Jump to content

Talk:Islam and democracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Islamic democracy)

Lets cut it clear

[edit]

Democracy = (the will of the people.) Islamic Law "Shari'ah" = (the will of the Almighty Allah and the rights of the people.)

Big difference guys, if you think about it nicely Democracy is a Distorted Copy of Shari'ah Law, this is a fact when we go and have a look through our history books. Shari'ah Law is as free and fare as it can be, Law is Law it has it's freedoms and it's limits. If we compare the two systems Shari'ah is a complete system of law and therefore does not need or have any adjustment or ammendments to be made to it where as with the democratic system it constantly changes and every democratic country changes it to suit their own liking what is law in one place is not law in another. Shari'ah Law never changes so when we talk about Islamic Democracy we are talking about Shari'ah Law the official Muslim Law. Do better research guys seriously some of you don't make sense. Islaam is an investigative religion it is only based on logical evidence, if you study religion and politics and start to view things more openly without a closed mind you actually find historical gold. Thanks for your views there are some good points made here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.106 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy is a distorted copy of sharia law? That is a joke right? Democracy predates sharia by more than a millenium. I don't know to which history book you are referring, but it certainly isn't a history book with actual history in it. Sharia is as "free and fare[sic] as it can be? I guess that is true if you work from the belief that Islam is intolerant and backward, which it clearly is. If you accept the fact that Islam will never treat women, homosexuals, non-Muslims, essentially anyone who is not a heterosexual Muslim man, any better than second class citizens, then yes, I suppose sharia is as "fare" as it could be. And if you labor under the assumption that sharia will always proscribe the free practice of non-Muslim religions, and will continue to call for the execution of apostates and the taxing and subjugation of non-Muslims, then yes I suppose it will always be as "free" as it is now as well. Islam is only based on logical evidence? The phrase logical evidence doesn't belong in a sentence describing any religion, and that is doubly true of Islam. And calls for openness are pretty hilarious coming from an adherent of the most intolerant ideology of the past 14 centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@74.141.154.75 can you actually have a deeper understanding of how the Sharia law works, please? It isn't as simple as you think it is. 

GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this article, and what to be discussed

[edit]

As I look at this article, it seems that it's very unclear what the issue to be discussed/described is. When we talk about the relationship between Islam and democracy, there are two separate questions being conflated (thus the confusion and argument about the page).

The first question is a matter of doctrine/philosophy. Is Islam compatible with the tenets of liberal democracy? It's not as though there's a definitive, timeless answer to this question. The issue seems to be to define the positions/stances of the various interested parties--different Islamic movements, major theologians and religious leaders, Western writers in the Orientalist tradition, Western writers in other traditions.

The second question is an empirical one. Is there a correlation between Islamic beliefs and support (or rejection) of democratic values? A relationship between Islamic piety and a particular vision of good government? Or, on the aggregate level, is there a causal relationship between a country having a large historically Muslim population and its achieved level of democracy? There is a very active academic research agenda on these questions in political science and sociology using a wide range of data.

These issues must be dealt with separately. Philosophical/Theological claims don't tell us anything at all about the second set of questions--only data collected through observation can. I'll try to find time to come in and do this myself, but I think the current organization of the article puts all the weight on the first set of questions, and makes it seem like there is an obvious, indisputable link between the assertions of religious or government officials and political outcomes, which may be (but isn't necessarily) true. 66.191.124.53 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)h[reply]

I agree with these points. I've added a table which deals with the second question (correlation of democracy/islamic beliefs), and also shows which states are Islamic states, state religion or neither. I think this also helps to juxtapose western ideas of democracy with non-western ideas, and clarify Islamic republic v Islamic state v majority muslim state. I've linked to this from List of Muslim majority countries, Islam and secularism, and democracy in the middle east. Halon8 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Idea

[edit]

Interesting idea, but too one sided, and as said on the deletion page, an essay. The article could explore Islamo-democratic regimes such as Turkey, but doesn't really do so.

p.s. I have tried editing this article into something respectable. The user Livajo (?) pointed out a copyright violation. I have appended a list of Islamic democracies.

