Islam and Democracy

[MilesTogo]

I think majority in Pakistan don't want sharia otherwise there is nothing stopping them...

 

[qsaark]

Islam and democracy are 180 degrees to each other.

Maybe thats why the Muslim khalifa is "selected" and not "elected" like pope.

Pope is 'elected'? elected by whom? Common Christians? Who can become a Pope? Can any Tom, Dick and Harry be 'elected' as a Pope only because he is Christian? What is your understanding of the 'Hierarchy of the Catholic Church'? Mud slinging is OK, but you must have at least some information about what you are talking.

Post reported.

What if the majority is intolerant to minority and wants them all converted?

That was exactly the reason behind the partition of Indian subcontinent. Remember 'Shudhi' movement?

 

[Naradmuni]

Duplicate Post

 

[Naradmuni]

Pope is 'elected'? elected by whom? Common Christians? Who can become a Pope? Can any Tom, Dick and Harry be 'elected' as a Pope only because he is Christian? What is your understanding of the 'Hierarchy of the Catholic Church'? Mud slinging is OK, but you must have at least some information about what you are talking.

Post reported.

That was exactly the reason behind the partition of Indian subcontinent. Remember 'Shudhi' movement?

'Shudhi' movement??

What the F is that? Well, for a moment I thought it could be some kind of bomb shell argument that may really deserve thanks from the Mods and the TTs. But sadly, it is nothing more than a big .

Following is what wiki says about so called "shuddhi movement" and it turns out that its nothing a controversial stuff.

"Shuddhi had a social reform agenda behind its belligerent rationale and was aimed at abolishing the practise of untouchability by converting outcasts from other religions to Hinduism and integrating them into the mainstream community by elevating their position, and instilling self-confidence and self-determination in them"


Firstly, whats wrong about this movement and secondly I dont seem to understand your obsession with this crap movement which no one had ever heard of before. Bottom line is that inspite of that there are more than 20 % of Indian population is still muslim. Do I need to mention the ever depleting percentage of Hindus in Pakistan? So who is and who is not intolerant with regards to minorities, I would like to stop short of concluding anything.

Please prove me wrong that democracy does not exist in the mechanism of appointing a new pope, before putting my intellect and reasoning at question. On the other hand, Is there any similar provision in Islam for electing supreme religious authority?

"Selecting a new pope: The Election Process"

Bottom line of my argument is :
Democracy and Islam are incompatible.

 

[qsaark]

Your opening remarks are reflecting the shallowness of your understanding of the matter at hand; no wonder you failed to find a reason why the post was thanked by a TT and a Mod.

A. You tried to compare the 'selection' of Khalifa with the 'election' of Pope. This comparison is not valid because:

1. 'Khalifa' is not the supreme religious figure or authority as the 'Catholic Pope'.

2. 'Pope' is not the ruling figure as the 'Khalifa'.

3. There is no equivalent of 'Pope' in Sunni Islam because there is no 'clergical heirarchy' in Sunni Islam comparable to that of Catholic Church hierarchy. There is sort of a similar system exists in Shia Clergy where 'Ayatollah Uzma' is somewhat comparable to the 'Catholic Pope' but not entirely because at present there are some fifty (50) or so 'Ayatollah Uzma' alive so at best, they are comparable with the Catholic 'Cardinals'. The 'Ayatollah Uzma' are not nominated by any religious body, but acquire this rank through their scholarly work published in their Juristic books (theses) in which they address the vast majority of daily Muslim affairs in the light of religion. The book is called Resalah, which is usually a reinvention of the book Al-Urwatu l-Wuthqah.

4. What you call the 'election' of the Pope is not an 'election' as the Pope is not 'elected' by the votes of the common Christians but from the votes of the 'College of Cardinals'. The College of Cardinals is composed of Cardinals usually of the rank of Bishop. These Cardinals are 'appointed' by the Pope, not 'elected' by the people. So the body, the College of Cardinals by itself is not an 'elected' body. So if this is an 'election', it is quite limited sort of an election as neither the Pope nor the College of Cardinals is elected by the common Christian hence it is a Departmental/Institutional election at best.

B. Regarding the Shuddhi Movement: It was indeed a big deal back in its heydays. You might want to go to the Public Library and read the news papers of that time or the books written by the reputable historians. Extracting the information from 'editable' Wiki is not the best option and holds little if any importance as a reference (sad to see that even after 457 posts in the forum, you are still presenting 'Wiki' as a reference).

And bottom line is, Democracy (the one prevalent today) and the three monotheistic religions that happen to have their respective books of laws (Torah, Bible, and Quran) are only compatible so much. Any law that goes against the laws of God, mentioned in the three testaments is not acceptable. Singling out Islam and slinging mud on one religion is nothing but a reflection of poverty of knowledge.

