Islam's Problem With Democracy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]vroom wrote:

I don’t think a persons inability to reverse their entire worldview after a few short discussions represents an unwillingness to have an intellectual exchange. [/quote]

I have no interest in reversing Lixy’s worldview - and I don’t expect him to change anything after a few short discussions.

What I do expect from someone touting the wonders of “intellectual exchange” is a basic, fair-minded level of competence - which Lixy does not seem to demonstrate.

But that has been the entire point of discussion - even without the West pissing off Arab countries for generations (if that even be true in the way Lixy characterizes it), there is an inherent problem in Islamic societies getting toward a liberal democracy. Take away Western aggravation, and you are left with some serious problems - which I have tried to outline in good faith.

What is productive is to meet the arguments on their face. When that doesn’t happen - and Lixy opts to ignore rational information presented to him when it doesn’t square with his ideology-driven conclusion - intellectual exchange grinds to a halt, for the reason I explained earlier: he no longer looks like someone interested in productive “dialogue”, he looks interested in making noise on behalf of his propaganda. And it’s not just me that runs into this problem with Lixy.

But I have not made an argument that “the US can do no right” - so such a viewpoint isn’t colliding with Lixy’s. And yet, Lixy is getting an independent criticism of Islam and Islamic society and he simply can’t handle it without getting defensive. It shows he really isn’t interested in “intellectual exchange” because he has no interest in considering the criticism. He wants “intellectual exchange” to be more like an “idea vacuum”, where he gets to unravel his theories on the world free of skepticism.

Fine with me, it happens - but it completely contradicts the “I’d love a good intellectual exchange” that he has pretended to endorse.

122

I don’t think that Islam is open to being reformed like Christianity was. As Lixy pointed out we only have the disciples accounts of Jesus’s life to go on. So Christians have been able to reinvent the religion using some basic fundamental guidelines like the ten commandments, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor but also love thy enemy. Because they have the leeway of not having things dictated and personally written down by Jesus.

Islam on the other hand is very much defined and detailed in the Koran. Which as the one and only true word of god leaves no room for change. The level of detail of how to live ones life that Mohammad went into is too involved. You would have to rewrite the Koran and that is not going to happen.

One of the problems with the Koran is Mohammad was bipolar. One day he could be giving a letter telling the faithful that a christian monastary in Egypt was under his protection the next he could be writing in the Koran that muslims who convert from Islam to Christianity should be killed.

The Koran’s ordering the killing of apostates is why the Muslims are looking for problems with all the other religions. If a Muslim who converts to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc., becomes a nonbeliever and deserves to die, it is only a logical extension to say that all Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc., are nonbelievers and therefore deserve to die. Which is exactly what AlQaeda has been saying all along.

The destruction of the Bimayan Buddha’s proves that American imperialism has nothing to do with this. Lets not forget that most of the Vietnamese are Buddhist and they certainly suffered from American imperialism. So destroying a Buddhist holysite as a blow against American imperialsm makes no sense. But desecrating Buddhist holysites and killing Buddhists for apostasy does. This is why in Thailand you see Muslims killing their Buddhist neighbors.

So Lixy when you dig up a passage from the Koran where Mohammad was in a good mood and said something nice, you are being disingenuous. Because he also wrote passages when he was in a bad mood and said to go kill people.

So no matter how much you reform Islam you can’t get away from the Koran and anyone who wants to get back to the fundamentals of the religion has to become a wahabi.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Fundamentalist
fundamentalism
One entry found for fundamentalism.

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

123

[quote]lixy wrote:
Seriously, I am a vocal critic of the abuses people try to portray as part of the Islamic message, and I have yet to receive a single threat. Here on the other hand…[/quote]

I think you would have to choose carefully what you argue against and how vocally you proclaim it. I doubt simply arguing against what you qualify as “abuses” would entail the same depth of going against the flow you enjoy around here.

Seriously, hop up on some radical Islam forums, wherever they might be, and start arguing against them.

