Is Islam compatible with democracy?

#1
This is an interesting Gallup poll of a large sampling of the world's Muslims
(for more, go to http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0517/p12s05-wogi.html) - a few examples:


•Large majorities cite the equal importance of democracy and Islam to the quality of life and progress of the Muslim world. They see no contradiction between democratic values and religious principles.

•Political freedoms are among the things they admire most about the West.

•Substantial majorities in nearly all nations say that if drafting a new constitution, they would guarantee freedom of speech (see chart, below).

•Most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist. They want their own democratic model that draws on Islamic law as a source.

•Significant majorities say religious leaders should play no direct role in drafting a constitution, writing legislation, determining foreign policy, or deciding how women dress in public.
 
#2
If we agree that democracy is a dictate of majority, and that majority wants to live in accordance with Islamic laws (of whatever branch of Islam they prefer), then it is their brand of democracy.
 
#3
Domovoy said:
If we agree that democracy is a dictate of majority, and that majority wants to live in accordance with Islamic laws (of whatever branch of Islam they prefer), then it is their brand of democracy.
True, but see the fourth bullet down -
most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist.

This is somewhat true of the West with Christianity and democracy. Our governments may be secular, but are informed with Christian values.
 
#5
callum13 said:
Nooo dont get us started on this again, Religion should be banned and outlawed
that way in China, no? Or something similar

also, maybe what the world's muslims might want is somewhat different from what they getting and will be for some time - some countries are regressing
 
#6
callum13 said:
Nooo dont get us started on this again, Religion should be banned and outlawed
For better or worse, callum, it isn't going away. That being the case, wouldn't you say that many Muslims preferring a democracy to a theocracy is encouraging news?
 
#8
Why should religion be banned? Because so much blood has been shed in its name, I suppose. But it cannot be banned, for some reason it rears its head up again and again. Man's irrationality.
 
#9
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
If we agree that democracy is a dictate of majority, and that majority wants to live in accordance with Islamic laws (of whatever branch of Islam they prefer), then it is their brand of democracy.
True, but see the fourth bullet down -
most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist.

This is somewhat true of the West with Christianity and democracy. Our governments may be secular, but are informed with Christian values.
If that is what the majority wants, then it is democracy! And since "Most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist. They want their own democratic model that draws on Islamic law as a source.", -- Islamic democracy is not an oxymoron.
 
#10
redgrain said:
Why should religion be banned? Because so much blood has been shed in its name, I suppose. But it cannot be banned, for some reason it rears its head up again and again. Man's irrationality.
Is it a fault of religion or people who shed blood in its name?
 
#11
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
If we agree that democracy is a dictate of majority, and that majority wants to live in accordance with Islamic laws (of whatever branch of Islam they prefer), then it is their brand of democracy.
True, but see the fourth bullet down -
most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist.

This is somewhat true of the West with Christianity and democracy. Our governments may be secular, but are informed with Christian values.
If that is what the majority wants, then it is democracy! And since "Most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist. They want their own democratic model that draws on Islamic law as a source.", -- Islamic democracy is not an oxymoron.
Yes, but to play the devil's advocate, if their law allows women to be oppressed or allows slavery for example, then is it true democracy?
 
#12
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
If we agree that democracy is a dictate of majority, and that majority wants to live in accordance with Islamic laws (of whatever branch of Islam they prefer), then it is their brand of democracy.
True, but see the fourth bullet down -
most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist.

This is somewhat true of the West with Christianity and democracy. Our governments may be secular, but are informed with Christian values.
If that is what the majority wants, then it is democracy! And since "Most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist. They want their own democratic model that draws on Islamic law as a source.", -- Islamic democracy is not an oxymoron.
Yes, but to play the devil's advocate, if their law allows women to be oppressed or allows slavery for example, then is it true democracy?
And what is TRUE democracy, if not a dictate of majority? :)
 
#13
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
If we agree that democracy is a dictate of majority, and that majority wants to live in accordance with Islamic laws (of whatever branch of Islam they prefer), then it is their brand of democracy.
True, but see the fourth bullet down -
most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist.

