To answer my own question, I would say Bangladesh is already there, Turkey and Egypt almost. Iran has great potential as well as Irak. Marocco probably, too. I’m talking out off my ass, of course, I’m just guessing. Does anyone else want to try?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lixy, the islamic world has a problem with democracy. They don’t have it and that makes it our problem too. [/quote]
Count me in. That’s my problem even before it is yours. I have relatives, friends and property in the Islamic world you know.
Sigh. The way it’s going, not many.
But then again, my standards are extremely high. For example, I don’t consider the US a “truly” democratic society. The ones that come close would be the Greeks, the Scandinavians, the Dutch, or - more recently - the Bolivians. I also hold the Swiss system in high regards.
I’ll speak about Arab countries 'cause those are the ones I know best. There was a great window of opportunity which would have transformed the whole Arab world into a dandy democracy around the late 50’s. Despite the West’s best efforts to throttle it (Suez crisis, overthow of Mossadeq, the war in Algeria, the exile of Shakib Arslan) Arab nationalism was still alive an kicking. Egypt and Syria joined to create a new nation, the United Arab Republic. Yemen was next on the line to join. Everybody in the Arab world was very excited about the prospect of uniting (think EU but with oil flowing). Mehdi Ben Barka was well on his way to establish a democracy in Morocco. He saw even bigger than the United Arab Republic, and lead the Tricontinental Conference with the stated purpose of uniting the third world and fighting “globalisation, imperialism, neoliberalism and defending human rights”. Some of his buddies you may have heard of were the Che Guevara, Amilcar Cabral, and Malcom X. Well, everyone in the lot but Malcom X was assassinated by foreign secret services (CIA, DST, PIDE).
Israel wasn’t too happy about the Arabs uniting. I mean, despite the backing of Uncle Sam, it was still a tiny piece of land surrounded by Arabs. If it had nukes at the time, the rest of the story would have been totally different. But I digress…
Israel requests permission from the US to attacks the Arabs in '67, the US gives the green light, and that was officially the end of pan-Arabism.
Now, remember that this is a time where those intellectuals and leaders are threatening the imperialist countries’ interests. The Suez canal, the oil companies, the gas companies and everything else was on the verge of being nationalized. In the US, communists were almost shot on sight. A friend of a communist had to be a communist. Arabs were guilty of association and were royally screwed up by the might of the Brits, French, Americans, and their new friend Israel. You don’t need to think very hard to realize that the Arabs having democracies or uniting was not in their interest. They supported the dictators and the fundamentalists in an effort to weaken Arab nationalism.
The legacy of this story, is an Arab world ruled by dictators, and the only movement strong enough to challenge those are the Islamic fundamentalists. The dictators are good pals of the West and the US in actually giving them weapons knowing they’ll be used to quash any attempt to overthrow them. But even so, there is a steady - albeit slow - movement to democratize the nations (feminists, youth…). Fundamentalists’ ranks grew astonishingly after the Iraq war. There is a feeling that the religion itself is threatened, and as you can tell from the speech of some around here (nuke the cockroaches!) that feeling is a tad legitimate. Add to that a US president who claims to receive his orders from God, the pope’s infamous speech on Muhammad, the treatment an Arab gets in an airport or plane, the diatribes about Islam in the press, and you end up with an Islamic world population whose solidarity is pushed to the extreme.
Does this mean the West is responsible for everything wrong? No, but it most certainly was, and still is, doing everything it can to smother democracy in those countries.
So, who has the potential to blossom in democracies? If left alone, pretty much all of them. But that’s not gonna happen. Every time an majority-Muslim country tells the dictator to beat it and holds fair elections, the West doesn’t allow it. Democratical efforts prompt the west to reply with blockades, support of the opposition to the democratically elected government, assassinations, or downright bombings.
[quote]lixy wrote:
A bleak overview
[/quote]
Ouch, that’s a sad picture. I made my haphazard list by thinking which countries had a strong tradition of government. I think that a bureaucracy is like a dog, you have to train it well. Democracy in its present form cannot exist without a bureaucracy.
