of the many complexities of the term 'democracy'. Which of the several views do you hold?


Quote:

Plenty of people have different ideas on what form of democracy is better. However that has never stopped them from indicating their general support for or opposition to demcoracy. Like I said, I would prefer any democracy over an undemocratic system. Would you? Are there some forms of democracy that would make you want to choose dictatorship, or theocracy? This seems more like an elaborate exercise in avoiding the question. Like if someone asked you to tell the truth in court about what you saw, you insist on a philosophically rigourous definition of truth before answering their question. So why is it that you need a precise definition of democracy in order to say whether you support it? Does your support depend on the type of demcoracy, and if so, why not just explain that?

I guess you could say that, that my support depends on the TYPE of democracy being discussed. For example if we characterised democracy along the lines of small autonomous communities with individual elected governing bodies (Shuras) and an overarching administration structure designated through the input of these Shuras, along with the ability to impeach or judge the appointed ruler, then yes, I agree with Democracy.

My MAIN problem is that the word itself is weighted, and I believe this was not adequately represented within the discussion. It was simply accepted that democracy means one thing, when it means many things to many people. So rather than 'not answering the question' I sought to understand exactly what was being asked. Surely that is a reasonable thing?


Quote:

It is not misrepresenting anything. It is a question. It is a very simple question. Why is it so hard to answer?

What is misrepresentation is you saying that it is a 'very simple question' when you yourself are admitedly unclear about exactly what 'democracy constitutes'. It is a very complex question, something which many people have written entire lectures and papers upon, by acting as though it is simple, you misrepresent the nature of the question and in turn skew any answer that could be given.



Quote:

So why not explain how that is so, rather than expect the person asking the question to randomly stumble upon a form of the question that has a yes answer?

I believe I did this, by asking you to clarify. I do not expect a yes or no answer, merely a clarification of what is being discussed exactly.. so I can set my sights on the real issues.


Quote:

Nothing in particular is meant. It is a deliberately open question so that you can qualify your answer as is necessary. Do you really expect us to define 100 different types of democracy and get a different answer on each in the hope of getting some kind of explanation of Islam's view on democracy? Why not just explain Islam's view on democracy? Abu has already said it is opposed to any form of democracy where it relfects the will of the majority of the people - because it reflects the will of the people. It seems to me that you are trying to avoid saying that, rather than trying to explain Islam. You are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid giving an answer. Why?

I believe that I have given an answer throughout, it may have been too subtle I guess. I thought that pointing out that what I assume you believe to be democratic systems are not purely democratic I was placing my answer in light of the flaws of democratic theory. Hopefully that makes it clearer to you.


Quote:

Why not jsut start with the text? Why do Muslims always seem to ignore the text and focus on the subtext? Why not just answer the question, and add whatever qualifiers you feel are necessary. How is it polite (adab?) to carry on with these silly games and refuse to answer simple questions about Islam? It seems to me to be the opposite of polite. There is no subtext. It is all in your head.

Because they are not simple questions, the question was leading you to an answer you desired, rather than something that would allow discussion both ways. In regards to adab I refer to the means of conducting an argument, rather than the debate itself, I reserve the right to debate with you in a way that is necessary.


So I guess I should say it again, my answer was in the subtext of my responses to what you said, if you were not aware of them, God willing you are now.

So why can't you answer the question Rintrah? Is it that you are conflicted about the answer, or just conflicted about letting non-Muslims know the answer? If it's the latter, Abu has already let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. Didn't anyone ever tell you that it is rude to answer a question with a question, let alone a dozen questions that you insist must be answered before you give your answer? Nothing you have posted so far has indicated that there is any validity to your claim that you need a specific type of demcoracy in mind before you can discuss Islam's view on democracy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Answering_a_question_with_a_question

Quote:

So why can't you answer the question Rintrah? Is it that you are conflicted about the answer, or just conflicted about letting non-Muslims know the answer? If it's the latter, Abu has already let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. Didn't anyone ever tell you that it is rude to answer a question with a question, let alone a dozen questions that you insist must be answered before you give your answer? Nothing you have posted so far has indicated that there is any validity to your claim that you need a specific type of demcoracy in mind before you can discuss Islam's view on democracy.

Again, I just answered your question. I will answer questions with questions when the question asked raises more questions.

You want a simple (read dumbed down and uncomplex) answer, here it is:

I reject the current forms of democratic government as they are manifest in the Western industrialised world, as they are inherently flawed in their representation and protection of the people. I reserve my right to this belief as a citizen of this country. The flaws that I have already stated are merely the tip of the iceberg among a flux of other flaws present. This does not mean that I am against 'democracy' in terms of the established traditions of a community and peoples, as I have been told their are precedents within the Shariah by legitimate Sheikhs with a clear line of transmission to the Prophet (sws) that community consensus is a form of law.

As I have previously stated, the type of democracy in mind is needed for an answer as it allows the flaws to within such a system to be included within an answer.

The nature of the question uses weighted terms to allow an answer to be simply dismissed, as though critiques of democratic systems are somehow illegitimate (despite the fact that Liberalism, the predominant critique of democratic theory, is in fact ENSHRINED as an integral part of so called 'democratic nation states').

Simple questions either denote simple minds, or those with an agenda wishing to paint a complex issue as simple when it is not.

To those who read this thread I wish to make it clear that I am not attempting to skirt around the question, or fail to address the issue. I desire rather to make it clear the COMPLEXITY of issues which are desired by some to be seen as uncomplex.

The word democracy one would take as a positive. Similarly liberalism would by many be seen as a positive. Yet both these philosophies are in direct conflict. Those who denounce socialism are in turn denouncing democracy. Similarily those who denounce liberalism are in turn denouncing the rights of individuals at all.

This is not a simple question, nor can answers be seen as simple either. Thus I ask you (rather than those who ask such questions, who for all intents and purposes seem to have already made up their minds) to consider this in reading my answer.

I held these views before I was Muslim. I had these views as the son of a farmers son, and the son of a coal miner's daughter. One grandparent fled the nazis to come here and the other fought at New Guinea, further back my great grandfather was at Gallipoli and later Paschendele, so do not question my validity in being here and making such critiques because frankly, if I can't, then neither can you.

Democracy allows anyone to question the validity of you being here.

freediver- how is it rude to clarify the question being asked in order to answer it effectively?

It seems to me rintrah is merely trying to be thorough enough so that he can give you an answer that is truly representative of his opinion.

rather than trying to avoid the question, he is doing his best to make sure he understands the question itself.

I'm sure you feel that the question you've given is very simple and is being unnecessarily complicated. however, I think that what rintrah is saying is that he cannot answer this question because it over-simplifies what is a complex issue.

you yourself link to sites that point to the complexity of democracy- so I'm sure you can understand this.

I'm sure you will have noticed that any kind of academic discussion that takes place usually begins with the people involved trying to define what it is they will be debating. otherwise they can end up discussing two or three or more different things- which is of course, fruitless and only leads to misunderstandings on both sides.

many people do not have the patience for this kind of debating- defining what one means etc- because they see it as unneccessary- they assume the other person MUST know what they mean, and therefore any delay in answering must be a deflection. This of course is not true, I mean- noone can expect others to know exactly what they are referring to, or to know the other persons mind.

maybe if you gave an example of the democracy you're referring to. do you simply mean a government that is elected by popular vote? do you mean how this is practised in australia? do you mean how it is practised in america? etc etc

or are you asking with reference to the alternatives- such as a dictatorship?

by the way- rintrah has given a definition of democracy that he does agree with- just in case you didn't see it

Wow. Isn't that ironic. I answered your questions with a question and actually got an answer.


Quote:

I will answer questions with questions when the question asked raises more questions.

Don't you think it makes more sense to give the simple answer and then start with the questions? That way people can figure out what you are going on about.

Do you agree with the statement: "Demcoracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"?

Is that what your argument amounts to - that democracy isn't perfect?

Was your rejection of demcoracy triggered or caused by Islam in any way?

Can you come up with a better system, either through logic or from religious sources?

According to Abu, the traditions in the Sharia are 'undemocratic', in  the sense that they allow the election of a leader, but that leader only has a mandate to impliment Shariah law. Only those willing to impliment Shariah law are allowed to run as a candidate. That is, there is effectively a 'constitutional' type barrier (ie Islam) preventing people from electing who they want, to legislate the laws they want. It would effectively prevent a person from either standing as a candidate or voting if they did not support Shariah law. It is still theocratic rather than democratic.

Quote:

freediver- how is it rude to clarify the question being asked in order to answer it effectively?

He did not seek clarification. I clarified my question, but that didn't help. Rather, he expected me to define a particular type of democracy before stating whether he supports democracy. He asked a dozen different questions about democracy, none of which were necessary to understand the question.


Quote:

It seems to me rintrah is merely trying to be thorough enough so that she can give you an answer that is truly representative of her opinion.

I think Rintrah is a bloke. Only his answer can represent her opinion. He can't expect me to shape the question to reflect his opinion. That defeats the purpose of a question.


Quote:

however, I think that what rintrah is saying is that she (she?) cannot answer this question because it over-simplifies what is a complex issue.

That is a flaw in his response, not his question. He is welcome to make the response as complicated as he wants.  But instead of answering the question he asked questions. This was obviously a barrier to communication, which is why it is considered so rude. He could have communicated the same issues far better in the form of an answer rather than a question.


Quote:

many people do not have the patience for this kind of debating- defining what one means etc- because they see it as unneccessary- they assume the other person MUST know what they mean, and therefore any delay in answering must be a deflection.

That is why I suggested he qualify his answers. That is not the same as refusing to answer until a dozen other questions are answered.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 7:12pm:

Quote: It is easier to reach the truth by going from simple to complex and not other way around. So it is better to first agree on what are essentials of democracy and after that to discuss how any particular model differ from those essentials or otherwise. As far as I am concerned, the essentials have at no point been expressed, if I am ignorant in this, please show me up.

