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.

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


What is different?

Quote:


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.

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


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?

Quote:


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:


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:


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.

Quote:


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.

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.

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


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.

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