Is there a wish for democracy in the countries you know, or have all the wishers already immigrated?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lixy, I have to compliment you for staying on track when (so often) confronted with a barrage of prejudice and insult.[/quote]
LOL!!!
Yeah, I suppose objective justice appears as a ‘barrage of prejudice and insult’ to someone like you.
[quote]skor wrote:
Lixy, do moderate Muslims believe that Quran is a direct and unaltered word of G-d? Or do they interpret Quran as liberal Judo-Christians interpret Torah-Bible?[/quote]
Literal unaltered word of God. It says so in the Quran.
Many Muslims don’t view the Isra’ and Mi’raj (the trip with Muhammad on Pegasus) or any of the fantastic journeys of Moses and other prophets as historical events. They see them as stories with a moral lesson. Kinda like fables.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is the question that I have for Lixy that perplexes me when I read about the peaceful and democratic ways of Islam:
Someone…or groups of “someones”… created a MAJOR “disconnect” (perhaps over time) between the pacifist, democratic words of the Prophet and The Quran and many of the Muslim Leaders and masses of today.
By whom and how did this occur?
[/quote]
Good question. But there’s an inference in it that I don’t like.
First, you’re making sound as if “craze” is the norm in the Muslim world today. This is not the case. The pacifist words of the prophet and the Quran are still resounding. So, you’ll have to explain to me what you mean when you talk about the “masses of today”? We can take it from there…
As for the “Muslim leaders”, in my book, you can’t be a Muslim and a dictator.
The way I see it, after the death of the prophet, there shouldn’t have been the Shi’a rift nor conquests (remember? Hard-core pacifist). That was already a major disconnect.
The second one, I’ll have to say Al-Ghazali (11th century) who decided that there shouldn’t be any more interpretation of the texts and that everything has already been tackled.
Then, we have modern day Takfirists and other whackos. Those are the only ones I would call MAJOR disconnects.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am admittedly a conservative, which means, in my mind, a rejection of most things radical. Radicalism - from either the right or left - gets thousands of people killed, all in the name of a zealously possessed “truth” based on sloppy and trendy thinking and reactionary emotions. I’ll continue to argue that way against radicals of all kinds when I think they are wrong, and if that hurts your sensibilities, too bad.[/quote]
I’m imagining that arguing your position is not the issue being focused on, but the invective that comes along with it.
I know, I know, I’m often no better… but if multiple people are telling you about it, maybe there’s fire beneath all the smoke.
By the way, conservatives can also get drawn into trendy and reactionary emotional thinking.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yeah, I suppose objective justice appears as a ‘barrage of prejudice and insult’ to someone like you.
[/quote]
Don’t be so silly.
I’m talking about the constant barrage of more personal slights and insults.
I know that I generally will respond in kind when provoked like that.
[quote]vroom wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am admittedly a conservative, which means, in my mind, a rejection of most things radical. Radicalism - from either the right or left - gets thousands of people killed, all in the name of a zealously possessed “truth” based on sloppy and trendy thinking and reactionary emotions. I’ll continue to argue that way against radicals of all kinds when I think they are wrong, and if that hurts your sensibilities, too bad.
I’m imagining that arguing your position is not the issue being focused on, but the invective that comes along with it.
I know, I know, I’m often no better… but if multiple people are telling you about it, maybe there’s fire beneath all the smoke.
By the way, conservatives can also get drawn into trendy and reactionary emotional thinking.[/quote]
Yes. What Vroom said.
Dustin
[quote]lixy wrote:
skor wrote:
Lixy, do moderate Muslims believe that Quran is a direct and unaltered word of G-d? Or do they interpret Quran as liberal Judo-Christians interpret Torah-Bible?
Literal unaltered word of God. It says so in the Quran.
Many Muslims don’t view the Isra’ and Mi’raj (the trip with Muhammad on Pegasus) or any of the fantastic journeys of Moses and other prophets as historical events. They see them as stories with a moral lesson. Kinda like fables.[/quote]
Well, then Islam (as a religion/way of life/societal organization) is incompatible with democracy in a non “all-Muslim” society with freedom of religion. By definition, so to say.