Patiently repeat it again: Essential of Democracy is ability of people to express their will of governance by casting a vote.

As the saying goes "If someone tries to run before they can walk, they try to do something requiring a high level of knowledge before they have learned the basics", that describes your ignorance. If you can't understand the basics of democracy then all the complexities you trying to use only get  you bogged further down in pointless parroting of ignorant mullahs.

PS: No offence intended, I only trying to help you as you requested.

Rintrah, if your criticisms of democracy have little to do with Islam, you should start a thread on the general board or somewhere like that. There should also be a link to a discussion at the bottom of the article I linked to.

freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 7:52pm:

He did not seek clarification. I clarified my question, but that didn't help. Rather, he expected me to define a particular type of democracy before stating whether he supports democracy. He asked a dozen different questions about democracy, none of which were necessary to understand the question.

but that is the clarification he sought- about what kind of democracy...

forgive me I did not see where you clarified what you meant by democracy (which is the clarification I was referring to)- can you point me to this?

these questions may not be necessary for you to understand the question- but obviously they are for rintrah, so if you wish your question to be answered then perhaps you should indulge him for the sake of moving things along?


Quote:

I think Rintrah is a bloke. Only his answer can represent her opinion. He can't expect me to shape the question to reflect his opinion. That defeats the purpose of a question.

thankyou I have corrected my mistake. what opinion do you mean? that there are various kinds of democracy? personally that does not seem like democracy, rather fact (as the links you provided also suggest)


Quote:

That is a flaw in his response, not his question. He is welcome to make the response as complicated as he wants.  But instead of answering the question he asked questions. This was obviously a barrier to communication, which is why it is considered so rude. He could have communicated the same issues far better in the form of an answer rather than a question.

I am sure his intention wasn't to be rude to you freediver. I know many people here have a problem with a question being answered with a question but sometimes the situation makes this necessary.

rhetorical questions can provoke thought and provide answers themselves.

questions to clarify the original question only go towards the person being able to answer the question satisfactorally


Quote:

That is why I suggested he qualify his answers. That is not the same as refusing to answer until a dozen other questions are answered.

well I believe rintrah has given a definition of democracy now that you could discuss with him.

I'm sure what he was trying to avoid was a few things

1) giving a long, thought out answer about a particular kind of democracy in order for you to say "that's not the kind of democracy I was referring to"

2) giving a response to an unclear question that would make his opinions unclear ( as what is being asked itself was unclear to him)

I think it's actually a bit unreasonable to expect someone to give answers on many many various forms of democracy when you only have one in mind.

was he just to post his opinion on each form of democracy only for you to say "no, that's not what I meant either- keep guessing, I'll let you know when you answer what I mean"

I think that's a bit unfair and if I did that to you- I'm sure you'd be quite frustrated.

Quote:

forgive me I did not see where you clarified what you meant by democracy (which is the clarification I was referring to)- can you point me to this?

I said a few times that I did not mean anything more than the will of the majority, and that Rintrah was welcome to specify whatever form of democracy he wanted in his response.


Quote:

what opinion do you mean?

Rintrah's.


Quote:

giving a response to an unclear question that would make his opinions unclear

Isn't that totally dependent on his sresponse, rather than the question?

Isn't the whole point of a forum to clarify confusion by the exchange of opinion, rather than to attempt to avoid confusion at all costs by not responding until you get a perfect question?

Quote:

Don't you think it makes more sense to give the simple answer and then start with the questions? That way people can figure out what you are going on about.

Forgive me, I assumed that considering the general tone of the other threads it would be neccesary for me to have a preamble in order to not have my point jumped on with yells of 'see he is a democracy hating kamikaze nazi! How un-Astraylian!'.


Quote:

Do you agree with the statement: "Demcoracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"? Is that what your argument amounts to - that democracy isn't perfect?

I believe that Liberal Democracies in the form that they exist today are far from perfect, and more flawed than other systems that have existed at other points in history. They are a product of the economic and social systems of today, systems based upon interest and exploitation and therefore systems which I reject.


Quote:

Was your rejection of demcoracy triggered or caused by Islam in any way?

No, I rejected liberal democracy as flawed in High School. Islam has merely aided me in realising the validity of other systems above liberal democracy.


Quote:

Can you come up with a better system, either through logic or from religious sources?

I believe that a decentralised system with small autonomous communities is far more conducive to justice for all. As i previously stated.



Quote:

According to Abu, the traditions in the Sharia are 'undemocratic', in  the sense that they allow the election of a leader, but that leader only has a mandate to impliment Shariah law. Only those willing to impliment Shariah law are allowed to run as a candidate. That is, there is effectively a 'constitutional' type barrier (ie Islam) preventing people from electing who they want, to legislate the laws they want. It would effectively prevent a person from either standing as a candidate or voting if they did not support Shariah law. It is still theocratic rather than democratic.

The traditions of the Sacred Law are based around a system of consensus law. This means that the consensus of the majority of Muslims defines a muslim system. The obvious product of this is that Muslims both wish to be ruled by a Muslim and wish to be governed according to Islamic law. Their 4 major schools of thought in the application of the Sharia and the form that this system would take differs according to which is followed.

It is democratic in that the consensus of the Muslims is represented, it is 'theocratic' in that the law is determined by tradition and knowledge rather than through voting. So could a non-Muslim candidate 'run', obviously not, as this would be against the majority of the community. It goes without saying that part of being a Muslim is accepting the Shariah (in one way or another). Those who do not follow the Shariah and are not Muslim are only judged by Muslim law in terms of crimes or issues that effect Muslims. Similarily Muslims are not judged by non-Muslim law in terms of things that do not effect non-Muslims.

In the end, as previously stated, the government structure of a shariah state has some aspects we would consider 'liberal': protection of minorities, guarding of individual rights, ownership of property etc. and similarly has some aspects associated with Socialist Democracy: consensus based law, governing of a group by that group, conceptions of social welfare and social responsibility etc. etc.

Islam is not 'democratic', nor is it 'liberal' it is Islamic, and a system that predated both, and oversaw the advancement of the most pluralist society ever (the Ottomans) and the creation of the basis of much of 'Western' Philosophy (see Universities of Cordoba and Palermo), along with numerous other social advancements that are yet to be topped. Conversly, 'liberal democracies' were brought us Aushwitz, 'Operation Just Cause', The First AND Second World Wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with many advancements in the fields of depression and isolation. I don't mean to start a whole new conflict, but it needs to be said. Liberal Democracy is fine if you live as a Rich White person in a country that is Liberal Democratic, it really sucks to be ANYONE else.

Quote:

Patiently repeat it again: Essential of Democracy is ability of people to express their will of governance by casting a vote. As the saying goes "If someone tries to run before they can walk, they try to do something requiring a high level of knowledge before they have learned the basics", that describes your ignorance. If you can't understand the basics of democracy then all the complexities you trying to use only get  you bogged further down in pointless parroting of ignorant mullahs. PS: No offence intended, I only trying to help you as you requested.

I must ask your forgiveness in this as it angered me (the Prophet (sws) said 'don't get angry, don't get angry! Don't get Angry!')

You described me as ignorant, when I believe that what you see as ignorance is your inability to understand the points that I made.

'Patiently repeat it again: Essential of Democracy is ability of people to express their will of governance by casting a vote.'

Is a simplified version of what democracy is supposed to represent, and yet, as I have explained at length is not how democracy has ever been manifested, even in its Athenian form (as only a small majority actually were allowed to vote).

So I repeat: No system that has ever existed has been as simple as what you describe. Therefore I wish to address reality rather than some abstract conception of what democracy supposedly 'should' be. What I discuss is what democracy has been and is.

God knows and I know not.


It needs to be noted that success in debating is not about making a single point and then doggedly sticking to it regardless of what is said. It is about engaging with the discussion and addressing flaws in others arguments, rather than simply reasserting over and over that the other individual is not answering the point you made. Especially when they have, and you simply missed it.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:10pm:

.... Islam is not 'democratic'

Q.E.D.

Quote:

Q.E.D.

I would in turn put Q.E.D. to your 'Q.E.D.' but frankly it would be too ironic. Having just stated that my purpose was to represent the complexity of the topic, I in turn have my answer compressed to a 'soundbite' that misrepresents my answer.

I think I will soon leave this forum, seems no one has any intention of going beyond their pre conceived assumptions. May Allah (swt) give you wisdom and aid you in seperating what is truth and what is assumption and dogma.

Quote:

I think I will soon leave this forum

Bye bye

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:17pm:

Quote: Patiently repeat it again: Essential of Democracy is ability of people to express their will of governance by casting a vote. As the saying goes "If someone tries to run before they can walk, they try to do something requiring a high level of knowledge before they have learned the basics", that describes your ignorance. If you can't understand the basics of democracy then all the complexities you trying to use only get  you bogged further down in pointless parroting of ignorant mullahs. PS: No offence intended, I only trying to help you as you requested. I must ask your forgiveness in this as it angered me (the Prophet (sws) said 'don't get angry, don't get angry! Don't get Angry!') You described me as ignorant, when I believe that what you see as ignorance is your inability to understand the points that I made. 'Patiently repeat it again: Essential of Democracy is ability of people to express their will of governance by casting a vote.' Is a simplified version of what democracy is supposed to represent, and yet, as I have explained at length is not how democracy has ever been manifested, even in its Athenian form (as only a small majority actually were allowed to vote). So I repeat: No system that has ever existed has been as simple as what you describe. Therefore I wish to address reality rather than some abstract conception of what democracy supposedly 'should' be. What I discuss is what democracy has been and is. God knows and I know not. It needs to be noted that success in debating is not about making a single point and then doggedly sticking to it regardless of what is said. It is about engaging with the discussion and addressing flaws in others arguments, rather than simply reasserting over and over that the other individual is not answering the point you made. Especially when they have, and you simply missed it.

