Sorry about starting two threads on this subject, but I wanted to approach it from a different angle here. We have a number of new members to OzPolitic (welcome Sam) who are Muslim, many of them 'born again' Australian or American Muslims. I'd like to hear their personal views on the apparent clash between Islam and democracy. Do you share the view that Islam opposes democracy? Do you share the goal of a theocratic, Islamic caliphate? If you lived in a state that was majority Muslim and also democratic (eg Turkey), would you support the dismantling of democracy? What about a state where Muslims are not the majority, but are nevertheless a powerful group? Or would you prefer to live in a democracy, even if you had a choice and it went against Islamic teachings?

Actually I would prefer a more direct form of democracy, but not at any cost:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#direct-democracy

I don't distinguish between the two forms of demcoracy in asking my question, but you are welcome to make that distinction in answering it.

Quote:


That is more what I was getting at. I understand Islam allows demcoracy, but removes the mandate usually ascribed to democracy by westerners. So yes, I do mean a democracy that allows Muslims to vote in laws that are against Islam.

Quote:


Freedom of speech is usually necessary for democracy to function properly. But that freedom need only extend to political issues for democracy to function. For example, even in the US freedom of speech is significantly restricted, at no cost to their democracy. Freedom of sexuality is not necessary for democracy to function. I'd prefer to keep it simple and just stick to democracy for the moment. Obviously this would involve allowing freedom of sexuality if the majority wanted it, but not allowing it if that's what the majority wanted.

Quote:


Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted to clarify.

You believe in direct democracy, ie. that form of government which encourages or requires citizens to decide, by sheer numbers what policies should/shouldn't be implemented. So if the majority of people want homosexuality or incest or prostitution legalised, then it's legalised. If the majority of the people want to ban the call to prayer from mosques, then it's banned, if the majority of the people want to ban the Qur'an then it's banned etc. Right? This is what you ultimately believe democracy is about?

Rather than just the people deciding which candidate wins an election and rules the country.

Quote:


I won't answer it, as it's clearly directed at the new Muslim members. You already know my view anyway I think.

I don't think the distinction needs to be made between option 2 that I specified and direct democracy, as they are just two different levels of the same thing. But option 1 which I specified is something completely different, as I've mentioned to you before, it's more correctly known as a republic, not a democracy.

Quote:


Really freedom of speech is a very relative term. For instance, in Islam, it's permissible to correct your leader, if he strays, and I'd consider that freeedom of speech, but blasphemy is not permitted, as neither is public slander, yet in the West they are mostly fine. Likewise, we see some people on here claiming that believing in and speaking in favour of Islam shouldn't be allowed, inidicating they don't think that speech should be that 'free''.

Quote:


I really can't see any country that has capital punishment for homosexuality and adultery being considered Democratic... can you?

You'll get a wide range of views in the muslim community from HT and such to the other end in the Sufis like Gulen.

A bit like how not all people in USA or Aus are totally 100% behind democracy

HT = Hizb ut-Tahrir (Islamic Liberation Party), an Islamic political party, whose sole goal is to re-establish the Caliphate.

Sufi = Islamic Mystics. Some modern day Sufis are often fairly apathetic, and don't bother themselves with political affairs. Although in the past, they were not like this. I guess Phillip is referring to the new-wave Sufis who have mixed Islam with Western philosophies and therefore would probably not be opposed to Democracy.

Don't know what Gulen is, perhaps a kind of Sufi order or something? Have to get Phillip to explain that one.

Quote:


There are a number of people who call themselves 'sufis' and have links with hinduism, but this is a later corruption of Sufi thought. Sufism is the English translation of the science of Tasawuf, which focuses on the purification of the heart. It is about worshipping Allah (swt) 'as though you see him'. Many can aim to be Sufis, but few achieve such a status. I am not equipped to adequately define or describe Sufism other than to say it is an established tradition that goes all the way back to the Prophet (sws) and is one of the most benificial means of perfecting ones character and faith.

Welcome to OzPolitic Rintrah.

I do not make a distinction between liberalism and socialism. You are welcome to do so in your answer. As far as I can tell, neither are characteristics of democracy itself. Rather they are the choices people make which can be reflected in government policy.

Quote:

Why thankyou
Quote:


I think there needs to be a distinction between the two, especially within 'democratic' systems. Because democracy has an emphasis upon 'majority rule' in a sense, liberalism can be seen as directly oppositional in that its emphasis is upon the rights of the individual above the majority. The two exist in liberal democracies because they are believed to exist in conflict and thus balance each other out and avoid tyranny. Which you place more emphasis on is important in that it gives us an understanding as to what is more important for you. I mean a liberalist emphasis is based upon limited and small government and the free market. While socialism has an inevitable emphasis on large government and regulation of the market. Each has different issues within an Islamic world view.

For example Islamic systems would be in agreement on certain things within Liberalism, for example the right to own property, however the Islamic system does not constitute an unregulated market.
Similarly the institution of Zakat is echoed in socialist welfare institutions. But Islamic institutions would be vastly different to the kind of homogenisation that is intended to occur within Socialist countries.

It is a complex question indeed, and thus i need to know in more detail your conception of what a democratic system consitutes in order to respond from an Islamic perspective (inherently flawed as it would be, as I do not claim to represent Islam).