In Islam there is a lot of time spent in group activities. When I lived in a Muslim community one thing I noticed was my neighbors spent a significant part of their day gathering at the mosque for their group prayer meeting. All that constant gathering in a group to show that they have more piety than the next guy conditions peoples thinking.
All that time spent gathering into a group for prayers doesn’t leave much time for independent thought. Instead it breeds a mentality of go along with the herd.
Haj is another group activity where everyone has to do it at the same time. At the end of the Haj you have the stoning ritual. Noone really gives any thought to it, because it is supposed to be “the devil” they are throwing stones at, but this is ritualized mob violence. Haj is the great religious experience of a lifetime for a muslim, that ends in a mob throwing stones and slitting the throats of sheep.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
it is supposed to be “the devil” they are throwing stones at, but this is ritualized mob violence. Haj is the great religious experience of a lifetime for a muslim, that ends in a mob throwing stones and slitting the throats of sheep. [/quote]
Mob violence? Throwing stones? Killing sheeps?
Damn. Why didn’t my religion have any of these fun activities?
No wonder Islam is booming.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Of course, your text says exactly otherwise:
[i]The article comes from Townhall.com which is run by Hugh Hewitt, an evangelical Christian who started as ghostwriter for Nixon and held a variety of job in the White House under Reagan. Regular contributors to Townhall.com include people such as Ann Coulter and Robert Novak.
Suzanne Fields wrote the article presented and, at the risk of sounding JustTheFact-ish, I have to point out that she is a regular at the “Jewish World Review”. A conservative (that’s euphemism for the Z word) Israeli online magazine.[/i]
Why raise who wrote the article and where it was posted unless you think that proposes a problem with the thesis from the outset? You wouldn’t have mentioned any of this unless you thought it represented a problem with the idea.[/quote]
Here’s what claimed the first point you raised when addressing my (and that’s a direct quote) “drivel”: “1. Ad hominem attack from the outset”
If I say “George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn into office on January 20, 2001, re-elected on November 2, 2004, and sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005. Prior to his Presidency, President Bush served for 6 years as the 46th Governor of the State of Texas.” before addressing the arguments in a piece he wrote would that be considered an attack?
I really don’t think so.
But I probably wouldn’t do that, because I assume everybody knows who Dubya is. The author of the article, nay the source even, wasn’t mentioned in the OP. Was it fair to reference to the source of the piece or who wrote it before attacking the arguments presented? I think so. Especially given the neutral stance I adopted in wording it. If I post an article without linking to its source, I expect nothing but the same treatment.
Taking it even further, if someone writes an article on how cigarettes give you a healthy glow and make you more appealing to the opposite sex, will you not try to look at who’s signing the checks the author cashes out?
The OP’s piece is in my opinion, a diatribe slandering the religion of a billion and a half people. Many people reading this kind of material don’t have much exposure to Islam and take whatever is in the article as fact. In fact, many are already advocating that the US nukes the “cockroaches”. It is only fair to take some perspective on where the author is coming from before tackling her arguments.
But all of this is of not much relevance to the point. We are discussing the set of rules which would be considered good conduct when analyzing an article. If you believe that revealing the unpublished (whether voluntarily or not matters not) sources of the articles one posts are foul play, I will disagree with you. If you believe that using harsh language when revealing these sources should be avoided as much as possible, then I’ll agree. And I think I did a pretty good job at that.
Feel free to disagree, but for heaven’s sake, review your “ad hominem attack” label. It most certainly was not an attack.
I don’t know if we’re on the same page here. The following is what I mean by good faith.
To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.
The “project” in the case this forum, is create an atmosphere where exchange of ideas flourishes, and where everyone comes out more enriched intellectually than when he came in.
I really can’t recall where I stepped out of line. Maybe you can help by giving me examples where I didn’t assume good faith, so that I can work on avoiding that behavior in the future.