124

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I have not made an argument that “the US can do no right” - so such a viewpoint isn’t colliding with Lixy’s. And yet, Lixy is getting an independent criticism of Islam and Islamic society and he simply can’t handle it without getting defensive. It shows he really isn’t interested in “intellectual exchange” because he has no interest in considering the criticism. He wants “intellectual exchange” to be more like an “idea vacuum”, where he gets to unravel his theories on the world free of skepticism.
[/quote]

Thunder, I wasn’t directing my examples directly at you. People here do at times represent a stance of “the US can do no wrong”. Lixy does encounter a lot of viewpoints here while talking to you and other people simultaneously.

Rest assured, a lot of us here get defensive under those conditions (multiple combatants) and it doesn’t preclude the desire to have an intellectual exchange. It’s also difficult to address everyones issues all at once. Also, again, without rejecting his own world view, he simply “must” reject some of the things we say as coming from a direction that doesn’t make sense to him (as we do the reverse).

There really is a fascinating little microcosm in action here!

125

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The Koran’s ordering the killing of apostates is why the Muslims are looking for problems with all the other religions. If a Muslim who converts to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc., becomes a nonbeliever and deserves to die, it is only a logical extension to say that all Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc., are nonbelievers and therefore deserve to die. Which is exactly what AlQaeda has been saying all along.

[/quote]

Yup. And until that sinks into our thick skulls, and we keep treating the people in the Middle East as basically good-hearted benevolent people (like Americans are in general), they’ll use that as a weapon against us.

The whole arabic ME should be quarantined. Let 'em kill each other.

126

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The destruction of the Bimayan Buddha’s proves that American imperialism has nothing to do with this. Lets not forget that most of the Vietnamese are Buddhist and they certainly suffered from American imperialism. So destroying a Buddhist holysite as a blow against American imperialsm makes no sense. But desecrating Buddhist holysites and killing Buddhists for apostasy does. This is why in Thailand you see Muslims killing their Buddhist neighbors.[/quote]

Whoever said that any of those acts were against “American imperialism”?

I brought up colonialism to try and explain why most Muslim-majority countries suffer from a lack of democratic institutions. That’s it.

I’ll tell you who got together to destroy those Bamyan Buddhas: The same sons of bitches I’ve always been condemning. That is, the Saudis, Pakistanis, and Talibans. If only the West would quit intervening there and giving the fundamentalist Saudi and Pakistani bastards weapons, maybe the “normal folks” could have a chance of overthrowing the rascals.

If you wanna do something useful, quit harassing the seculars and try putting a leash on the abuses of those rascals that you call “friendly regimes”.

127

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’ll tell you who got together to destroy those Bamyan Buddhas: The same sons of bitches I’ve always been condemning. That is, the Saudis, Pakistanis, and Talibans. If only the West would quit intervening there and giving the fundamentalist Saudi and Pakistani bastards weapons, maybe the “normal folks” could have a chance of overthrowing the rascals.
[/quote]

You sound a lot like UBL. Saw a documentary on him last night, and he was saying the very same thing. In fact, the idea was presented that he initiated the first WTC attack in retaliation for the US involvement in getting Iraq out of Kuwait.

It’s always someone else’s fault.

128

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I really don’t know where Lixy came from, but based on his assumptions of who is doing wrong, it seems that most of his news, or peer based discussions of news, originated in the Arabic world. However, when people here start showing a wider willingness to admit the US actions have been pissing off the Arabic world for generations, perhaps we’ll get a chance to see the Arabic world realize that it also can’t simply blame the US for everything.

But that has been the entire point of discussion - even without the West pissing off Arab countries for generations (if that even be true in the way Lixy characterizes it), there is an inherent problem in Islamic societies getting toward a liberal democracy. Take away Western aggravation, and you are left with some serious problems - which I have tried to outline in good faith.

