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?
Forum
Pages: 