 

[Naradmuni]

Your Points A1 A2 A3 A4 suggest that there are at least signs of a democratic mechanism in managing religious affairs of other monotheistic religions, except Islam. This is exactly my point. I am not trying to portray a comparison between Khalifa (ayatulla or whatever) with pope. So essentially, given their tolerance with democratic fundamentalism as evident in your argument of Institutionalised democracy in Catholicism, we do not see armed catholic extremists commited to topple elected governments and override democratic institutions and judiciary with their undemocratic but religious version of sharia (or whatever analogous).

Regarding your point B, What ever amount of past mishappenings to Muslims in India, they are still thriving in India and constitute a major percentage of population. So your argument of some veiled movement somewhere, sometime back by someone, does not hold relevance today. What is relevant is that today Minoroty polulation is depleting alarmingly in pakistan unlike India. I would again just stop short of calling it a manifestation of religious intolerance.

Finally, almost all of the muslim population of the subcontinent is a direct result of a forceful and atrocious "mega shuddhi movement" conducted by aurangzeb, but I would not go into that as it is offtopic in this thread. As far as your ill obsession with wiki is concerned, your argument seems very lame as there are many historical references to books and journals of eminent historians, along with the article. You want me to read some of the "uneditable" stuffs of your favourate authors, then sorry, I am not interested in doing that.

My conclusion would be that Islam does not show encouraging signs of impetus and momentum towards democracy by itself and often contradicts democracy and complicates things while trying to keep in context, sharia and other forms of governance.

 

[qsaark]

Your Points A1 A2 A3 A4 suggest that there are at least signs of a democratic mechanism in managing religious affairs of other monotheistic religions, except Islam.

Catholic denomination represents only the half of the Christan world; what about rest of the half? Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Nontrinitarians, and Nestorians? What about the Judaism?

we do not see armed catholic extremists commited to topple elected governments and override democratic institutions and judiciary with their undemocratic but religious version of sharia (or whatever analogous).

Where in the world extremist Islamic clergymen topple elected governments and override democratic institutions and judiciary with their undemocratic but religious version of sharia (or whatever analogous)?

Regarding your point B, What ever amount of past mishappenings to Muslims in India, they are still thriving in India and constitute a major percentage of population.

You have some problem reading simple English? Was I not talking about Indian partition, an historical event? Where did I try to relate that infamous movement with the present of India?

Finally, almost all of the muslim population of the subcontinent is a direct result of a forceful and atrocious "mega shuddhi movement" conducted by aurangzeb, but I would not go into that as it is offtopic in this thread.

Good for you if you dont go into it; almost all of the Muslim population of the subcontinent is actually a result of inhumane Hindu caste system. By converting to Islam and to Christianity or other non-caste religions, they found some respect that not was possible otherwise. Forget about Auragnzeb, the father of Indian constitution, B.R. Ambedkar got himself (along with thousands of his followers) converted to Buddhism only because he was fed-up of the way he was treated being a 'shooder' even after so many of his achievements.

You want me to read some of the "uneditable" stuffs of your favourate authors, then sorry, I am not interested in doing that.

You need to take that pain if you want people to take you seriously.

My conclusion would be that Islam does not show encouraging signs of impetus and momentum towards democracy by itself and often contradicts democracy and complicates things while trying to keep in context, sharia and other forms of governance.

You conclusion is based on a single out of several major denominations of only one religion. Your comparison was already invalid for the reasons I gave in my last post; Basing conclusion on such incomplete and out of the context 'research' may convince you, but not the rest of us.

 

[qsaark]

Given the fact that the thread is specific to islam, I dont give a tiny ***'s a$$ to whether these religions(including catholicism or hinduism) are compatible with democracy or not.

Given the fact that the thread is specific to Islam, why you brought Catholic Pope into this? Why you started talking about other monotheistic religions? These are your words not mine:

“Maybe thats why the Muslim khalifa is "selected" and not "elected" like pope”.

“Please prove me wrong that democracy does not exist in the mechanism of appointing a new pope, before putting my intellect and reasoning at question. On the other hand, Is there any similar provision in Islam for electing supreme religious authority?

"Selecting a new pope: The Election Process"”

“Your Points A1 A2 A3 A4 suggest that there are at least signs of a democratic mechanism in managing religious affairs of other monotheistic religions, except Islam.”

“So essentially, given their tolerance with democratic fundamentalism as evident in your argument of Institutionalised democracy in Catholicism…”

Finally mind your language; words like “a tiny ***'s a$$” are adding up no weigh to your arguments (if any).

 

[TaimiKhan]

Qsaark Sir, you should by now realize that arguing is just like with members who come with an agenda to bash Islam or Pakistan, not for understanding things being discussed.

So utilize your energy where it will matter.