Karnal if there is nothing in the article you disagree with, why does it bother you so much?

I think you spelt that wrong.

The republic was more inclusive than the caliphates, and just about every advanced civilisation before the industrial revolution. This inclusiveness was gradually lost when the republic ended.

It looks pretty hopeless to me Karnal. The only example of shura in the Koran is a wife consulting her husband on when to wean a child. Even the worst dictatorships employ some kind of consultative process. This came after the Greeks and Romans, so it was not like Muhammed lacked examples to follow. At the end of the day, the outcome must still be consistent with shariah law. Neither Muhammed's Islamic state nor the Caliphates that followed were as politically inclusive as the Roman Republic. Shura is meaningless window dressing. Can you imagine the founding fathers of the US getting together and deciding not to bother with elections, we will just consult with each other like adults and come to the right conclusion? In any context other than Islam you would laugh.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:


I do laugh, FD, the US has electoral colleges, it does not have direct erections or popular representation. This is why it’s called a republic.

Are you saying Muhammed was influenced by Greece and Rome? I am.curious.

What’s the right spelling, by the way?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 7:49am:


I most certainly do. I'm saying the first caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman empire. I've told you this 3 times already.

This means that Muhammed's caliphate, when it was a theocracy, was an evolution towards the political inclusivity you're promoting.

And not only that, the legal system that was developed created a system of civil law - the first in recorded history. Many historians believe the West borrowed this from Sharia courts, which were "inclusive" enough to provide a mechanism to resolve civil disputes. This was an evolution towards the rule of law and away from the anarchy of warring Arab tribes and blood feuds.

War unites populations. Order arises from chaos if people submit to God. This is the dominant message of Islam. I don't know whether to believe this or not, but it was Muhammed's stated aim.

My point is that the legal and political mechanisms that arose were an improvement on the Roman empire.

Now. Why don't you go ahead and describe those mechanisms. You've been given every opportunity to do so.

Feel free to disagree with my point, but if your analysis consists of a one-word response; "theocracy", your argument will continue to be meaningless.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 4:41pm:


Do you agree that Muhammed's caliphate was more inclusive than the Roman empire? That's the point you, yourself, raised.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:


So you believe an empire, centred in Rome and ruled by corrupt, nepotistic governors, is more "inclusive" than locally appointed leaders erected by their own councils?

Good-o.

Not really a democrat, are you?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 4:56am:


I can't possibly concede this point, FD. All you've proposed is erections, which you then said, according to Acemoglu, is not even the main issue. Instead, it's "inclusiveness".

When you jot down a few points on the difference between the Roman republic and Muhammed's caliphate, we can have a real discussion. If we take Acemoglu's argument seriously, it is quite possible for a theocracy/monarchy to be more socially and politically inclusive than a republic.

What your argument lacks is any form of detail beyond glib slogans like "elections" and "theocracy", when you're relying on a theorist who deliberately avoids such terms.

You've been very muddy on the details of the Roman republic. You originally confused this with the Roman empire. You are now deliberately evading the details of the caliphate. I'm not sure if you're ignorant of these details or you're covering up things that don't suit your argument. There were indeed political mechanisms of inclusion during Muhammed's time, as there were in the Ottoman caliphates that followed. You know this. You've engaged in countless discussions over the years about this, and you've conceded this point.

Without these details, your argument makes no sense, but let's get to the assumptions behind your argument. You asked whether the Roman empire was more politically or economically inclusive than the caliphate, as if one could possibly be abstracted from the other. Political inclusion is economic inclusion. The idea that they're separate is a modern phenomenon, but one that follows political inclusion. In our society, you don't need a title to own land, and you don't need to own land to vote or run for parliament. You don't need to be a member of a titled class, as you did in the Roman republic, to stand for office. You don't need to own land or a big business, as you did during the British empire, to be able to vote. We now have equality of opportunity, at least in our political-legal frameworks.

This is not something the ancient world had, including the Roman republic.

The other factor your argument ignores is security. The selling point of empires, beyond their expansion (or because of it), was to protect populations from invaders. Besieged people accept political exclusion to have their lives and livelihoods protected. You ignore this, I think, because you see things from a secure, modern Australian perspective. You ignore the fact that most of the world is still prepared to swap freedoms for security, and we could add economic security. This is because their social and political DNA is rooted in war and political instability. China is a perfect example of this, as was much of the Arab world until the Arab Spring - as was Europe until the end of WWII. Reactionary forces the world over exploit this payoff. Putin has done this masterfully, George Bush did it to justify "homeland security", and both parties in Australia aligned to take away press and other freedoms in their Foreign Fighters bill.

During Muhammed's time, security concerns were not manufactured. Muhammed and his followers were under siege. You could argue that the Koran is about this very point - how to achieve foreign and domestic security; in both the ways of war and in the metaphysical sense.

Modern pseudo-theocracies like Iran or Gadhafi's "green revolution" are not inclusive, as uprisings and popular protest highlight. They are simply a way for reactionary forces to obtain and hold power. Such tyrannies can inadvertently create the perfect conditions for social and political inclusion, as populations mobilize and fight back. Gadhafi was deposed, Iran is taking the gradual reformist path. Iran will change. It has to. Its people have deeply rooted secular ideals and the path is now open for foreign trade and investment. Shia Islam is part and parcel of Iranian nationalism and independence, but Iran has always had a sizeable population of Western-influenced secularists. The mullahs are losing their grip domestically, but expanding their power geopolitically. The Islamic revolution - the first of its kind - will most likely end in the justification of power alone: the "protection" of Shia Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere.

So - include a few details about the Roman republic and Muhammed's caliphate, and we can talk. To be honest, I have no idea which of these was more "inclusive".

As ever, I'm curious. Are you?