[edit]

http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/democracy-vs-our-religion/

Al-Faarooq the current head and Rep of the UMN challenges the Democratic System VS Shariah and wants to take the matter up in a court of law on the Intl Level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.106 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VFD discussion

[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamic Democracy

[edit]

Below text moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems listing from December 12:


Friction between western democracies and Islam

[edit]

I've removed this section twice now. I don't think it's relevant to this article, given the clear definition on its scope with which it starts. I think the discussion is worth an article, but it needs to be created and linked from elsewhere, not from this page. --G Rutter 14:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? (roll) I think it is perfectly relevant, which is why I included it. Otherwise it's going to have some godawful long title like "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_between_western_democracies_and_Islam_in_a_political_context" ! If it was elsewhere, it would probably end up becoming something quite different, and a target for both redneck American fundamentalists and middle eastern Islamic fundamentalists at the same time... Come to think of it, why did you cut that part out, but leave the piece about the former Soviet Union in?
I left the Soviet section in as it's a start to discussing the democratization (or not) of predominately Muslim countries in central Asia. Your section is on Muslims living in the West and they're treated by those countries, which is outside the scope of this article. How about "Islam and Western democracies" or something like that? You could link to it from the Democracy article for at start. Actually, there's probably two articles there- one on the French ban (there's a one sentence mention in the Democracy article) and one on the relations between Islam and the West - the Shabina Begum case in the UK would make an interesting discussion. Let me know when you create them and I'll try and help. --G Rutter 18:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that this section should be restored. Islam and Western Democracies have had a long interaction, and this has affected Islamic perception of democracy. European imperialism in North Africa, and current American occupation and involvement in large sections of the middle east also affects this. Turkey's possible future into the EU, is also involvement with western democracies, and will dictate the fate of a large region. MacRusgail 16:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries

[edit]

Turkey

[edit]

"The Turkish government supports mosques, and requires religious instruction for all students. " By reading this and the previous sentence I get the impression that Turkey has always supported religious education which is incorrect. Religious education was injected into Turkish education by the 1980 military junta.

The more I look at this article the clearer it becomes that this article is beyond recovery and should be deleted. It is fundamentally flawed. What is Islamic Democracy? First paragraph talks about types of democracies. But following the same rule one can arrive at a definitions like Christian Democracy, Buddhist Democracy. But I have not seen a section with these names.

Germany

[edit]

Hi, I put back Germany as a democratic country with a significant Muslim minority. I think it depends what you call "significant" of course, but according to Wikipedia's article, "Approximately 3.7 million Muslims (mostly of Turkish descent) live in Germany." Germany has a population of "82,531,700" according to the same article. They're certainly one of the more visible minorities there. There's not many of them in rural areas, but Berlin has a large Muslim population I think. See what you think...

- R. Bell

  • personally I think it's a significant minority, but you only need one example of a European country. Kappa 08:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The French and German governments seem to have taken very different approaches towards Muslims, and Muslim immigrants. France has clamped down on the burqa, but Germany seems to be much more open.

Why isn't Iran in the list of countries for Islamic democracies?

[edit]

Just an interesting question that I had, for whoever that wants to answer it. Why isn't the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran considered a democracy according to your list??? Is it because your definition of democracy differs from what the Islamic republic offers? If yes I would love to know what aspects of it conflict with democracy in your opinion, since there are elections, a parliament, a popularly elected president, and ...

M.T

I've now added Iran to the list- you could have added it yourself you know. I didn't write the list, so I don't know why Iran wasn't included, but it could have been a mistake. Of course the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts do wield undemocratic influence over the electoral process, etc but given the other countries on the list I don't think that Iran should necessarily be excluded. --G Rutter 09:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iran is not a democracy, due to the supreme ruler. This would make it more of a semi-presidential Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snkla2 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Iran is not a "western democracy" it does have free and fair elections most of the time. The Supreme Ruler acts as a chief jurist, and in any case is appointed by the parlaiment --Tutan89 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria

[edit]

Given the change in the political scene in Algeria, the country needs to be added to the list. The influence of the military is still playing a role somehow but the last presidential elections in April 2004 was witnessed to be fair by international monitors. Morever, the president Bouteflika (in his second term winning 85% of the electoral vote) has promised to solve the problem in the Berber region of Kabayle as well as to free women from restrictive family codes (following somehow the example of Morocco) and introducing the second version of the so-called “true national reconciliation” from the civil war.