I did not describe you as ignorant you ask me "if I am ignorant in this, please show me up", which I did as you requested.

Also you just said "I know not" about yourself don't blame me for that please just because I have addressed flaws in your arguments.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:23pm:

Quote: Q.E.D. I would in turn put Q.E.D. to your 'Q.E.D.' but frankly it would be too ironic. Having just stated that my purpose was to represent the complexity of the topic, I in turn have my answer compressed to a 'soundbite' that misrepresents my answer. I think I will soon leave this forum, seems no one has any intention of going beyond their pre conceived assumptions. May Allah (swt) give you wisdom and aid you in seperating what is truth and what is assumption and dogma.

Yes, Q.E.D. would be too ironic from you considering that you can not recognise a tree because of complexity of a forest.

I would like you to stay as I believe that you have a talent for debate but need more time to learn basics.

Quote:

Also you just said "I know not" about yourself don't blame me for that please just because I have addressed flaws in your arguments.

I state 'I know not' because I am open to accepting arguments I cannot disprove. In this I would humbly request that you point me to the points you made that flawed my arguments? Please.


Quote:

Yes, Q.E.D. would be too ironic from you considering that you can not recognise a tree because of complexity of a forest. I would like you to stay as I believe that you have a talent for debate but need more time to learn basics.

Some would assume that as a statement of arrogance, I will not, rather I will see it as a mis-wording. I simply refuse to go around acting as though a tree in a vast forest is simply a tree without any context. I refuse to not classify whether it is oak or beech or eucalypt. I refuse to root my discussion of trees to only that tree, as though it is the only tree in the world, and our only reference point in terms of all the trees, ever. Just to kill a long dead metaphor.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

Quote: Also you just said "I know not" about yourself don't blame me for that please just because I have addressed flaws in your arguments. I state 'I know not' because I am open to accepting arguments I cannot disprove. In this I would humbly request that you point me to the points you made that flawed my arguments? Please. [quote]Yes, Q.E.D. would be too ironic from you considering that you can not recognise a tree because of complexity of a forest. I would like you to stay as I believe that you have a talent for debate but need more time to learn basics.

Some would assume that as a statement of arrogance, I will not, rather I will see it as a mis-wording. I simply refuse to go around acting as though a tree in a vast forest is simply a tree without any context. I refuse to not classify whether it is oak or beech or eucalypt. I refuse to root my discussion of trees to only that tree, as though it is the only tree in the world, and our only reference point in terms of all the trees, ever. Just to kill a long dead metaphor.[/quote]

I have already pointed out 2 of the flawed points in your arguments. Here is short (executive) summary:
1 circular argument
2 unnecessary complication while simple terms were not yet defined

Let's start with these two as there's no point trying to run before you can walk.

Quote:

I have already pointed out 2 of the flawed points in your arguments. Here is short (executive) summary: 1 circular argument 2 unnecessary complication while simple terms were not yet defined Let's start with these two as there's no point trying to run before you can walk.

Exactly where is my circular argument evident? I am ignorant of this, please show me the points I make in a circle to point this out to me, I respond to diagrams better than I do to being patronised.

I was derided for requesting definition of terms and when I sought out my own definition was accused of over complication. For me the discussion was not overcomplicated. Simply because it may have been for some members does not mean what I was saying was illegitimate, rather that said members need to seek to understand the complexities being presented.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:17pm:

Quote: I have already pointed out 2 of the flawed points in your arguments. Here is short (executive) summary: 1 circular argument 2 unnecessary complication while simple terms were not yet defined Let's start with these two as there's no point trying to run before you can walk. Exactly where is my circular argument evident? I am ignorant of this, please show me the points I make in a circle to point this out to me, I respond to diagrams better than I do to being patronised. I was derided for requesting definition of terms and when I sought out my own definition was accused of over complication. For me the discussion was not overcomplicated. Simply because it may have been for some members does not mean what I was saying was illegitimate, rather that said members need to seek to understand the complexities being presented.

I have pointed the CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO with the more clear and basic example in reply to your opening in the "Could Islam be evil?" thread.

You were not "derided for requesting definition of terms" as matter of fact I did supply the base definition which can be used for clarifying more complex terms but you refused to accept or change it, which took the discussion of the topic.

ROTFLMAO

I made a conscious decision to stay right out of this...  now you can see why.

The pedants are revolting.  ;D

Wake me up if you make any headway.

well the perhaps you can reserve your comments until they are constructive or contributing something to the discussion

Well as long as you refrain from editing all levity from life I'll be happy.

Rintrah could you please try to explain how you get from criticism of democracy to saying that some other system is better (If that is what you are saying, it's kind of hard to tell). Also, I still don't understand why you use the terms liberal demcoracy and social democracy. Liberalism and socialism are outcomes of demcoracy, not properties of democracy itself.


Quote:

It is democratic in that the consensus of the Muslims is represented, it is 'theocratic' in that the law is determined by tradition and knowledge rather than through voting. So could a non-Muslim candidate 'run', obviously not, as this would be against the majority of the community.

Are you trying to argue that that is somehow democratic? Do you think this is a better system than democracy?


Quote:

Islam is not 'democratic',

Thanks for answering that question.


Quote:

Islam is not 'democratic', nor is it 'liberal' it is Islamic, and a system that predated both

Islam predated democracy?


Quote:

I in turn have my answer compressed to a 'soundbite' that misrepresents my answer.

How does QED misrepresent your answer?

levity is my natural enemy- gives me a rash

mod: inappropriate...not to mention medically incorrect

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:43pm:

well the perhaps you can reserve your comments until they are constructive or contributing something to the discussion

Not quite sure what you contributed to this discussion Gaybriel. I have from the start been confused at Rintrah's wanting to over complicate the question rather than as FD says give an answer with qualifiers.

Rintrah also states that simple questions imply simple minds or loaded questions. That is quite simply not true. It is actually one of the hallmarks of genius to start with simple questions that evolve into more complex questions and answers eg Why did the apple fall to the ground?? Leads to 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'

I still don't get this business about loaded questions. Questions can be hard, blunt and direct but loaded? I think loaded questions are actually more like statements or accusations? Why did you kill that man? I didn't! Question difused.  

Asking whether the question related to a particular type of democracy had no relevance to the question, but certainly could have been a qualifier to the reply. Eg " Yes, I believe in democratic processes but find the current systems of democratic capitalism that dominate repugnant and lacking in many values of democracy. etc etc"

I do hope that Rintrah, Phillip, Emily etc will stay. There are some on this forum that attack rather than ask questions. And that's not just the non-muslims BTW. Rintrah made a comment about the tone of the forum and concern about answers not being taken at face value but read further and objectively and you will see there is a reason. When I first arrived at the forum there was already a great deal of animosity between certain members and some of my direct questions were treated as attacks. I was very pleased when these new members showed up to add their perceptions to the forum and hopefully the quality of answers. I actually admire Abu's tenacity and lonely struggle. But that does not mean that I am going to accept his replies with any less scrutiny than I apply to anyone else.

PS......FD. While I admire your cleverness in an argument I wasn't suggesting you were a genius. Sorry. ;)

Quote:

I have pointed the CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO with the more clear and basic example in reply to your opening in the "Could Islam be evil?" thread.

I must admit my ignorance, which is why I desire that you point out the points I made in a circular form. Ie. You said this, then this, then this etc.


Quote:

You were not "derided for requesting definition of terms" as matter of fact I did supply the base definition which can be used for clarifying more complex terms but you refused to accept or change it, which took the discussion of the topic.

Do you refer to:



Quote:

The important mechanism of democracy is voting so people can express their will as the will for their government.

Because that is merely refering to one of the mechanisms of democracy, not exactly how democracy manifests itself. As I previously stated, I do not debate on ideals, I debate on realities.


Quote:

Rintrah could you please try to explain how you get from criticism of democracy to saying that some other system is better (If that is what you are saying, it's kind of hard to tell). Also, I still don't understand why you use the terms liberal demcoracy and social democracy. Liberalism and socialism are outcomes of demcoracy, not properties of democracy itself.

Are you asking me to repeat the argument I already made?

Definition of liberalism (from Google):
Quote:

The quality of being liberal; A political movement founded on the autonomy and personal freedom of the individual, progress and reform, and government by law with the consent of the governed; An economic theory in favour of laissez faire and the free market

Definition of Socialism:

Quote:

An economic system where the means of production, distribution and exchange is determined by the state/public sector in some form. Can be centralized, decentralized, democratic or undemocrat

Can you see how the two are in conflict. I am becoming exasperated.. did you read that book I linked you to? These are important points for those living in a Liberal Democratic society. Liberalism and democracy are directly apposed: Liberalism equals the rights of the individual, democracy equals the rights of the majority.


Quote:

Are you trying to argue that that is somehow democratic? Do you think this is a better system than democracy?

Democracy is not simply defined through means of voting, it is about the will of the majority.



Quote:

Thanks for answering that question.

This is what I referred to, that some individuals have an inability to understand complex arguments and thus leap upon sound bites regardless of context. I think it has something to do with commercial news.


Quote:

Islam predated democracy?

The Prophet Abraham (as) pre dated Greece, so yes.

Quote:

How does QED misrepresent your answer?

Implying that the logical conclusion of my argument was that Islam is not democratic, taking that soundbite over the many other references I made. Similar to taking 'It is democratic in that the consensus of the Muslims is represented' as the crux of my argument.