I can call Bush all kinds of name and it won’t affect the debate one iota. You can call Chavez every name under the sun and it’s not going to disrupt the thread.
I can call Rupert Murdoch everything I want, and you may call Michael Albert anything you want too. The flow of ideas and positive atmosphere won’t change.
Problems show up when people make it personal. It’s indeed hard to overlook a comment where someone calls you a redneck, terrorist-sympathizer, idiot, liar, fat or ugly. That’s when things turn, ehhh…ugly. The prospect of an interesting discussion between adults instantly fades, and the place turns into a kindergarten.
I don’t do double standards. You can’t find any of my posts where I call anyone “neocon” without being provoked. In fact, you can notice that I do my best to remain courteous even in the face of labels such as “cyber-jihadist”. It has become common practice for RainJack, Hedo, JeffR or HeadHunter to refer to Al-Qaeda as “your pals” or “your friends”. Even facing that, I rarely let the debate degenerate into name-calling.
Give me some credit.
Again, I dare you to find any of my posts where I vitriol someone without being aggressed.
Neither do the Inuits nor the Chinese. It doesn’t make Shamanism or Confucianism responsible for the lack of democracy in China or elsewhere, now does it?
And you deduce that it’s the fault of Islam how exactly?
There was no such need. There was no “repression of the development of reason” in the Islamic world at the time. Mountains of volumes were written about every subject and research was encouraged. That’s at a time where the West chopped off heads for challenging that the Earth was flat.
The “Islamic lack of embrace”, hey?
Rationalism, skepticism, empiricism, or devotion to individual rights are all part of Islamic tradition. Don’t take my word for it. Check out the Quran and Sunnah.
What “the Islamic civilization” does is not the fault of Islam.
It’s funny. The Clash’s “Rock the Casbah” is playing on a Californian radio as I type this, and I noticed an illustrative passage in the lyrics:
[i]By order of the prophet
We ban that boogie sound[/i]
Shareef may not like it, and neither will you, but he’s got no authority to speak in the name of the prophet - or in the name of anybody else for that matter.
Don’t pin on Islam what has always been, and still is the thirst of some to acquire absolute power.
Exactly. There was no church, and thus no reaction to it.
Here’s where you slip; you say “does it makes sense for us to do that anymore?” when they shouldn’t be doing it the first place according to the Quran and Sunnah. The things you speak of are abuses that occurred over time, and the majority al-hamdulillah is still retaining the essence of the message.
Pray tell us what doesn’t “makes sense for us to do that anymore”, and we can then study the position of the Quran and Sunnah on it, to determine if it’s an inherent problem with Islam.
If Islam is really at the root of the problem - as the OP claims -, it only makes sense to revoke my allegiance to it. I mean, I’m an egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, pacifist before I became a Muslim. If Islam tramples those core principles, I don’t see why I should stay in the faith. Of course, I’m gonna need more than the “Muslims are suicide bombers, complacent-under-dictatorship, and their history doesn’t closely copy that of the Judeo-Christian world, hence Islam is bad” which your argument consists of so far. Deal?
Hello? Are you paying attention at all?
What faith do you think I adhere to? The FSM church?
Yeah, they’re all cowards and have no courage.
Have you ever heard of the Murji’ah? Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmed? They all predated Luther by many centuries.
Take a pick in the following non-exhaustive list and tell me why Luther’s courage surpasses theirs?
* Shirin Ebadi
* Muhammad Ali of Egypt
* Tahir Abbas
* Khaled Abou Al-Fadl
* Alireza Alavitabar
* Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri
* Javed Ahmed Ghamdi
* Pervez Hoodbhoy
* Reza Aslan
* Xadir Diaye
* Mostafa Malekian
* Irshad Manji
* Raquel Evita Saraswati
* Mahmoud Taleghani
* Mahmoud Mohamed Taha
* Ayaan Hirsi Ali
* Mehdi Bazargan
* Luthfi Assyaukanie
* Ahmad Ghabel
* Ghulam Ahmed Pervez
* Syed Ahmed Khan
* Rashad Khalifa
* Muhammad Ali Jinnah
* Dr Shabbir Ahmed
* Mohsen Kadivar
* Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
* Edip Yuksel
* M. A. Muqtedar Khan
* Fazlur Rahman
* Mohammad Khatami
* Ziauddin Sardar
* Abdolkarim Soroush
* Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari
* Yousef Sanei
* Ali Shariati
* Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im
* Irfan Habib
* Bassam Tibi
* Amina Wadud
* Javed Ali User A Thinker
* Rashid Shaz
Therefore shmerefore!