[/quote]

I think this is the whole point- this thread, and the original posting, was not about ISlam’s problems with America or Europe- it was was about Islam’s inherent problem with Democracy.

This is not anything to do with us, it has to do with their own unwillingness to continue letting religion be inseperable from their government.

129

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
EDIT: I was going to change my post to say, “The more radical form of Islam”, but when those cartoons came out and the riots started, those folks were not all fundamentalists. So I am keeping it the way it is.

Islam’s policies regarding freedom of speech have really turned my view on the entire religion. I went from more of a pacifist in regards to them, to far more worrisome that this line of thinking must not be allowed to spread.

For your information, the cartoons’ first reproduction - besides the originals in the Jylland-posten - were in Muslim-majority countries. People found it offensive, but it stopped right there. Three or four weeks after, some wackos saw it as a political opportunity and used it to fuel their hatred movements. It worked perfectly well as illustrated by what we’ve seen occur around the world.

Here’s what they don’t tell you: When French and British papers were censoring papers that relayed the cartoons, Muslims in charge of papers in Muslim-majority countries were publishing them to show that ,despite their disapproval, freedom of speech should prevail and that the barbarians torching flags in the streets do not represent Islam. An angry mob is, 9 times out of 10, composed of uneducated folks that were told what to believe by some guru.[/quote]

I hope that is the case. But what I saw was mass demonstrations and death threats. And there were enough wackos that they were massive. I would like to believe what you are saying is true, but it does not seem to be the case.

Until shit like that doesn’t happen, I can’t believe that greater Islam is really in favor of free speech.

130

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You sound a lot like UBL. Saw a documentary on him last night, and he was saying the very same thing. In fact, the idea was presented that he initiated the first WTC attack in retaliation for the US involvement in getting Iraq out of Kuwait.

It’s always someone else’s fault. [/quote]

You bet your sweet ass it’s someone’s fault.

It’s the Saudis, Pakistanis, and Afghans who are making the billion Muslims look bad.

I never blamed the destruction of the Buddhas on anyone but those three. I just said that if you didn’t give the rascals weapons, maybe the “people” could stand a chance in rising up against them.

131

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I hope that is the case. But what I saw was mass demonstrations and death threats. And there were enough wackos that they were massive. I would like to believe what you are saying is true, but it does not seem to be the case.

Until shit like that doesn’t happen, I can’t believe that greater Islam is really in favor of free speech. [/quote]

I’m willing to bet that the cartoons were just the last straw. I mean, Muhammad’s been caricatured before. Did you ever hear anyone make death threats to Parker or Stone?

There was a context in which the cartoons came out. Israel had just blasted Lebanon making countless dead and millions of refugees. The infrastructure of the entire country’s been destroyed while the US and co. have basically been applauding.

That may not represent much to you, but your cluster bombs killing children were seen as an attack on “Islam”. I’ll tell you, ever since Iraq was invaded, things aren’t the same anymore in Muslim-majority countries. A good portion of the population has been radicalized.

Is it your fault that they issued death threats for the cartoons? No. But when you see it from the other side, it sure looks like some kind of globalized attempt to hurt Islam (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and all the other horrors didn’t help much either).

There is a sentiment of being screwed and that’s what fueled most of the protests. I don’t think there would have been a similar response to the Jylland-posten drawings had it not been for the surrounding context.

132

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You sound a lot like UBL. Saw a documentary on him last night, and he was saying the very same thing. In fact, the idea was presented that he initiated the first WTC attack in retaliation for the US involvement in getting Iraq out of Kuwait.

It’s always someone else’s fault.

You bet your sweet ass it’s someone’s fault.

It’s the Saudis, Pakistanis, and Afghans who are making the billion Muslims look bad.

I never blamed the destruction of the Buddhas on anyone but those three. I just said that if you didn’t give the rascals weapons, maybe the “people” could stand a chance in rising up against them.[/quote]

It’s not someone else’s fault. It’s everyone in the region that either:

a.) doesn’t care and lets it happen.

b.) wants it to happen.