I will again, just in case you missed it refer to the WHOLE sentence:



Quote:

Islam is not 'democratic', nor is it 'liberal' it is Islamic, and a system that predated both, and oversaw the advancement of the most pluralist society ever (the Ottomans) and the creation of the basis of much of 'Western' Philosophy (see Universities of Cordoba and Palermo), along with numerous other social advancements that are yet to be topped. Conversly, 'liberal democracies' were brought us Aushwitz, 'Operation Just Cause', The First AND Second World Wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with many advancements in the fields of depression and isolation. I don't mean to start a whole new conflict, but it needs to be said. Liberal Democracy is fine if you live as a Rich White person in a country that is Liberal Democratic, it really sucks to be ANYONE else.

If you'll note I was not saying that Islam had no democratic aspects, or saying that it had no liberal aspects, I was merely asserting that it was neither in completeness, and is in fact its own system.


Quote:

I still don't get this business about loaded questions. Questions can be hard, blunt and direct but loaded? I think loaded questions are actually more like statements or accusations? Why did you kill that man? I didn't! Question difused.

I refer to the question as loaded as the word 'democracy' has a value to it, that upon its rejection, the ignorant will come to the assumption that the answer represents a negative viewpoint, regardless of its content. If I were to say 'I am a liberal, therefore I do not believe in democracy' there would be slightly less controversy because such a statement is not made in a forum seemingly entirely devoted to a bunch of non-liberals sitting around agreeing with each other about how liberalism sucks.



Quote:

Asking whether the question related to a particular type of democracy had no relevance to the question, but certainly could have been a qualifier to the reply. Eg " Yes, I believe in democratic processes but find the current systems of democratic capitalism that dominate repugnant and lacking in many values of democracy. etc etc"

In the context of the above, I think that if you re read my posts, you will see that I was doing exactly that.

locutius wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 9:59am:

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 17th, 2008 at 9:43pm: well the perhaps you can reserve your comments until they are constructive or contributing something to the discussion Not quite sure what you contributed to this discussion Gaybriel. I have from the start been confused at Rintrah's wanting to over complicate the question rather than as FD says give an answer with qualifiers.

at least I have been trying to contribute locutious- I cannot guarantee that anyone will regard my contribution as having value. but at least I have not been posting comments with the knowledge they would be useless to the conversation. this is what I was getting at.


Quote:

I do hope that Rintrah, Phillip, Emily etc will stay. There are some on this forum that attack rather than ask questions. And that's not just the non-muslims BTW. Rintrah made a comment about the tone of the forum and concern about answers not being taken at face value but read further and objectively and you will see there is a reason. When I first arrived at the forum there was already a great deal of animosity between certain members and some of my direct questions were treated as attacks. I was very pleased when these new members showed up to add their perceptions to the forum and hopefully the quality of answers. I actually admire Abu's tenacity and lonely struggle. But that does not mean that I am going to accept his replies with any less scrutiny than I apply to anyone else.

I agree- I hope they do stay although I believe Rintrah has already had enough which is a shame.

and yes, all things should be looked at critically regardless of who is saying them

Rin, I have written many criticisms of democracy. That's what makes me a good citizen.

Some favourite quotes.

Alex Carey:
... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New


Demosthenes:
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.

J. William Fulbright:
In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith.

I just may not agree or want to live under the type of Democracy you would. But I would still like to understand where you are coming from. If we turn out to be ideological foes so be it. There are still plenty of other things we would probably agree about.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 11:11am:

I must admit my ignorance, which is why I desire that you point out the points I made in a circular form. Ie. You said this, then this, then this etc.

Re: Could Islam be evil?
Reply #17 - Nov 15th, 2008, 11:55pm Alert Board Moderator about this Post!
Rintrah wrote on Nov 15th, 2008, 11:27pm:
...
The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical. As 'evil' is not an 'objective' concept. If we accept that Allah (swt) is the one God, and the submission to this fact is the perfection of humanity, then it follows that what is not submission is evil, and what is, is good.

Similarly if one denies this fact, and creates his or her own gods and prophets, what is not alligned with that world view will be evil in turn. So yes, Islam could be 'evil' if 'evil' is defined as being that which a non Muslim is not.

======================================
Re: Could Islam be evil?
Reply #21 - Yesterday at 6:46am Alert Board Moderator about this Post!
Rintrah wrote on Nov 16th, 2008, 11:45am:
Quote:
That is fine example of circular argument therefore your premise that "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical" is wrong.


I'm sorry, this misunderstanding must be me not expressing myself correctly. My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid.

What I did was define evil and then said whatever I wanted.

Am I expressing myself clearly here?


That's why your argumentation is invalid

Quote:
CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO

This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach.


for example
"We know that Allah exists because the Koran tells us so. And we know that the Koran is true because it is the word of Allah."

  Re: Could Islam be evil?
Reply #25 - Yesterday at 2:03pm Alert Board Moderator about this Post!
Rintrah wrote on Yesterday at 11:58am:
Quote:
My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid.


This was my point, rather than 'for example
"We know that Allah (swt) exists because the Qu'ran tells us so. And we know that the Qu'ran is true because it is the word of Allah (swt)."

Obviously there must be choice in order for their to be any value in belief. Given a choice between belief or disbelief, I choose belief and all that follows. I believed the debate in this thread was around 'evil' as expressed in the title. I intended to express my problems with an argument based around a word so subjective and not defined by the creator of the thread. If we are to debate evil, then how can we do so without being given an understanding of what exactly to the poster 'evil means'.

I am Muslim, I believe in Allah (swt) I have no proof that God exists and do not desire proof, that is not the point. I can argue on the internal validity of Islam under that assumption, I cannot argue upon the assumption itself. I though this was a discussion forum about Islam, not about more broadly the existance of God.

Anything I state about the Deen is coming obviously from the assumption of Shahada: I testify there is no God but God and Mohammed is His final Messenger. My explanation of the idea of Shaitan and choice in my particular Islamic world view was done with this assumption, I am a Muslim after all, how debate should follow is around the internal validity of what I have said, rather than simply saying well 'God doesn't exist and Mohammed (sws) isn't His messenger', as that somewhat defeats the purpose.

Apologies in advance if I am not making myself clear, if I say anything wrong I ask yourself and the Creator for forgiveness, God knows and I know not.


I am glad that you've come clear about fallacy of the statement "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical".
Yes, possibility of it exist.

I sincerely hope that I've cured "your ignorance" but if it is incurable it isn't my fault perhaps Allah willed you to stay that way as he/she wills everything.

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 12:12pm:

locutius wrote on Nov 18th, 2008 at 9:59am: Gaybriel wrote on Nov 17th, 2008 at 9:43pm: well the perhaps you can reserve your comments until they are constructive or contributing something to the discussion Not quite sure what you contributed to this discussion Gaybriel. I have from the start been confused at Rintrah's wanting to over complicate the question rather than as FD says give an answer with qualifiers. at least I have been trying to contribute locutious- I cannot guarantee that anyone will regard my contribution as having value. but at least I have not been posting comments with the knowledge they would be useless to the conversation. this is what I was getting at.

Yes, your comments were more valuable than the ones you were trying to stop.


Gaybriel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 12:12pm:

Quote: I do hope that Rintrah, Phillip, Emily etc will stay. There are some on this forum that attack rather than ask questions. And that's not just the non-muslims BTW. Rintrah made a comment about the tone of the forum and concern about answers not being taken at face value but read further and objectively and you will see there is a reason. When I first arrived at the forum there was already a great deal of animosity between certain members and some of my direct questions were treated as attacks. I was very pleased when these new members showed up to add their perceptions to the forum and hopefully the quality of answers. I actually admire Abu's tenacity and lonely struggle. But that does not mean that I am going to accept his replies with any less scrutiny than I apply to anyone else. I agree- I hope they do stay although I believe Rintrah has already had enough which is a shame. and yes, all things should be looked at critically regardless of who is saying them

It is a shame but I did not think any would quit so quickly. There are many things that I do genuinely wish to know. Reduced access to different views is not good.

It costs me nothing to respect someone right to believe in God, of course I do not have to respect it to the point were I would allow that belief to effect me politically or physically in a way that I view in the negative.

Like Rin (I think), I am on the left side of democracy, being more socialist than capitalist, but a democracy that is restricted to Sharia doctrine would of course hold no appeal whatsoever. It would still be interesting to discuss the workings or percieved workings of such a system and and how it would encompass or contradict personal freedom etc.

It does not matter if democracy is left, right or Islamic the voting process is essential because without vote will of people is unknown.

Quote:

Can you see how the two are in conflict. I am becoming exasperated..

I cans ee how liberalism and socialism can be in conflict with each other, but not with democracy. In fact, demcoracy provides an acceptable way to resolve the conflict. Furthermore, what you posted does not indicate that they are properties of demcoracy, yet I get the imrpession that is what you are trying to imply. They are outcomes of democracy. It's like you are talking about Labor or the coalition as if they are different types of demcoracy, and saying that you support a democracy in which Labor wins, but not one in which the coalition wins. It defeats the purpose of democracy.


Quote:

Liberalism and democracy are directly apposed: Liberalism equals the rights of the individual, democracy equals the rights of the majority.

Wrong. Democracy equates to the will of the majorty, not the rights of the majority. There is no reason why the majority cannot will liberalism. There is no reason why the rights of the majority cannot equate to the rights of the individual.


Quote:

I refer to the question as loaded as the word 'democracy' has a value to it, that upon its rejection, the ignorant will come to the assumption that the answer represents a negative viewpoint

That is not an indication that the question is loaded. You don't have to be ignorant to come to that conclusion. Just because people aren't going to like your answer does not mean a question is loaded.


Quote:

If you'll note I was not saying that Islam had no democratic aspects, or saying that it had no liberal aspects, I was merely asserting that it was neither in completeness, and is in fact its own system.

As far as I can tell, Islam is undemocratic. It rejects the will of the majority, on principle. Abu seems to agree with me on this. Allowing only those people to run who intend to impliment Shariah law makes it undemocratic, as the will of the majority cannot change the outcome.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, Islam is undemocratic. It rejects the will of the majority, on principle.