This is somewhat true of the West with Christianity and democracy. Our governments may be secular, but are informed with Christian values.
If that is what the majority wants, then it is democracy! And since "Most want neither theocracy nor secular democracy but a third model in which religious principles and democratic values coexist. They want their own democratic model that draws on Islamic law as a source.", -- Islamic democracy is not an oxymoron.
Yes, but to play the devil's advocate, if their law allows women to be oppressed or allows slavery for example, then is it true democracy?
And what is TRUE democracy, if not a dictate of majority? :)
There is an important caveat to democratic thought and philosophy - and that is - the rights of all must be protected from[\b] the will of majority. This usually has to do with minority rights (ethnic, racial, religious, gender preference etc.), but can also apply to females as, relative to males, they have much less power.
 
#14
redgrain said:
Yes, but to play the devil's advocate, if their law allows women to be oppressed or allows slavery for example, then is it true democracy?
And what is TRUE democracy, if not a dictate of majority? :)[/quote]

There is an important caveat to democratic thought and philosophy - and that is - the rights of all must be protected from[\b] the will of majority. This usually has to do with minority rights (ethnic, racial, religious, gender preference etc.), but can also apply to females as, relative to males, they have much less power.[/quote]

That is if they feel their rights were violated. If they don't?
 
#15
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Yes, but to play the devil's advocate, if their law allows women to be oppressed or allows slavery for example, then is it true democracy?
And what is TRUE democracy, if not a dictate of majority? :)
redgrain said:
There is an important caveat to democratic thought and philosophy - and that is - the rights of all must be protected from[\b] the will of majority. This usually has to do with minority rights (ethnic, racial, religious, gender preference etc.), but can also apply to females as, relative to males, they have much less power.


Domovoy said:
That is if they feel their rights were violated. If they don't?
If a slave is not educated in what his innate human rights are, does that make the violation of those rights any the less of a violation? :wink:
 
#16
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Yes, but to play the devil's advocate, if their law allows women to be oppressed or allows slavery for example, then is it true democracy?
And what is TRUE democracy, if not a dictate of majority? :)
redgrain said:
There is an important caveat to democratic thought and philosophy - and that is - the rights of all must be protected from[\b] the will of majority. This usually has to do with minority rights (ethnic, racial, religious, gender preference etc.), but can also apply to females as, relative to males, they have much less power.


Domovoy said:
That is if they feel their rights were violated. If they don't?
If a slave is not educated in what his innate human rights are, does that make the violation of those rights any the less of a violation? :wink:


In whose eyes?
 
#17
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
redgrain said:
Yes, but to play the devil's advocate, if their law allows women to be oppressed or allows slavery for example, then is it true democracy?
And what is TRUE democracy, if not a dictate of majority? :)
redgrain said:
There is an important caveat to democratic thought and philosophy - and that is - the rights of all must be protected from[\b] the will of majority. This usually has to do with minority rights (ethnic, racial, religious, gender preference etc.), but can also apply to females as, relative to males, they have much less power.


Domovoy said:
That is if they feel their rights were violated. If they don't?
If a slave is not educated in what his innate human rights are, does that make the violation of those rights any the less of a violation? :wink:


In whose eyes?


In the eyes of any society that truly believes in the meaning of democracy, Dom. By its nature, this must include protection of minority rights or it could very well just be another road to oppression.

And, once a person is educated about what their rights are, in their eyes also.
 
#18
redgrain

If society considers slavery a violation of one’s rights and so does the slave, then slavery is not something the majority of the society approves of and thus is not consistent with democratic notion of that society.
 
#19
Domovoy said:
redgrain

If society considers slavery a violation of one’s rights and so does the slave, then slavery is not something the majority of the society approves of and thus is not consistent with democratic notion of that society.
That is not necessarily the case, Dom. In the US, for example, at one point in time the majority Southern, and some Northern, people considered blacks inferior and so their slavery acceptable. Did that make it so? Of course not. I believe in majority rule for most things, but firstly, that the civil rights of all cannot be tampered with by majority rule.
 
#20
redgrain said:
Domovoy said:
redgrain

If society considers slavery a violation of one’s rights and so does the slave, then slavery is not something the majority of the society approves of and thus is not consistent with democratic notion of that society.
That is not necessarily the case, Dom. In the US, for example, at one point in time the majority Southern, and some Northern, people considered blacks inferior and so their slavery acceptable. Did that make it so? Of course not. I believe in majority rule for most things, but firstly, that the civil rights of all cannot be tampered with by majority rule.
Few mistakes in your reasoning:
1. you judge past from modern perspective.
2. you attribute modern values to the societies of the past.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top