The people in Lebanon, “the occupied territories”, or Turkey are what? Scientologists? Aren’t these countries democratic.
People in Tunisia, Morocco, or Iran disagree with “authority” all day long. What are they? Jews?
I know you can do better.
You must have never heard of the Mu’tazili?
And T-Bolt to add that the Navajo Religion condones binge drinking, and Mmami Wata is behind Africa’s extreme poverty.
[quote]For some reason, the West took the ideas and used them to blossom the world’s great democracies with unprecedented freedom and prosperity. The Islamic world did not.
There is a reason - just as Europe “rediscovered” classical wisdom through a Renaissance, the Islamic world largely ignored it. Why? All the reasons listed above.[/quote]
What reasons? Why is Islam the “source of all evil” in those backward countries and how did it force the Arabs from ignoring the classical wisdom?
Yeah, nuke 'em already!
It’s done quite a lot of things if you bothered looking. But again, how is Islam responsible for the demise of the most majority-Muslim countries?
[quote]From a source you love, Wikipedia:
Islam holds that political life can only function properly within the context of Islamic law, and since God’s law is universally true and beneficial to all people, any state law or action contrary to God’s law would be harmful to the citizens, and displeasing to God. Many Muslims consider the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be rebellion against God’s law. There is a contemporary debate in Islam whether obedience to Islamic law is ultimately compatible with the Western secular pattern, which separates religion from civic life. However, some majority Muslim nations are secular, such as Turkey, Senegal, and Albania.
[/quote]
The Wiki’s power stems from properly referencing the information presented and the shear number of scrutinizing eyes.
What someone wrote makes it true when they have sources. In this case, there wasn’t no reference. Heck, nobody ever brought it up in Talk. Already taken care of, and thanks for pointing it out.
Well, well, well…now they’re not “cowards who don’t ask tough questions” anymore? And how can you say that “it would make little sense to expect the Islamic world to enjoy democracy” when you acknowledge that the door is open for discussion?
There is a debate in the Muslim community on a gazillion issues and there has always been and there always will be. That is at the essence of the religion as I already pointed.
I decline the offer. This is irrelevant to whether Islam has a problem with democracy or not.
I offer you an opportunity to produce a list of Jewish nations that offers legitimate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, universal suffrage, due process rights in law - all under the same government, guaranteed by a constitution or equivalent.
That is unfair. I know you guys believe in the American dream and that anybody can make it overnight, but you also kid yourselves. We are not equal from the start when it comes to making a buck anymore than countries have equal opportunities when it comes to democratizing themselves. What the myth doesn’t account for is that for every one that makes it to the top, countless others crash and burn badly.
Don’t expect a country that just liberated itself from colonialism to become a “free and modern” society in a couple of decades. It takes time.
A look at non-Muslim nations that just came out of colonialism shatters your argument into tiny pieces.
You were the one that argued how Islam had a problem with democracy because it grew itself by way of conquest. Pointing out that your country grew out of conquest and yet managed to build a democratic state is very relevant.
TB, I respect you, but don’t push it.
Here’s what you wrote in the first post “Islam grew itself by way of conquest, the same sin it apparently is victimized by;”
Then now you say “You can’t “victimize” a religion,”
Make up your mind mister!
Ok, they’re fighting. What’s it gotta do with Islam?
See above yourself. The Wiki was corrected.
As for freedom of religion, let me cite the core of Islam, the Quran.