Any comments? Svest 14:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think that "democratic" is a relative term, and is not absolute or constant. In addition, some regions of a state can be more democratic than others. Put it in, if you haven't already. MacRusgail 16:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New edits

[edit]

I congratulate the work of Guy Montag for monitoring the article! W/O that effort we'd end up with almost "500" countries in the list, including Jupiter and probably Israel itself. Cheers -- Svest 00:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Morocco (North Africa) (98.7%)

[edit]

Should it be mentioned that Morocco is an occupying force in Western Sahara? That isn't particularly democratic. - FrancisTyers 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic democracy? Turkey?

POV

[edit]
  • The references are made in wrong direction than the context. It is a kind of offensive action against personalities.
  • It is better to discuss about Iran in subsections rather than preamble.
  • Ruhollah Khomeini is belongs to recent years. It is better to mension other people from past centuries also. See Hassan Modarres etc.

Farhoudk 12:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

[edit]

Could someone with knowledge in the source language please clean up the Notes section? It's difficult to understand what e.g. the following means:

"When not referring to the people votes results in accuse of tyranny then it is allowed to resign ourselves to people vote but as secondary commandments like eating corpse"

clacke 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"When not referring to the people votes results in accuse of tyranny then it is allowed to accept people vote as a secondary commandments, like eating corpse"
Primary commandment: Eating corpse of animals is Haraam.
Secondary commandment: In case one is in danger of death due to hunger then he/she has permission to eat as much as prevents his/her death. So it turns to Halaal in this case. But as you can see it is conditional.
The quoted sentence shows week compatibility of their POV and democracy, since it is conditional. As you can see in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy#Shia.27s_viewpoint the idea of Khomeini is completely different.
Farhoudk 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I've never heard of secondary commandments before, since I haven't studied Islamic concepts much. But the sentence is still not correct English, and quite hard to follow, so I was hoping that someone could make it more readable. Does it mean something like this?

If not letting the people vote would result in accusations of tyranny, then voting is allowed as a second commandment, like when eating the corpse of an animal.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClaesWallin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yap. "referring to" is better translation than "letting" Farhoudk 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"majority religion"

[edit]

it is completely untenable to call an "Islamic democracy" any democracy that happens to have an Islamic majority population. By this argument, France would be a "Roman Catholic democracy", and India a "Hindu democracy", both countries upholding strict separation of church and state, as does Turkey. Saying that Islamic democracies "attempt to reconcile Islam with a secular, democratic state" is nonsense. Nobody ever said a democratic state needs to be secular. A democratic state is first and foremost anything the electorate bloody well wants it to be. A country can very well be democratic and not secular. Saying that they "attempt" to reconcile Islam with democracy is hilarious pov, implying that this is somehow more difficult than reconciling Christianity with democracy (we would need to state that "Greece is attempting to reconcile Orthodox Christianity with a democratic state". dab (𒁳) 10:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that whilst I agree that whilst Turkey is commonly reffered to as a secular republic, it does not separate whurch and state, wuite the opposite. Islam in Turkey is the established religion, and the only religion administrated by the state. That's not to say you could call it an Islamic Democracy andy more than you could call the UK an "Anglican Democracy" -but it's not secular in the same way as India or the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.20.16 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very poor definition

[edit]

"A democratic state where the majority of the population are Muslim"

Following this wonderful piece of logic, can we conclude that France, Italy, Spain etc. are "Christian democracies"?

And Turkey is a secular republic. It's more secular than Greece, Norway as they have official religions.

Thus I'm going to remove the associated parts. You may clean up the mess, but don't undo it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, referring to Iran as a democracy is stretching the definition of democracy so far as to render it meaningless. Iran is ruled by an unelected body of clerics; that is not democracy.

Turkey is a Secular Greco-Roman democracy with a Islamic majority population

[edit]

It is a Islamic country or a state with Islamic majority population but with a governmental system based on a secular Greco-Roman (also called 'Western') model of democracy, although it may have Islamic parties. The Turkish government is not based on a model of Islamic democracy which is Islamic Shouracracy - a party-less republic.ILAKNA (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reliable source that support this position? AecisBrievenbus 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about political parties?