This is correct. And for good reason.

Let us test how democratic you actually are. If the vast majority of society voted to legalise rape/suicide/murder/etc, would it become legal? Or are there limits imposed upon how far democracy (will of the people in legislating) is permitted to go? What I'm poking at, is, are there underlying principles, which even trump the "will of the people"? If you answer no, then I'm sure you can, in some way, understand my opposition to Democracy.

If you answer yes... then you admit Democracy is not just a method of selecting a leader, or legislation directly, but is a set of principles and values that go much deeper (an ideology if you will). Which is what I've said all along, and what you've denied all along.


Quote:

Abu seems to agree with me on this. Allowing only those people to run who intend to impliment Shariah law makes it undemocratic, as the will of the majority cannot change the outcome.

Just a question, if the will of the majority decides to have only Shari'ah, do you accept that as Democratic?

Likwise one could argue that the Australian system only allows those who intend to implement the secular/democratic laws to run... Why is it different? Because you just happen to agree with one set of laws and not the other?

ROTFLMAO

Only a muslim can say...  If you answer "no" you agree with me and if you answer "yes" you agree with me.

Actually if you read my post properly (which refers to previous discussions about democracy between fd and myself) you'd realise that answering "yes" isn't agreeing with me per se, but is merely confirming my analysis of what democracy is.

Nevermind though, don't let it ruin yet another perfectly good opportunity to take a stab at Islam.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 10:14pm:

Quote: As far as I can tell, Islam is undemocratic. It rejects the will of the majority, on principle. This is correct. And for good reason. Let us test how democratic you actually are. If the vast majority of society voted to legalise rape/suicide/murder/etc, would it become legal? Or are there limits imposed upon how far democracy (will of the people in legislating) is permitted to go? What I'm poking at, is, are there underlying principles, which even trump the "will of the people"? If you answer no, then I'm sure you can, in some way, understand my opposition to Democracy. If you answer yes... then you admit Democracy is not just a method of selecting a leader, or legislation directly, but is a set of principles and values that go much deeper (an ideology if you will). Which is what I've said all along, and what you've denied all along. ...

With all that  above a democracy is still 100% better then theocracy because if small minority of perverts decides to to legalise rape/suicide/murder/etc. it would become legal despite the majority not wanting such a legislation?

well I can't speak for every religion but for Islam it could never be the case.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 7:19am:

well I can't speak for every religion but for Islam it could never be the case.

I have never seen "vast majority of society voted to legalise rape/suicide/murder/etc" in our democracy either so your assumption is purely hypothetical but hypothetically any Islam country may have a situation that I have described.

Wrong. Shari'ah law is clear those things are forbidden, and always will remain so, they are immutable.

But in democracy they may not be...

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 7:42am:

Wrong. Shari'ah law is clear those things are forbidden, and always will remain so, they are immutable. But in democracy they not be...

So is it hypothetical or not?

If it is then hypothetically Shari'ah law can be over-ridden by a criminal minority.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 7:19am:

well I can't speak for every religion but for Islam it could never be the case.

You seem to do a mighty fine job of speaking for other religions most of the time. Don't stop now.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 7:42am:

Wrong. Shari'ah law is clear those things are forbidden, and always will remain so, they are immutable. But in democracy they not be...

What rubbish Abu. It can be hypothetical for Democracy but not for Islam because you control the rule for the use of hypothetical scenarios.

The things you describe are against a older and better proven law. The Law of Nature and the behaviour required for success of herd and tribe animals. Such majority agreement would be simply self destructive and as unlikely to be a reality as you assume it for Islam. I would suggest that the Social Contract as spoken by the great political philosophers such as Rouseau etc provides the peoples common sence check to such extreme self defeating behaviour.

But yes, technichally speaking that's how democracy works.

Quote:

If it is then hypothetically Shari'ah law can be over-ridden by a criminal minority.

Same can be said for Democracy or any other system, that's the most useless argument I've seen  presented in a while.

One of the main criticisms of Islam here is it's immutability, it is supposedly unable to cope with change, because it's laws are so fixed. Yet your argument seems to be that it's not fixed, and can just be changed at the whim of any criminal minority...

What we're talking about here tallowood is the system itself, not the hypothetical criminal minority who could seize power and implement something contrary to the system.

Didn't Mohammed say "My community will never agree in error"?  Isn't thisd a haddith?  Doesn't it therefore support democracy?

So are you now confusing democracy with LAW?

You say Sharia is immutable so therefore the standards set could be (in the future) 1000s of years old.  It seems to me that Islam and Sharia will never then move with the times or continue to need reinterpretation to fit with the times.  You failed to mention that Sharia has parts that are "mutable"  So I gather you see it consisting of Koran and Sunna only.

Did you mention your idea of Sharia?  Is it the Koran and Sunna only or does it include "classical fiqh" (laws/jurisprudence) in your interpretation?  You realise that there is a discrepency within Islam re this.  

Everyone is not equal before Sharia Law are they...  men and women. Muslims and non-Muslims.

Isn't it true that this "immutable" law of yours is subject to a tremendous variety in interpretation and implementation?

Do you really think that amputation, stoning and flogging are suitable punishments in today's world?

Do you think that having "religious police" in todays world acceptable.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 9:12am:

Quote: If it is then hypothetically Shari'ah law can be over-ridden by a criminal minority. Same can be said for Democracy or any other system, that's the most useless argument I've seen  presented in a while. One of the main criticisms of Islam here is it's immutability, it is supposedly unable to cope with change, because it's laws are so fixed. Yet your argument seems to be that it's not fixed, and can just be changed at the whim of any criminal minority... What we're talking about here tallowood is the system itself, not the hypothetical criminal minority who could seize power and implement something contrary to the system.

Yes, you have already said it about democracy so now you exposed the fallacy of you own assertion.

I never said that Islam is immutable quiet contrary early in the tread I have pointed out of good example of democracy in Muslim countries.

We are talking about a hypothetical situation and hypothetically it is possible that any system laws can be reinterpreted. However since you have acknowledged the fallacy of hypothetical approach it doesn't really matters any longer.

Quote:

What I'm poking at, is, are there underlying principles, which even trump the "will of the people"? If you answer no, then I'm sure you can, in some way, understand my opposition to Democracy.

Sure there are, but that doesn't lead to the rejection of democracy. It's like you are saying that democracy can't work because you can't vote out the law of gravity.


Quote:

If you answer yes... then you admit Democracy is not just a method of selecting a leader, or legislation directly, but is a set of principles and values that go much deeper (an ideology if you will). Which is what I've said all along, and what you've denied all along.

I'm denying it because it is not true. Democracy and freedom for example are a set of two principles and values. Democracy is one principle. Freedom is one principle. It only becomes a set when you put the two together. I have no idea why you assume that democracy by definition involves all those other principles. Is there some kind of logic behind that?


Quote:

Just a question, if the will of the majority decides to have only Shari'ah, do you accept that as Democratic?

Sure, that would be democratic. I am of course assuming that the undemocratic aspects of Shariah (eg the forbidding of democracy) are left out here. But if people decide to vote in medieval laws like chopping of hands, it is democratic.


Quote:

Likwise one could argue that the Australian system only allows those who intend to implement the secular/democratic laws to run...

Not exaclty. Democracy is fragile. You cannot directly prevent those who oppose democracy from gaining power and disposing of democracy.


Quote:

Why is it different? Because you just happen to agree with one set of laws and not the other?

What is different?


Quote:

With all that  above a democracy is still 100% better then theocracy because if small minority of perverts decides to to legalise

According to Rintrah (I think) Islam does not actually mandate theocracy, but rather dictatorship, with the clerics (you know, the ones that don't exist) as backseat drivers.

Quote:

Didn't Mohammed say "My community will never agree in error"?  Isn't thisd a haddith?  Doesn't it therefore support democracy?

Grendel, this is a good point which some Muslims use to say democracy is acceptable Islamically. But the most accepted opinion on this issue is that "My community" referred to Muhammad's (pbuh) community in his time (ie. his companions only) and so their ijma' (consensus) is indeed a source of legislation, but it does not extend to the entire populace of Muslims.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 1^st, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Quote: So non-Muslims were not allowed to vote? As far as I'm aware, not for head of state, no. [quote]How can you prove a dispute Abu? Please try to make sense.

I have made claims about the nature of democracy, you disputed them. That's the dispute. My side of the dispute is now being vindicated by your statements here. Simple really.


Quote:

Perhaps you should look back obver the thread and see what we were discussing Abu.

Yadda said Muslims reject the election of leaders. I _disputed_ this, and I think I am right. No mention of democracy in that line of debate.


Quote:

Abu, do you claim to know the 'real meaning' of democracy, while also rejecting it as a 'nonsensical ideology'?

Yes.[/quote]

Can you please clarify Abu? As far as I can tell, your argument has not really progressed beyond equating support of democracy and placing the will of the majority above all else (freedom, justice etc). Is this what you claim was vindicated, and if so, how was it vindicated?

What is vindicated is the position I've argued with you that democracy is an ideology, not merely a means of appointing a leader. In common discussions, democracy is often equated with the popular election of a leader (this is called a republic actually), whereas this is not quite correct. A democracy, like the ancient Greek democracy or other forms of direct democracy, may not even involve any election or appointment of a leader whatsoever.

Your dispute to this claim is that democracy is merely the popular election of a leader.

Quote:

What is vindicated is the position I've argued with you that democracy is an ideology, not merely a means of appointing a leader.

You could make an ideology out of cooking pancakes if you wanted. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this. You imply that it is an ideology for me when it clearly is not, and presumably project the same onto others.


