Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by mima, Nov 27, 2006.
Would any rational man consider military action as a way to establish democracy in the Moslem world?
That's how most democracies have been established.
So you are saying that President Bush is irrational. Is that correct? If it is, you need to read how to better launch attacks at him. There are several posters on here that are expert.
Not exactly. Most democricies have risen up due to armed rebellion against tyranny by the people that want democracy. That certainly hasn't happened in Afghanastan or Iraq. these people don't know anything about democracy nor do they care. They just want their everyday lives to get better.
Are you looking for a response to a man's rationality? Military action? Democracy? Muslims? Looks like a scatter gun question with a hidden agenda.
Probably not, because democracy is largely considered evil in Islam in that it puts power of rule in man's hands where it belongs only in Allah's.
Not even that, I venture to say. They just want a life where they can pray five times a day facing to where they think East is, beat up their women, and teach their children to hate infidels. They don't really have a clue what democracy is. Reminds me of monkeys in the forest who haven't yet seen what a gun does.
Point a gun at it close range, and it'll stick its finger into the barrel hole.
Originally Posted by carpro
That's how most democracies have been established.
Most democracies have been established through force of arms.
It seems to me the people of Iraq don't want democracy - they want Sharia Law which is diametrically opposed to democracy. An Islamic State (which is what we set up over there) is diametrically opposed to democracy. There will not be a truly democratic Iraq no matter how many Coalition troops are there or are not there. Civil war and vying for ultimate rule between Shia and Sunni is going to be the outcome no matter what the West tries to do. It would have been helpful & saved many American lives if Bush & the other leaders would have understood this before going into Iraq to begin with. Sharia Law and freedom cannot coexist.
How is Shari'ia diametrically opposed to democracy if the people choose it by voting for it?
Islamic law divides criminal acts into three categories:
(i) Hudud (also known as "Had") (crimes against Allah); these offences are similar to the ten commandments of the Jewish-Christian tradition, and include theft, adultery, defamation, highway robbery, use of alcohol, apostasy, and rebellion. The punishments for these offences are specified in the Koran and Sunna, and include the amputation of hands and feet of thieves, the stoning of adulterous Moslems to death, and 80 lashes for public drunkards and defamers.
(ii) Quesas (crimes against the person): these crimes include varying degrees of murder and assault. Punishment includes the family of the victim retaliating with a "death-blow" against a wilful murderer. The victim however can also waive punishment or ask for blood money.
(iii) Ta'azir, or penalties not fixed by the Koran or Sunna, include embezzlement, sodomy and perjury. These offences are considered to threaten one of the five essential guarantees of Islam: to practice religion, to develop the mind, to procreate, personal security, and the possession of property and wealth. The Islamic judge has the power to use his or her discretionary judgement when determining punishment, but is restricted to the Koranic range of accepted punishments, which includes reprimand, threats, boycott, public disclosure, fines, imprisonment, flogging and the death penalty for such crimes as sodomy or espionage.
In some Islamic states Ta'azir crimes are set by the Parliament. Each state is free to establish its own criminal code and there is a great disparity in the punishments for some of these crimes.
One of the main conceptions of democracy is equality. Under Sharia Law, women are not equal and do not have equal rights, for one thing.
From everything I've read , being a female muslim would not be the thing to be.
Should have never been the objective to start with though if successful it would probably do a great deal to support peace.
The only reason the military should be deployed is to defend the US... I believe the invasion was justified on that and that alone based on the info the leadership had at the time.
The only thing we should insist on now is a stable country that is at worst benign to the US.
It ends democracy by establishment of a rigid, entrenched theocracy.
A personal, intrusive question out of curiousity regarding your support -- do you choose to live under Shari'ia? If the question is offensive, please ignore it.
I remember years ago doing some research on John Locke, and if I recall he was a progressive thinker, but he did not support the idea of democracy-- which is rule by the people-- based on the simple fact that majorities of people are just not smart enough, fair enough, rational enough to put into the force of law what most want.
A republic and a representative democracy are essentially the same thing. If we had a true democracy, we would all vote on bills by the thousands concerning taxes, immigration, defense, education, and so many other subjects. So a republic-- where 'officials' are elected to vote on bills at the appropriate levels of government, and with the means of research and recommendations-- is less tedious, if less democratic in its strictest sense.
But as to democracy in Muslim countries, all this comes down to the question: are elected governments responsbile to people who elect them, to do their bidding by majorities, or at least perceived majorities?... or are such governments responsible to outside powers that put them into power? In other terms, if they want a repressive regime that governs largely by sharia law, is that the rest of the world's business, and if not, what do the rest of the world do? Snub them? Make the U.N. a true world government? Keep toppling regimes until they empower one that we like, even if they want to destroy?
In Iraq, we just exchanged one evil for another evil. In the end, which one will have the highest body count? The dictatorship or the "democracy" under islamic law?