[edit]

I feel this article would be improved by mentioning the various political parties that stand for some sort of 'Islamic democracy' - i.e., Islamic parties that accept and work within a democratic system. Examples include Turkey's AK Party, Malaysia's UMNO party, the Pakistan Muslim League and various parties in Indonesia. See this article from The Economist: [2] Terraxos (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic democracy

[edit]

The presence of Islamic parties in a Greco-Roman democracy modeled system of government in an Islamic country ie. with a majority of Islamic population & even if provided in the constitution that Islam will be the prevailing religion, although 'labelled so' does not turn it into a Islamic Democracy which is Islamic Shouracracy - a party-less republic For a government to be a 'Islamic democracy', the label has to match with the contents also. This applies to all these kinds of governments wherever they may be.ILAKNA (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reliable source that supports this position? AecisBrievenbus 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Q:5:50]("Do they want the rule of the Ignorance {ie. not based on God's guidance} & who is better from God in rule {as He is the All-Knowing & the All-Wise, no one is knowing more than Him because He has always existed since from before the beginning of creation & there was no time that He did not exist, no one is wiser than Him because He has created everything so He has the detailed knowledge of everything because He has designed it so He knows how everything works} for a people who are certain" {about God}). As per this text, the Greco-Roman democracy qualifies as the rule of Ignorance & not rule of Islam. The rule of Islam is Shouracracy [Q:42:38] or Islamic Democracy. The detail of working of Islamic democracy was posted here.ILAKNA (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The two definitions provided don't match the definition of democracy. It all seems like a kind of contradictio in terminis to me. PS I've your so found of your regimes, get your own word for it and don't abuse the Greek language. Bombshell (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other POV issues besides this smallminded drivel? What are the reasons this article is tagged npov? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.191.15 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is that objection small-minded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an insult to the readers intelligence to say that Iran is a democracy

[edit]

Everybody knows that the Basij stages the elections. Only mullah approved candidates are allowed to run. The Basij militia does the vote counting and runs the places where you can 'vote'. All employed people in the gov't and private sector has to turn up and get their ID cards stamped so the Mullahs can see that they have voted 'correctly'. If you want proof, look it up on Google. Please don't be a coward and delete this. This is related to the composition of the article. 87.59.78.18 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

Move to Islam and democracy. -Stevertigo 06:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that possible?

[edit]

How can this be possible? Islam doesn't seem democratic. Lucas Duke (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

[edit]

First paragraph

[edit]

hi

Ive made a few changes, but with your supprot with like to make a few more . The link to harvard study does not work :/

1. A firmly secular state which recognizes no state religion and religious doctrines and ideas play no role in development of laws. Although public opinion may lead to influence on some laws

2. A democratic state which recognizes Islam as state religion, such as Malaysia, Algeria, or Maldives are examples of Islamic Democracies. Some religious values are incorporated into public life by elected represenatives, but the intepretation of Islamic law lies with elected representaives. The extent to which the goverment enforces religious princples in public life like alcohol ban are limited is not the only source of law.


2. A "democratic" state which endeavours to institute Sharia. It is also called as Islamic theocratic democracy.[1] Islamic Theocracies offers more broad range of inclusion of Islam principles into the affairs of the state.The Role of goverment and security services extends into enforcing every religious edict. States like Iran (and saudi arabia, but saudi is not a democracy) are firm proponents of this form. The extent to which the goverment enforces the religion is set in the constition and laws are regarding affairs to do with religoin e.g crime are interpreted by scholars. Whilst elected representives decide non religious things like Taxation and Envirometnal policy

I think the word islamist has negative connations ? --Tutan89 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also with pakistan, that country has a parliament and scholars play not role in govt.Some leaders like Shaukat Aziz where very secular and others like Nawaz Sharif where not so.It depedns on the party in power and if the party in power wants to form an electoral alliance with conservative religous parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutan89 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit : why does freedom house get to decide which countries are democracies ? different states have different levels of freedom according to the unique security and political enviroment. In Europe you are now allowed to carry guns or deny the holocaust does freedom house regard that as undemocratic ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutan89 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world does carrying a gun or denying the Holocaust have to do with a country's status as a democracy? Freedom House refers to most majority-Muslim states as undemocratic because they don't hold legitimate, systematic elections to determine who leads a particular country. They are called undemocratic because that is exactly what they are. And isn't it amazing how the "level of freedom" of virtually every Majority-Muslim state is so low as to be essentially non-existent? I guess the security and political environment found in each of those countries isn't that "unique" after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table on democracy indices

[edit]

I would like to see the table on democracy indices kept for the following reasons

1. It provides a lot of useful information in a concise form, rather than having a wall of text.

2.It provides a useful counterpoint to the 'in practice' sections. The indices definitely have their flaws and present a certain western viewpoint, but they are widely used, and so ought to be included.

3. The 'in practice' section can never be long enough to include discussion on all countries, but the table provides many links.