Quote:

In common discussions, democracy is often equated with the popular election of a leader (this is called a republic actually), whereas this is not quite correct. A democracy, like the ancient Greek democracy or other forms of direct democracy, may not even involve any election or appointment of a leader whatsoever.

Abu, democracy can mean election of a leader. That is how language works. Words have the meaning that people ascribe to them now, not in ancient Greece.


Quote:

Your dispute to this claim is that democracy is merely the popular election of a leader.

I promote direct democracy Abu. I have told you this before.

BTW, we call them representatives, not leaders. They are meant to represent our views and we turf them out when they fail to do so.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 9:33am:

Quote: What is vindicated is the position I've argued with you that democracy is an ideology, not merely a means of appointing a leader. You could make an ideology out of cooking pancakes if you wanted. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this. You imply that it is an ideology for me when it clearly is not, and presumably project the same onto others.

You may not think it is an ideology, but most of the rest of the world, including our dictionaries does!

And since the opinion in this favours most of the rest, and not you... it is an ideology.

The vote is merely a means to achieve democracy.

But anyways... who cares if it is an ideology or not? What is the point of this thread other than to recognise the bloomin' obvious?  

Quote:

You may not think it is an ideology, but most of the rest of the world, including our dictionaries does!

What is the most common saying about democracy? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Does that sound like an ideology to you?

Freedom, justice, equality - these are ideologies. Democracy is not. It is only as good as the will of the majority.

fd,


Quote:

Freedom, justice, equality - these are ideologies.

clearly you do not even know what the word ideology means fd, so it's no wonder you cannot correctly identify democracy as an ideology.

sappho,


Quote:

The vote is merely a means to achieve democracy.

Slight correction, one means. There are other means by which to implement the ideology of democracy that don't involve an election of representatives.

sorry i took so long to get into this thread.

maybe it has been said before,

but the reason why direct democracy with uninformed or an apathetic electorate will not work is because of the flat earth effect.

humans aren't rational creatures and the only states where the citizens have sufficient discipline to engage in direct democracy is switzerland, a place where people will vote to raise taxes instead of having government deficits.

the other problem is the obvious majority wins.. but if it is 51% vs 49% you're still going to have half the country pissed off.

hence i propose a platonic philosopher kings or rule by majelis solution.

you could train people to be this kind of leader, let the state support them for their entire life, ban them from being lobbied etc.

Quote:

but the reason why direct democracy with uninformed or an apathetic electorate will not work is because of the flat earth effect.

It is quite easy to combine direct democracy with the benefits of representative democracy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#direct-democracy

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 9:33am:

Quote: What is vindicated is the position I've argued with you that democracy is an ideology, not merely a means of appointing a leader. You could make an ideology out of cooking pancakes if you wanted. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this. You imply that it is an ideology for me when it clearly is not, and presumably project the same onto others.

Democracy is a perfect example of ideology. Ideology is something people believe is natural, but that has been manufactured or constructed. Race, gender and class are all ideological constructs.

Democracy itself is a political system, but it's recent George W Bush manifestation is clearly an ideology. The idea that you can export and set up a political system is not ideological - but the belief that a system is natural and a human right - and that it will work because of this - is very ideological.

Ideology is what happens when people ignore history.

falah wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 2:40pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 2009 at 10:50pm: I sent an email to the immigration minister a while back asking whether we had a policy on immmigration of people with ideologies that oppose democracy and freedom, like Islamism, Nazism and Zionism. I still haven't recieved a response. Does anyone know what our policy is? Thiis thread is a good example of the lies that the sustainability party stand for. Islam does not prohibit voting. Great big liars advocating political parties is a real turn off.

Falah, can you explain how democracy works in Islam?

Does Australia have full democracy?

Only about 28% of people in Australia actually voted for the current government. How democratic is that?


Why is it that nearly half the people in Australia didn't vote?


Freeliar, why is it that about 6.5 million people in Australia are not allowed to vote?

Freeliar why did 6 million Australians who are allowed to vote did not bother to either enrol or vote?





People not allowed  to vote in Australia:

*People under the age of 18 - despite being considered by law to know the difference between right and wrong at age 10.

*People in jail

*Permanant residents

*Temporary residents

*People on humanitarian visas

*Tourists

*People without visas

*Foreign diplomats and dignitaries

Falah, can you explain how democracy works in Islam?

Can you explain how democracy works in the Catholic church?

No.

Let's try a third time: can you explain how democracy works in Islam?

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

No. Let's try a third time: can you explain how democracy works in Islam?

If you are really curious, go ask a scholar.

falah wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm: No. Let's try a third time: can you explain how democracy works in Islam? If you are really curious, go ask a scholar.

If you can't say, why do you ever say anything about Islam as a Muslim??

Not for you to utter. Leave it to scholars and be silent.

falah wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm: No. Let's try a third time: can you explain how democracy works in Islam? If you are really curious, go ask a scholar.

You are the one who claimed that Islam does not prohibit people from voting. Are you now saying you don't actually know? Or is it that you do know and you realise you are wrong, but cannot bring yourself to admit the truth about Islam?

I am not asking for the detailed minutia. Just simple things like who is allowed to vote and what mandate the winner has.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

You are the one who claimed that Islam does not prohibit people from voting. Are you now saying you don't actually know? Or is it that you do know and you realise you are wrong, but cannot bring yourself to admit the truth about Islam? I am not asking for the detailed minutia. Just simple things like who is allowed to vote and what mandate the winner has.

I find no prohibition on voting.

falah wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 12:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 9:15pm: You are the one who claimed that Islam does not prohibit people from voting. Are you now saying you don't actually know? Or is it that you do know and you realise you are wrong, but cannot bring yourself to admit the truth about Islam? I am not asking for the detailed minutia. Just simple things like who is allowed to vote and what mandate the winner has. I find no prohibition on voting.

So a Jew can vote for who gets to be Caliph?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 9:24am:

falah wrote on Jun 9th, 2012 at 12:22am: freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 9:15pm: You are the one who claimed that Islam does not prohibit people from voting. Are you now saying you don't actually know? Or is it that you do know and you realise you are wrong, but cannot bring yourself to admit the truth about Islam? I am not asking for the detailed minutia. Just simple things like who is allowed to vote and what mandate the winner has. I find no prohibition on voting. So a Jew can vote for who gets to be Caliph?

Can a permanent resident vote for who gets to be prime minister of Australia?

Can you ever give a straight answer Falah?

By "straight" do you perchance mean one that doesn't expose the absolute idiocy of your pestering questions?

Why are they idiotic? Falah is the one who contradicted me on Islam and democracy. I am just giving him a chance to explain why he accused me of lying about it. If I am wrong, why is he so afraid to explain why? He has no trouble talking about who can and cannot vote in Australia. Why is he afraid to admit what restrictions Islam places on who can vote and what mandate the winner has?

It's idiotic because you're asking if a Jew has the right to choose a khalifah, and then falah points out that not all inhabitants of Australia for instance get to choose head of state.

He rendered your question moot, and you claim he's not giving straight answers. He's giving answers that are befitting for your questions. It's your questions that you need to revise.

I agree that the concept of Islam allowing democracy is idiotic, but that did not stop Falah from accusing me of lying about it, did it?

Also, Falah has disagreed with you on some issues. For example, where you claim a man may rape his wife or slave, Falah insists that this is not possible because he already has their consent.

So it is not unfathomable that he might try to put a different spin on Islam and democracy to you. Just give him time. He is obviously still trying to come up with something.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

I agree that the concept of Islam allowing democracy is idiotic, but that did not stop Falah from accusing me of lying about it, did it?

Freeliar are you concerned about democracy in Australia?

Why do you avoid answering the question?

Does it bother you that there are 6.5 million people in Australia not allowed to vote?

No Falah. I don't think democracy requires letting people to vote when they are children or allowing foreigners to vote.

What restrictions does Islam place on who can vote and what mandate the winner has?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

Also, Falah has disagreed with you on some issues. For example, where you claim a man may rape his wife or slave, Falah insists that this is not possible because he already has their consent.

I'd try to shame you into retracting this clear falsehood you've levelled against me, but I know from previous experience it doesn't work. You have no shame whatsoever in inventing such blatant bovine faeces.

What restrictions does Islam place on who can vote and what mandate the winner has?

People not allowed  to vote in Australia:

*People under the age of 18 - despite being considered by law to know the difference between right and wrong at age 10.

*People in jail

*Permanant residents

*Temporary residents

*People on humanitarian visas

*Tourists

*People without visas

*Foreign diplomats and dignitaries


Hey dipstick, would the above be allowed to vote in Islamic countries????

Thanks angeleyes.

I wonder if the Muslims would be so forthcoming about the Islamic rules?

The real question is would a muslim be prepared to give up his religion in order to live in a democratic society as the two are incompatible?

angeleyes wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

People not allowed  to vote in Australia: *People under the age of 18 - despite being considered by law to know the difference between right and wrong at age 10. *People in jail *Permanant residents *Temporary residents *People on humanitarian visas *Tourists *People without visas *Foreign diplomats and dignitaries Hey dipstick, would the above be allowed to vote in Islamic countries????

The point is that no government allows everybody the right to vote.

A permanent resident can live in Australia for 70 years and not be allowed to vote.

What restrictions does Islam place on who can vote and what mandate the winner has?

Why are Muslims afraid to talk about Islam?

Why doesn't Israel give Palestinians the vote?

50% of Palestinians (4 million) live in Jewish-run concentration camps.

Does it bother you that Jews don't allow these Palestinians to vote in the Israeli elections Freeliar?

No it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

What restrictions does Islam place on who can vote and what mandate the winner has?

Why are you afraid to talk about Islam?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 10:32pm:

Why are you afraid to talk about Islam?