Take some responsibility for the situation. There are more than enough weapons in the area to mount a very nice rebellion. But it has never happened. There is far too much time spent on burning US flags, and posturing for the cameras. Too much anger and not enough conviction.

I see you never denied your connection with UBL. Very telling. He is a Saudi as I am sure you know.

Regardless of you posturing on here - I refuse to believe that 1 billion armed Arabs are the perpetual victim you so badly want them to be.

133

[quote]lixy wrote:
skor wrote:
I haven’t read Quran myself, but it seems to have a lot of contradicting directives. If it was said there that an apostate has to be killed, how would it be different? That is a word of G-d and hence it’s the way life should be lived. What, in the end, do you use to judge the “morality” of action? An obscure book written long time ago that can be interpreted millions ways or your own thinking? What is written in Quran is not as relevant as the actions of people who follow it.

Oh no?

Does anything in the US encourages shooting other people in the belly? How often does it occur everyday? Should I conclude that what’s written in your books is not as relevant as the actions of people who follow it?[/quote]

Few people in the US shoot each other in the name of constitution and nobody excuses those actions. But I do think there is something about US culture that is responsible for high homocide rate and it needs to be changed (gun control laws, etc)

The main question is “What is Islam?” and how come, given the nature of Quran, it has so many contradictory passages and allows for multiple interpretations? What do YOU use to pick a “right” interpretation?

134

An interesting idea:
"The complacent liberalism and revolutionary messianism we�??ve encountered are not the only theological options. There is another kind of transformation possible in biblical faiths, and that is the renewal of traditional political theology from within.

If liberalizers are apologists for religion at the court of modern life, renovators stand firmly within their faith and reinterpret political theology so believers can adapt without feeling themselves to be apostates.

Luther and Calvin were renovators in this sense, not liberalizers. They called Christians back to the fundamentals of their faith, but in a way that made it easier, not harder, to enjoy the fruits of temporal existence.

They found theological reasons to reject the ideal of celibacy, and its frequent violation by priests, and thus returned the clergy to ordinary family life. They then found theological reasons to reject otherworldly monasticism and the all-too-worldly imperialism of Rome, offering biblical reasons that Christians should be loyal citizens of the state they live in.

And they did this, not by speaking the apologetic language of toleration and progress, but by rewriting the language of Christian political theology and demanding that Christians be faithful to it.

Today, a few voices are calling for just this kind of renewal of Islamic political theology. Some, like Khaled Abou El Fadl, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, challenge the authority of today�??s puritans, who make categorical judgments based on a literal reading of scattered Koranic verses.

In Abou El Fadl�??s view, traditional Islamic law can still be applied to present-day situations because it brings a subtle interpretation of the whole text to bear on particular problems in varied circumstances.

Others, like the Swiss-born cleric and professor Tariq Ramadan, are public figures whose writings show Western Muslims that their political theology, properly interpreted, offers guidance for living with confidence in their faith and gaining acceptance in what he calls an alien �??abode.�??

To read their works is to be reminded what a risky venture renewal is. It can invite believers to participate more fully and wisely in the political present, as the Protestant Reformation eventually did; it can also foster dreams of returning to a more primitive faith, through violence if necessary, as happened in the Wars of Religion."

135

[quote]rainjack wrote:
There are more than enough weapons in the area to mount a very nice rebellion. [/quote]

No. All the weapons are in the hands of the dictators.

You, Hedo, and HH are really REALLY funny.

There aren’t 1 billion Arabs. In the best case 250 millions.

I’m not saying they’re perpetual victims. There was a window of opportunity (well before I was born) where they could have changed the situation. Trouble is that most of them didn’t even know how to read at the time. Had they set aside their pity differences and united, it could have been a lot better today. But they didn’t. The leadership gave in to luxury, corruption and all that. The people were barely trying to get by. Decades later, not much has changed.