4. It demonstrates the wide variety of islamic democracies, as well as providing contextual information i.e. countries that are in the muslim world but have a secular government (whether democratic or not). Since 'islamic democracy' means many different things to different people, I think it's useful to show the variety.

5. There is a similar table on the democracy in the middle east page, so the rationale is probably similar.

6. A lot of this material is likely to end up back in the text. It's much clearer as a table.

Please discuss Halon8 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for claim

[edit]

It is my opinion that a citation is needed for the following claim, taken from the "Sunni viewpoint" section. It is its own paragraph.

"Furthermore, counter arguments to these points assert that this attitude presuppose democracy as a static system which only embraces a particular type of social and cultural system, namely that of the post-Christian West."

This is a claim that cannot be distilled from the content that precedes it, and it needs its own citation. I added a "citationneeded" template. If you wish to talk to me for some reason, please use my user talk page, instead of replying on this article's talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Koran as a reference

[edit]

I am not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to use the Koran as a reference in this article, unless it specifically mentions democracy's role in Islam, as it would be a primary source, and constructing an argument with material from the Koran would be original research. However, such an argument could be made in a secondary or tertiary source, which would need to be given as a reference. Previously, two references in the article were verses from the Koran. I changed them into mentions, instead. The references were in the "Sunni viewpoint" section of the article, and the paragraph starts, "Muslim democrats". If you wish to talk to me for some reason, please use my user talk page, instead of replying on this article's talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Islamic democracy

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic democracy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

Reference named "Haimzadeh":

Reference named "meforum.org":

Reference named "ReferenceB":

Reference named "atimes.com":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typical silly POV muslim rubbish, complete with a stinking serving of anti-European propaganda

[edit]

Disregarding the blatant fact that "Islamic Democracy" is a flat out contradiction in terms, as a democracy which follows islamic teachings on rule of law automatically excludes non-muslims and critics of islam from being elected into high positions of government, this article is so blatantly partisan and pro-Islam that it's not funny. A lot of the sources for some controversial statements (like the broad and shaky claim linking "liberalism" with the early islamic world) are controversial and have been contested hotly by other academics, like the ridicuous claim that the Rashidun Caliphate was a democratic state in any way, shape or form, when it blatantly slaughtered entire non-muslim tribes and held elections through tribal heads and sometimes not at all - That is not a democracy!

Despite these contested statements, which positively litter the article, there is not a single section on "Criticism" or "Opponents" of Islamic Democracy, only "Obstacles", so if you weren't convinced of this article's blatant mohammedan slant already, you should be now.

Take for example the section on "Democracy Index": The following lists Muslim-majority countries and shows the scores given by two frequently used indices: Freedom in the World (2013) by the US-based Freedom House and the 2012 Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit. These indices are frequently used in Western media, but have attracted some criticism and may not reflect recent changes.

This is blatant POV push if i've ever seen it. Firstly, Freedom House is not related to the Democracy Index, and there are numerous other NGOs who have published similar tallies. Secondly, the line about "western media" is nothing more than obtuse WP:POVPUSH designed to boil all criticism of islamic government away and repudiate all negative analyses of democracy in Muslim nations using the smear of "Western media". Third, even though Freedom House is funded by the US government, that does not take away from the genuine criticisms of democratic institutions and freedom of speech that it makes, nor does it mean that it's results do "not reflect recent changes"(whatever that means) in Muslim nations.

It's quite obvious that the major editors to this article are themselves proponents of the ideology, and are clearly uninterested in presenting the topic in a non-partisan and neutral manner. This article should be flagged for oblong POVPUSH.

(e/c)Given the nature of your username, I'm not sure that you can be considered entirely neutral yourself. Could you actually suggest improvements to the article, rather than just rant about what you see as shortcomings? Ta. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Democracy: Indonesia's Case

[edit]

Hi CommanderWaterford, I noticed that you removed my edits. Im not sure but I'll try to explain it here.

My reasoning is that Indonesia is actually not islamic, however it is a democracy with majority muslim population. You wouldn't exactly describe USA to be a christian democracy would you? It might have christian inspired laws, but technically USA is explicitly secular.