Get a grip freeliar he answers your stupid questions all the time.
You are just scared of looking at your own society so you must demonise someone else's.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 10:32pm:

No it doesn't bother me in the slightest. What restrictions does Islam place on who can vote and what mandate the winner has? Why are you afraid to talk about Islam?

Seems hypocritical that you are so interested in who can vote in a hypothetical Islamic election, yet demonstrate disregard for those who are currently disenfranchised by the Israeli or Australian regimes.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 10:32pm: Why are you afraid to talk about Islam? Get a grip freeliar he answers your stupid questions all the time. You are just scared of looking at your own society so you must demonise someone else's.

You'll find this is a typical "strategy" of freediver. As he's devoid of any actual debating skills, he merely seeks to overwhelm his opponent by asking tiresome question after tiresome question, until you become sick of wasting time with him, then he claims some hollow victory believing in his small little mind that he's actually cornered you into being unable to respond to him.

He doesn't appear to have the requisite social skills to realise he's merely making an ass of himself.

abu_rashid wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 9:44am: freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 10:32pm: Why are you afraid to talk about Islam? Get a grip freeliar he answers your stupid questions all the time. You are just scared of looking at your own society so you must demonise someone else's. You'll find this is a typical "strategy" of freediver. As he's devoid of any actual debating skills, he merely seeks to overwhelm his opponent by asking tiresome question after tiresome question, until you become sick of wasting time with him, then he claims some hollow victory believing in his small little mind that he's actually cornered you into being unable to respond to him. He doesn't appear to have the requisite social skills to realise he's merely making an ass of himself.

Socrates had to drink hemlock for this.
:D


But seriously - if you live in Australia or Europe or North America for a few years and are still a devout Islamist - or worse, convert to Islamism - you are a social malcontent at best.

http://static.thepeoplescube.com/images/Muslim_Protest_Sign_Insult2.jpg

falah wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 10:32pm: No it doesn't bother me in the slightest. What restrictions does Islam place on who can vote and what mandate the winner has? Why are you afraid to talk about Islam? Seems hypocritical that you are so interested in who can vote in a hypothetical Islamic election, yet demonstrate disregard for those who are currently disenfranchised by the Israeli or Australian regimes.

Falah, you accused me of lying about Islam, but refuse to say what the truth is. You are making a habit of that. Have you ever explained for this forum your views on Islam and democracy, beyond saying that 'Islam permits voting'? If you spent half as much time being honest about Islam as you did accusing people of lying about it I would have no need to repeat the question.

Given that Australia is currently involved in two wars to establish democracy in the middle east, it is hardly an irrelevant issue.

Avram makes his first post of the day at 9:30, Freeliar makes first post at 9:34. Coincidence?


Freeliar are you Avram?

falah wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

Avram makes his first post of the day at 9:30, Freeliar makes first post at 9:34. Coincidence? Freeliar are you Avram?

You are paranoid aren't you Falah!

I don't think that i am the only person here who thinks that this forum is full of sock puppets.

You are going to an awful lot of effort to avoid answering some simple questions about Islam and democracy Falah. What did you expect? That you would accuse me of lying about Islam and democracy and that would be the end of it? That I would be too ashamed to ask questions if you called me silly names?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You made an entire thesis on jumping to absurd conclusions.

falah wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm: No. Let's try a third time: can you explain how democracy works in Islam? If you are really curious, go ask a scholar.

How about this bloke, he says we need to behead democracy and replace it with Islam-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT0_NyXdIoo

The above speech is talking about a democratic system which allows evil. It is not saying anything about electing leaders.

A system which enables people to legalise evils such as prostitution and gambling is a corrupt abomination. This has nothing to do with electing leaders, it is in regard to how the system works.

falah wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

The above speech is talking about a democratic system which allows evil. It is not saying anything about electing leaders. A system which enables people to legalise evils such as prostitution and gambling is a corrupt abomination. This has nothing to do with electing leaders, it is in regard to how the system works.

Is this the type of scumbag you are referring to then Falah


Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous

Posted by Daniel Greenfield Bio ↓ on Jun 11th, 2012 Comments ↓


In 2003, a year before his death, Forbes Magazine placed Yasser Arafat on their list of the world’s wealthiest kings and despots with a net worth of 300 million dollars. This number was on the low end of the estimates that had been made of the fortune of the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli intelligence had estimated Arafat’s net worth at 1.3 billion dollars and an audit conducted by American accountants, authorized by the Palestinian Authority, turned up 1 billion dollars in investments. While an exact number may never be arrived at, Time Magazine’s report that Arafat’s wife had received a 200,000-dollar-a-month allowance, gave one small glimpse into the lifestyles of the rich and infamous of the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority books were a black hole with billions of dollars from Western and Muslim countries, bribes and foreign aid, going to a network of secret bank accounts and investment portfolios that not only financed terrorism, but also the lifestyles of the men at the top. The audits of the PA in the twilight days of Arafat and afterward were meant to reestablish the credibility of the Authority with foreign donors, while seizing control of the assets stockpiled by Arafat for the benefit of the new bosses.

Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, has been accused of hoarding a fortune of 100 million dollars and of owning palaces and property across the Middle East. Those accusations come from Mohammed Rashid, Arafat’s former financial advisor, who knows the ins and outs of Palestinian Authority finances like no one else, and whose own net worth is estimated at being around half a billion dollars.

Abbas has accused Rashid of stealing 33.5 million dollars from the Palestinian Investment Fund, a fund which collected Arafat’s known slush funds together to replace the PA’s old ad hoc finances. Rashid responded by revealing the ruling Fatah Party’s secret slush fund in Jordan worth 39 million dollars and mentioned that an additional 5 million dollars had been spent on a Fatah convention in 2009, even though there hasn’t been a single election since 2006. And that 13 million dollars of that money had come from the United States.

Rashid and Abbas are probably both telling the truth … about each other. While the Palestinian Authority is constantly warning its foreign donors that it is deep in debt and on the verge of complete default, its upper echelons live in mansions, drive expensive cars and enjoy the better things in life. The Palestinian Authority is always bankrupt because its leaders always need more money and there are always suckers in Washington D.C. and Brussels willing to give it to them.

The Palestine Investment Fund is as much Abbas’ playground, as PA finances before it were for Arafat. Mohammed Dahlan, the former Security Minister, had claimed that 1.3 billion dollars had vanished from the Fund since it was turned over to Abbas’ control. Dahlan charged that the PIF should have held 2 billion dollars, instead of only 700 million.

But Dahlan, who ran on an anti-corruption ticket, would also know something about embezzlement, as his own net worth is estimated at 120 million dollars. Abbas’ people have accused Dahlan of corruption and of everything from plotting a coup to poisoning Arafat. More seriously he has been accused of helping fund Al-Qaeda in Gaza as a lever against Hamas. That would mean that American aid to the Palestinian Authority went to Al-Qaeda.

Much of Dahlan’s fortune came from his security forces which ran a racketeering network that controlled fuel and cigarettes. The cigarette monopoly currently belongs to Yasser Abbas, the son of the PA leader, though in Gaza, it was seized by Hamas, and Yasser Abbas has bitterly accused Hamas of stealing and reselling his cigarettes.

Dahlan is closely tied to Mohammed Rashid, Arafat’s former financial advisor. Abbas’ own financial advisor, Mohammad Mustafa, also doubles as Chairman and CEO of the Palestine Investment Fund. That is another way of saying that there is no real difference between the PA, the PIF and Abbas’ assets, just as there was no difference between the assets of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.
Mohammed Mustafa is apparently an incredibly talented fellow because he earns over 400,000 dollars a year from his position at PIF. Mustafa is also Chairman of the Board at Wataniya Mobile, the Amaar Real Estate Group, which is actually a subsidiary that oversees PIF’s real estate holdings, and the Palestine Commercial Services Company. The PCSC, the economic arm of the PA, formerly run by Mohammed Rashid, is part of the ring of monopolies on basic services that fuels the Authority’s cash machine.

Hamas, supposedly elected as a response to Palestinian Authority corruption, is no different than its Fatah counterparts. A Palestinian Authority Minister accused it of stealing 800 million dollars and creating an electricity crisis by charging Gazan Arabs for electricity, but not paying the suppliers, while pocketing the money.  Such crises manufactured by malfeasance and corruption are blamed on Israel, with extensive media coverage of Muslims in Gaza sitting in the dark. This leads to more humanitarian assistance, which leads to more corruption, and the cycle goes on.

The nation building aid is the source of much of the corruption. American and European efforts to build up local companies end up financing the empires of well-connected Palestinian Authority officials and their kin. Companies like Falcon Holding Group and Sky Advertising, run by Abbas’ sons, pick up USAID contracts and turn a profit. Yasser Mahmoud Abbas, Abbas’ older son, who has a number of profitable businesses, is also his chosen successor.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/11/lifestyles-of-the-palestinian-rich-and-infamous/2/

Adamant wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

falah wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:35pm: The above speech is talking about a democratic system which allows evil. It is not saying anything about electing leaders. A system which enables people to legalise evils such as prostitution and gambling is a corrupt abomination. This has nothing to do with electing leaders, it is in regard to how the system works. Is this the type of scumbag you are referring to then Falah

Your Zionist hatred betrays you.

Of course you are too retarded to realise that Arafat was a communist not a Muslim.

falah wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

Adamant wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:02pm: falah wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:35pm: The above speech is talking about a democratic system which allows evil. It is not saying anything about electing leaders. A system which enables people to legalise evils such as prostitution and gambling is a corrupt abomination. This has nothing to do with electing leaders, it is in regard to how the system works. Is this the type of scumbag you are referring to then Falah Your Zionist hatred betrays you. Of course you are too retarded to realise that Arafat was a communist not a Muslim.