Could they have changed things if the West didn’t intervene? I believe so. Nobody could have been able to challenge the mighty UK/US/France in the 60’s. They didn’t try hard enough in my opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact that you screwed them up. Clear?

136

[quote]skor wrote:
Few people in the US shoot each other in the name of constitution and nobody excuses those actions. [/quote]

In the name of constitution? I’m not following. You certainly have heard of “hate crimes” in the US before.

Let’s not forget the 7 millions behind bars.

My brains. The Quran is very clear on that.

137

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You sound a lot like UBL. Saw a documentary on him last night, and he was saying the very same thing. In fact, the idea was presented that he initiated the first WTC attack in retaliation for the US involvement in getting Iraq out of Kuwait.

It’s always someone else’s fault.

You bet your sweet ass it’s someone’s fault.

It’s the Saudis, Pakistanis, and Afghans who are making the billion Muslims look bad.

I never blamed the destruction of the Buddhas on anyone but those three. I just said that if you didn’t give the rascals weapons, maybe the “people” could stand a chance in rising up against them.

It’s not someone else’s fault. It’s everyone in the region that either:

a.) doesn’t care and lets it happen.

b.) wants it to happen.

Take some responsibility for the situation. There are more than enough weapons in the area to mount a very nice rebellion. But it has never happened. There is far too much time spent on burning US flags, and posturing for the cameras. Too much anger and not enough conviction.

I see you never denied your connection with UBL. Very telling. He is a Saudi as I am sure you know.

Regardless of you posturing on here - I refuse to believe that 1 billion armed Arabs are the perpetual victim you so badly want them to be. [/quote]

I have to agree.

If they have proven ONE thing over and over again it is that they are badass Mofos how know how to stage a decent insurgency or a guerilla war.

I doubt that the House of Saud would survive 6 months of that shit.

138

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
There are more than enough weapons in the area to mount a very nice rebellion.

No. All the weapons are in the hands of the dictators.

[/quote]

SO when did the terrorist organizations become dictators?

If they wanted to they could.

Your excuse making for the blissfully ignorant and hate-filled fist pumpers is running very thin.

There is plenty of money and weapons to go around if there was the conviction. Face it - the ME is full of lazy uneducated oafs that haven’t the intestinal fortitude to take a stand for themselves.

I’m sure if there ws an all out war on Israel - you would not have a bit of trouble finding an armed Arab.

It is too convenient to blame everyone but yourself. Sadly - it does not play well here.

139

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The image of the dude who was whipped for having a Bible in his car is disturbing to say the least. Do all Muslims, when they are in the majority, do shit like this?

If so, burn the nest…[/quote]

If you liked that, check out some videos on line of people getting stoned to death. I mean buried up to their waist and pelted with large stones. Gruesome to say the least!

140

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The destruction of the Bimayan Buddha’s proves that American imperialism has nothing to do with this. Lets not forget that most of the Vietnamese are Buddhist and they certainly suffered from American imperialism. So destroying a Buddhist holysite as a blow against American imperialsm makes no sense. But desecrating Buddhist holysites and killing Buddhists for apostasy does. This is why in Thailand you see Muslims killing their Buddhist neighbors.

So Lixy when you dig up a passage from the Koran where Mohammad was in a good mood and said something nice, you are being disingenuous. Because he also wrote passages when he was in a bad mood and said to go kill people.
[/quote]

They didn’t blow up the statues to strike at American imperialism. They blew up the statues because Muslims are against the worship of idols. There was a leader around the eleventh century who lived in what we call Pakistan. This guy was nick-named the Idol Smasher, because that was what he did best, he raided parts of India and smashed every idol he could get his hands on. Things haven’t changed in all of those years and the Taliban carried on his work and destroyed those ancient statues.

You could say that the Taliban was an extremist group which took the Koran far too literal, but where did they get these radical ideas? Not out of the air, but from the same place as the Idol Smasher centuries ago.