“God does not enjoin you from befriending
those who do not fight you because of religion,
and do not evict you from your homes. You
may befriend them and be equitable towards
them. God loves the equitable. God enjoins
you only from befriending those who fight you
because of religion, evict you from your homes,
and band together with others to banish you.
You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend
them are the transgressors.” Quran 60:8-9
And how do you fit Islam in the equation? Do you think people are stupid or what?
Now you’re sounding like someone who’s never read the news in his entire life.
-
Indonesia, the world’s most populous majority Muslim country elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as president. And yes, she’s a woman. Something we’ve yet to see happen in the USA (God forbids it happens).
-
Benazir Bhutto, a woman, was elected twice as prime minister of Pakistan. Pakistan is a majority-Muslim country (the 2nd most populous actually).
-
Bangladesh, the third most populous majority-Muslim country, elected Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina as prime ministers. Yep, both are women!
-
Turkey, the fifth most populous majority-Muslim country, elected Tansu ÿiller as prime minister. Tansu is a pretty woman, as I’m sure you’ll notice in the picture above.
-
Morocco’s (a majority-Muslim country in case you didn’t know) leading Islamic fundamentalist political party is Al-Adl wal Ihsan. In fact, it’s so radical (in the sense “crazy of God”) that its leader was jailed for many years, kept under house arrest, and forbidden from speaking to people. Guess who took his place as voice of the movement? Yes, you guessed right. A charming woman that goes by the name of Nadia Yassine.
Undisputed? I’m gonna go with K.O.
Amen to that. I think my thenar and hypothenar have had enough workout for now.
[quote]lixy wrote:
- Shirin Ebadi
- Muhammad Ali of Egypt
- Tahir Abbas
- Khaled Abou Al-Fadl
- Alireza Alavitabar
- Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri
- Javed Ahmed Ghamdi
- Pervez Hoodbhoy
- Reza Aslan
- Xadir Diaye
- Mostafa Malekian
- Irshad Manji
- Raquel Evita Saraswati
- Mahmoud Taleghani
- Mahmoud Mohamed Taha
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali
- Mehdi Bazargan
- Luthfi Assyaukanie
- Ahmad Ghabel
- Ghulam Ahmed Pervez
- Syed Ahmed Khan
- Rashad Khalifa
- Muhammad Ali Jinnah
- Dr Shabbir Ahmed
- Mohsen Kadivar
- Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
- Edip Yuksel
- M. A. Muqtedar Khan
- Fazlur Rahman
- Mohammad Khatami
- Ziauddin Sardar
- Abdolkarim Soroush
- Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari
- Yousef Sanei
- Ali Shariati
- Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im
- Irfan Habib
- Bassam Tibi
- Amina Wadud
- Javed Ali User A Thinker
- Rashid Shaz
[/quote]
A bunch of Paki’s. Yousef Sanei is the only one I care about a little, because he interprets the Koran very literally. Well done Lixy, once again you have defended all-things-halal
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
To answer my own question, I would say Bangladesh is already there, [/quote]
twists mouth
They have fair and transparent elections. The grip of the military is tight, but it’s being challenged.
Overall, they’re doing well.
You slipped completely on that one. Egypt is under state of emergency imposed by a tyrant since 1981. There is virtually no way for the opposition to challenge him. His regime receives one of the biggest paycheck the US signs to foreign countries, second only to Israel. People are jailed and tortured for speaking up.
Almost? Almost none.
Iran has some great potential indeed. Khatami is been doing a steady job and reformists are alive and kicking.
Of course, if the West keeps isolating it, it’s only natural that it’ll go to waste. After all, when a foreign power threatens to bomb the hell out of you, the population reflexively rallies around their government.
I don’t know about that one. US forces won’t leave Irak in our lifetimes, and that makes me reticent to advance a judgment on its potential.
Morocco accomplished a lot these past few years in terms of civil rights. On religious freedom, they are on par with anyone else, but only in practice. On paper, it’s still quite restrictive. The king claims to derive his legitimacy from God. The previous one was a bloody tyrant who makes Saddam look like a charming person. He died in 1999, but his son is cool. It’s still an absolute monarchy and the political arena is completely locked, but at least he’s not killing people.