I have stated before Falah but will state it again I DO NOT HATE, I cannot stand blamange within a metre of me but I do not hate some  people I dislike some people appall me I am disgusted sickened and revolted by the actions of true scum but I still do not HATE. IMO only Muslims HATE. That saddens me!

falah wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

The above speech is talking about a democratic system which allows evil. It is not saying anything about electing leaders. A system which enables people to legalise evils such as prostitution and gambling is a corrupt abomination. This has nothing to do with electing leaders, it is in regard to how the system works.

What about democracy? Do you distinguish between democracy, 'electing leaders' and 'voting'? Do you only see democracy as valid if the outcome is Islamic law? Does Islam only allow the elected leader a mandate to establish shariah law, regardless of what law the people actually want? Is law that contradicts Islamic law evil by definition?

Does Islam see all methods of achieving the outcome of Islamic law as equally valid - eg electing someone, or killing any leader who stands in the way of Islamic law and putting a rightly guided Muslim in his place?

Adamant wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

Is this the type of scumbag you are referring to then Falah

Are you honestly so deluded as to think any sane Muslim cares for that Zionist puppet Arafat? Clearly your view of reality is severely obscured by your own ignorance.

Btw, I voted somebody elses puppet, as I don't think fd has the intellect to come up with these characters.

I didn't realise you were allowed to disagree with Falah. Is he not a fellow Muslim?

Honestly fd, grow up, you're such a juvenile, I imagine myself back in primary school listening to the nonsense you come up with.

I have no knowledge to what you allude to.


abu_rashid wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

sane Muslim

It is an oxymoron right Abu?

abu_rashid wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

..Clearly your view of reality is severely obscured by your own ignorance.

I rest my case.

abu_rashid wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:00pm:

Honestly fd, grow up, you're such a juvenile, I imagine myself back in primary school listening to the nonsense you come up with.

Abu didn't you once try to argue that you cannot possibly give a straight answer to a simple question about Islam because I was trying to 'cause trouble' between you and another Muslim (who it later turned out you did not even consider to be a Muslim, and who you would have stoned to death for heresy). If you are allowed to disagree with a fellow Sunni why were you so worried about disagreeing with a Shite?

Falah deflecting yet again. This was just after he complained about the situation regarding free speech and democracy in Singapore.


falah wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 10:45am: Falah, do you think that democracy and freedom of speech are important for a society? I support the right of people to protest against tyranny, corruption and injustice.

And another one.


falah wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 11:23am: But you don't support free speech or democracy? This is a trick question from Freeliar. So I will first ask for some context to that question by asking this question: Which country has absolute free speech or absolute democracy?

And here is Falah having a go at me for not answering questions:


falah wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 11:42pm:

You seem to be having trouble answering my question Freeliar.

This is a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Falah perhaps you should have thought about this before posting about freedom and democracy in Singapore. It is kind of ironic for you to criticise another country's standard of free speech or democracy when you won't even allow yourself to express an opinion on either.

What are you trying to hide?

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

And here is Falah having a go at me for not answering questions: falah wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 11:42pm: You seem to be having trouble answering my question Freeliar. This is a bit hypocritical don't you think? Falah perhaps you should have thought about this before posting about freedom and democracy in Singapore. It is kind of ironic for you to criticise another country's standard of free speech or democracy when you won't even allow yourself to express an opinion on either. What are you trying to hide?

Freeliar, I was not posting about democracy in Singapore. I was posting about oppression in Singapore.


Democracy does not equal freedom.

Plenty of democratic states are oppressive.


The Holocaust was carried out under the rule of a democratically-elected leader.

The stolen-generation oppression occurred under an Australian democratic system.iDemocracy brings evils like George Bush, Richard Nixon, Adolf Hitler, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Nicolas Sarkozy, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, etc.

WWII, the Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and first Gulf War were all started by democracies.

Besides, there is no truly democratic state.

Quote:

Democracy brings evils like George Bush, Richard Nixon, Adolf Hitler, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Nicolas Sarkozy, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, etc.

Dont get confused they are just puppets that help maintain the veil of 'democracy'. You are not going to wake these idiots up, they are too committed now to admit the truth even when they may know it.

falah wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Freeliar, I was not posting about democracy in Singapore. I was posting about oppression in Singapore.

The first opinion you offered in the thread was that Singapore should be freed from it's 'elected' leaders.


falah wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Democracy brings evils like George Bush, Richard Nixon, Adolf Hitler, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Nicolas Sarkozy, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, etc.

Do you oppose democracy in principle? What would you replace it with?

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

falah wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Freeliar, I was not posting about democracy in Singapore. I was posting about oppression in Singapore. The first opinion you offered in the thread was that Singapore should be freed from it's 'elected' leaders.

"Elected" in phony elections in the context of a country which has no independent media and no anonymous ballot voting, detention without trial, a judiciary that always sides with the government, little transparency and repression of any protest or political activity aimed at unseating the regime.





freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

falah wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Democracy brings evils like George Bush, Richard Nixon, Adolf Hitler, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Nicolas Sarkozy, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, etc. Do you oppose democracy in principle? What would you replace it with?

There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statement regarding all.

Democracy is not the solution.

Quote:

There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket atatment regarding all.

Quote:

Democracy is not the solution.

You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket atatments, what is the solution?

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution.

You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket atatments, what is the solution?[/quote]


Islam is the solution.

falah wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket atatments, what is the solution?

Islam is the solution.[/quote]

Lol. Replace governments elected by the people with some fascist system based on an invisible sky pixie.

How did you graduate from university?
Let me guess, you graduated from the Humanities or Social Sciences?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

falah wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:32pm: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket atatments, what is the solution? Islam is the solution.

Lol. Replace governments elected by the people with some fascist system based on an invisible sky pixie.

How did you graduate from university?
Let me guess, you graduated from the Humanities or Social Sciences? [/quote]
Haha you can say what you want about Islamic rule but don't try and lie to people and say we or they have a democracy

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:52pm: falah wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:32pm: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket atatments, what is the solution? Islam is the solution. Lol. Replace governments elected by the people with some fascist system based on an invisible sky pixie. How did you graduate from university? Let me guess, you graduated from the Humanities or Social Sciences?

Haha you can say what you want about Islamic rule but don't try and lie to people and say we or they have a democracy[/quote]

Then why do people vote them in?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:52pm: falah wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:32pm: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket atatments, what is the solution? Islam is the solution. Lol. Replace governments elected by the people with some fascist system based on an invisible sky pixie. How did you graduate from university? Let me guess, you graduated from the Humanities or Social Sciences? Haha you can say what you want about Islamic rule but don't try and lie to people and say we or they have a democracy

Then why do people vote them in?
[/quote]
Yes voting really does legitimise it doesn't it.

falah wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket statments, what is the solution?

Islam is the solution.[/quote]

Is there a contradiction between Islam and democracy?


Quote:

Haha you can say what you want about Islamic rule but don't try and lie to people and say we or they have a democracy

I think Falah is trying to say the opposite - that Islam cannot have democracy.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

falah wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:32pm: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket statments, what is the solution? Islam is the solution.

Is there a contradiction between Islam and democracy?[/quote]
Why are you so obsessed with them fd?

Quote:

Why are you so obsessed with them fd?

Why are you so obsessed with defending Islam?

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Quote: Why are you so obsessed with them fd? Why are you so obsessed with defending Islam?

I don't defend them I just reserve the same rights for them as you would want for the West

fd, you and your cronies Yadda & Soren are the only ones here that appear obsessed.

You are all convinced the entire Muslim world is out to get you, and I  guess it's probably part of you finally realising the Western world is causing a lot of grief to various Muslim populations around the world, and therefore you expect them to be out to get you. Bit of a guilty conscience it seems?

Abu, Muslims have enough trouble getting each other, let alone anyone else. Which part of 'impotent' don't you get?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 2:02pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:52pm: falah wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:32pm: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket atatments, what is the solution? Islam is the solution. Lol. Replace governments elected by the people with some fascist system based on an invisible sky pixie. How did you graduate from university? Let me guess, you graduated from the Humanities or Social Sciences? Haha you can say what you want about Islamic rule but don't try and lie to people and say we or they have a democracy Then why do people vote them in?

Yes voting really does legitimise it doesn't it.[/quote]

What does that mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KlO64wl4Zw

falah wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Quote: There are many different types of democracy. So I will not give a blanket statment regarding all. [quote]Democracy is not the solution. You appear to be contradicting yourself again Falah. Anyway, while you are in the mood for blanket statments, what is the solution?

Islam is the solution.[/quote]

Is there a contradiction between Islam and democracy?

Can you have both?

From the "Islamophobes retarded" thread, which got a bit sidetracked onto other topics:


True Colours wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 3:51pm:

The assertion was that Islam and democracy are not compatible. However, there is no reason to think that Islam and democracy are incompatible, as there are precedents for electing a leader - as was the case of the early caliphs. There was even a history of female representation in Islam. The other assertion is that everybody in Australia must be some kind of anarchist liberal who thinks that anything goes. That idea is kind of a contradiction in terms; "we are liberal - as long as you think exactly like us". You have to wonder if Freediver, or whichever alias he uses at the moment, would have the orthodox Jews, or the Catholics, or the Marxists, or the Christian Brethren, or the Evangelicals forced to believe in his system of no rules. The truth is Freediver and his pseudonyms are the real enemies of freedom.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Quote: However, there is no reason to think that Islam and democracy are incompatible, as there are precedents for electing a leader - as was the case of the early caliphs. We have been given several explanations from Muslims here on this forum for why the two are incompatible (while still insisting just as you do that Islam is democratic). Some examples: Only men may vote. Only Muslims may vote. Only Muslim men may stand for election. Islamic law is the only platform on which candidates may stand. Any elected leader who falls short of what the mob considers to be proper Islamic law is to be killed. Hardly sounds democratic to me. [quote]There was even a history of female representation in Islam.

So you keep saying. Can you elaborate please?[/quote]