I guess you can put it in a special section, Indonesia does not exactly have state a state religion and in many respect is secular. Indonesia is like USA it does not interfere with religion, though its secularism is to a lesser extent. The state ideology is based on "Pancasila", in the first tenets "Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa" which better translated as that there is a supreme god (or there are supreme gods) as uniter of the nation. It does not specify any religion, though this is also sometimes mistranslated as only endorsement for monotheism. "Ketuhanan" is religions or any beliefs, "Yang" is a sign for descriptor. "Esa" which is from sanskrit in this sense means Supreme, not One. "Maha" also from sanskrit is to further exaggerate the "Esa" quality. As a result Indonesian do have religious column in identity card, however it is not mandatory (you can empty them, to signify you are atheist for example) and only used for census (a dutch legacy). Sukarno Pancasila's ideology is 'secular' but as Abdurrahman Wahid, 4th president of Indonesia describe it is "Mild Secularism"[1]

This is because the 2 largest Muslim organization of Indonesia, NU and Muhammadiyah, are very much accepted the pancasila basis of the country. NU and its most associated political wing PKB (Abdurrahman's party), is member of centrist democrat international which also contain famously German's CDU as well as Hungary's Fidesz party,[2] it is more common with Christian democrat politics in the west. There are party associated with muslim brotherhood in the form of PKS but even they have to commit to the state ideology, which means they are pluralist.[3] Islamic groups that stray a bit further from the the pluralism and Pancasila such as HTI (Indonesian branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir) even though they 'participated' in democracy.[4]

You can say in practice Indonesia had 6 state religions.

In the religion ministry (this is also why Indonesia isn't exactly secular either) there are separate religious leaders usually praying for each religions. Yeah this is quite funny, so the presidents or government members sometimes will greet in all 6 religious greetings, followed by the speech. Theres a page on that though it is in Indonesian. https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Lintas_Agama

-"Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh" for islam -"Salam Sejahtera" and "Shaloom" for Christian and Catholics, -"Om Swastyastu" for Hindu -"Namo Buddhaya" for buddhist -"Salam Kebajikan" or "Wei De Dong Tian" (惟德動天) for Kong Hu Cu (chinese confucianism)

You can see this in the recent Indonesian president speech on 26 March. The president used all the greetings.[5]

Indonesia actually had a rebellion in the 1960 referred locally as "Darul Islam" rebellion but the state they want is "Islamic State of Indonesia" although they were defeated, so that is why I think you have to be really careful, Indonesia is not an "islamic" democracy since in Indonesia that would mean that state rebellion. This was sadly a common misconception by foreigners to describe Indonesia as such. That is why I think it is better to say Indonesia currently is a democracy with the largest muslim population. Describing it with "Indonesia as the largest muslim democracy" is also innacurate, and used often by for foreign journalists.

References

  1. ^ Wahid, Abdurrahman (2001-07-01). "Indonesia's Mild Secularism". SAIS Review. 21 (2): 25–28. doi:10.1353/sais.2001.0051. ISSN 1945-4724. Retrieved 2021-04-13.
  2. ^ "The Peculiar Case of Viktor Orban's Visit to Indonesia". Jakarta Globe. 2020-01-15. Retrieved 2021-04-13.
  3. ^ Umam, Chaerul (2020-07-23). "Politikus PKS Jawab PDIP: Ideologi Bernegara Kita Sama, Pancasila". Tribunnews.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2021-04-13.
  4. ^ "HTI dinyatakan ormas terlarang, pengadilan tolak gugatan". BBC News Indonesia (in Indonesian). 2018-05-07. Retrieved 2021-04-13.
  5. ^ "Peresmian Pembukaan Musyawarah Nasional V Asosiasi Pemerintah Kabupaten Seluruh Indonesia (APKASI) Tahun 2021, 26 Maret 2021, di Istana Negara, Provinsi DKI Jakarta". Sekretariat Kabinet Republik Indonesia (in Indonesian). 2021-03-26. Retrieved 2021-04-13.

The Salafi section needs sources.

[edit]

I removed "Al-Albani" from the section listing supposed "pro-Democracy" Salafi scholars, since he has stated that participating in Democracy by voting is forbidden. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzy70nKGf3o and http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/audio/albanivoting.wma 71.59.196.190 (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

[edit]

@FourPi: Does this article give undue weight to Brian Whitaker's point of view? Jarble (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble, I just noticed that the page seems to have a very large section based entirely on the work of one author. He doesn't seem to have a level of specific expertise on democracy and Islam that warrants that much emphasis on his ideas, at least not without the inclusion of other authors alongside each of his points. He's just a Western journalist working on the Middle East in general. FourPi (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_and_democracy&oldid=1238337325"