There’s an decisive election in a couple of weeks which is expected to be swept by the only solid Islamic party that’s not banned by the king. I am hopefully regarding the transparency and am sure those will start challenging the establishment. We might assist to a complete redefinition of the political landscape, if enough people turn out at the ballot. I’ll keep you posted.
I’ll say Indonesia. Giant steps are made in the right direction everyday.
Lebanon and “the occupied territories” are quite democratic already.
[quote]skor wrote:
Well, then Islam (as a religion/way of life/societal organization) is incompatible with democracy in a non “all-Muslim” society with freedom of religion. By definition, so to say.[/quote]
How you drew that conclusion is a mystery to me. I don’t see any “definition” anywhere.
In other news…
[i]One-third in U.S. think Bible is literal
WASHINGTON, May 30 (UPI) – A Gallup poll of U.S. adults found that one-third of respondents said they believe the Bible is literally true.[/i]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
In Islam there is a lot of time spent in group activities. When I lived in a Muslim community one thing I noticed was my neighbors spent a significant part of their day gathering at the mosque for their group prayer meeting. [/quote]
Don’t the Brits spend a significant part of their day gathering at the pub for their group thirst-quenching-dart-throwing meeting?
Well, how many hours does the average American spend in front of the telly per day - sometimes in group? Do you think that cuts out considerably on their time to do their independent thinking?
The time you spend sitting under a thinking tree is a personal choice. It’s got nothing to do with your religion, race or gender. Ask Vroom.
I’m gonna vote Pookie’s reply “post of the year”. All in favor, say aye.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
In Islam there is a lot of time spent in group activities. When I lived in a Muslim community one thing I noticed was my neighbors spent a significant part of their day gathering at the mosque for their group prayer meeting.
Don’t the Brits spend a significant part of their day gathering at the pub for their group thirst-quenching-dart-throwing meeting?
All that time spent gathering into a group for prayers doesn’t leave much time for independent thought. Instead it breeds a mentality of go along with the herd.
Well, how many hours does the average American spend in front of the telly per day - sometimes in group? Do you think that cuts out considerably on their time to do their independent thinking?
The time you spend sitting under a thinking tree is a personal choice. It’s got nothing to do with your religion, race or gender. Ask Vroom.
Haj is another group activity where everyone has to do it at the same time. At the end of the Haj you have the stoning ritual. Noone really gives any thought to it, because it is supposed to be “the devil” they are throwing stones at, but this is ritualized mob violence. Haj is the great religious experience of a lifetime for a muslim, that ends in a mob throwing stones and slitting the throats of sheep.
I’m gonna vote Pookie’s reply “post of the year”. All in favor, say aye.[/quote]
Are you really comparing drinking in a bar and watching TV with being conditioned by a religion to the point where folks are strapping bombs to their backs so they can die as martyrs because their imaginary friend says he’s giving them lots of virgins on their arrival?
To quote my man Eddie Murphy… “Really man? Really?”
Fightin’, I’m pretty sure you are familiar with self-fulfilling prophesies, right?
The easiest way to ensure that we end up with a large civilization sized conflict in the future is to buy into the fear and hatred.
It’s the easier path, unfortunately.
Russia and China are becoming chummy these days, while Russia has decided to start flying long range bombers again. Do you think this is a totally unilateral series of events or do you think it’s may be a signal or a reaction based on what they see with respect to US activities?
Exerting power makes others feel threatened and band together.
Buying into the fear and hatred all around us makes us feel threatened.
Threatened people rattle their sabres and from there we can just rachet up the tensions until we end up with war. It’s an easy process to follow. Keep an eye on who is doing what and you’ll see this in action around the globe all the time.
[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
lixy wrote:
- Shirin Ebadi . . . * Rashid Shaz
A bunch of Paki’s. Yousef Sanei is the only one I care about a little, because he interprets the Koran very literally. Well done Lixy, once again you have defended all-things-halal
[/quote]
Archie, care to elaborate on your above statement for those too lazy to look all those names up?