No Democracy in China

[myrrh]

Yeah! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7932091.stm)

I don't think that it isn't obvious that I am not a fan of democracy. I am not too much of a fan of Communism either, but this is more of a cheer that a country is taking a public stand against the West's idea that everyone in the world has to have democracy and be like them.

[Strangelet]

here's the deal: if you want sharia law, then you have to make a willful choice to enact sharia law. And by you I don't mean Ian the immam or Calvin the caliphate i mean you as in the overwhelming majority of the people. As far as favorite flavors of government, I really don't have much of a certainty what is better, I just know that Sartre is right, we are condemned to be free. Which means we are born with absolute freedom, and are forced to choose our government, which means we are born under a natural order of democracy. Period.

communism in asia doesn't suffer from being communist as much as it suffers from shoving communism down the throat of a majority of people who don't want it. That is its biggest problem, it becomes the choice of a few directing the choices of the many.

Only by a power of momentum built by a vast majority can any government be a stable, working government, instead of a vicious despotic regime, regardless of its stripe.

So that's been my biggest complaint with your opinions. Not that you want sharia law over democracy. But that you won't let democracy work its way into sharia law without force. Probably because you know that force is required. But that's a failing on sharia law, not democracy.

Sorry, just being honest.

[Sean]

From the article linked in the opening post:

China faces a number of highly sensitive anniversaries this year, including 20 years since the military crushed pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, and 50 years since an anti-China uprising in Lhasa that sparked the Dalai Lama's flight into exile.

Hardly reason to celebrate their stance.

Any system of government that stifles basic civil liberties is deeply flawed. And I say that fully knowing that there are serious flaws within western-style democracy as well, but hey - western-style democracy allowed us to go from the pre-civil rights era to actually having a black President in just a few short decades. Simply put, that would have been impossible under a rigid system of government like they have in China, or under Sharia law.

[myrrh]

western-style democracy allowed us to go from the pre-civil rights era to actually having a black President in just a few short decades. Simply put, that would have been impossible under a rigid system of government like they have in China, or under Sharia law.

This idea is based on the claim that every other system is like the pre-civil rights era, which I don't know about Communism, but Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.

[myrrh]

So that's been my biggest complaint with your opinions. Not that you want sharia law over democracy. But that you won't let democracy work its way into sharia law without force. Probably because you know that force is required. But that's a failing on sharia law, not democracy.



Democracy doesn't need to work it's way into Sharia law. This once again is based on the opinion that Democracy is the best system for people to be ruled by, therefor needs to be a part of every system.

Now you mentioned the force factor, has there every been a modern Democracy that was established without violence? I can't think of one. In fact, the whole system of in which modern democracies are based on stem from the French Revolution, which was an act of terrorism.

Yes, Islaam does say that you can not use force to overthrow the ruler, unless certain conditions take place. For example, here in Morocco, there is no doubt that the King rules far from what is the correct way to run an Islaamic government. The vast majority of the people here are oppressed and are afraid to do anything because the police and every government official is corrupt.

The fact that even those these conditions are at play, still does not allow for the people to rise up and overthrow their ruler. The only way the ruler can be overthrown is if he stops allowing the people to pray, or he himself stops praying and participating in pillars of Islaam.

Does this mean that Sharia is flawed? No. The reasons such things exist are to keep order within the society. If people were to violently oppose the rulers, then there would be chaos in the country.

If you were suggesting that Sharia does not allow for voting or those types of things, which are considered 'democractic', then this too is a false belief because, not only was the first four Caliphs 'voted' into power, but so were other rulers through the 1400 years that there was a Sharia government. One just has to look through the history books to see the evidence of this.

The main issue at hand in the modern world, is that the US is preventing the Muslim countries from reforming Sharia based governments, because this would then become a threat to the US. Instead, the Muslim countries are ruled by these puppet leaders that are backed by, and allies of the US.The classic proof for this statement is Hamas, which was the democratically elected government, yet the US backs the Fatah party.

Imagine the effect on the world if all these Muslim countries united into one government again. That would be an instant world super-power overnight. You would have money from the Gulf feeding a state that stretches from Morocco east to Arabia, then north to Turkey. When you think that this would include places like Iran and Pakistan, which have nuclear technology, you can see why the US is doing their best to keep these countries in disarray and under their control. This is not because of the threat of war, but rather the threat of the loss of power.

Find one Muslim country where the majority of the people actually like the ruler and agree with what he is doing for their country? Maybe Iran, or Syria, but I do not know. I can tell you for sure that in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan, the African Muslim countries, and many other places do not like the living conditions under the rulers. Maybe you don't see this because the Media doesn't portray things this way.

Anyway, I kind of went off the thread there, but my point was that you people seem to neglect history and only look at what is going on today and base your judgements off of this.

[Sean]

This idea is based on the claim that every other system is like the pre-civil rights era...Not at all. It just illustrates the way society can and has adapted for the better at an impressive rate under a democratic system. This kind of progress is far more difficult to achieve under rigid, unchallenged rule.

...which I don't know about Communism, but Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.I'm obviously no expert on Sharia law, but it seems that the treatment of women could be viewed as discriminatory. Same with the treatment of people who may suffer from certain illnesses, like alcoholism. Or homosexuals - hard to say that they get a fair, non-discriminatory shake under Sharia law. And it's certainly discriminatory towards anyone who discovers at some point in their life that they want to leave the Islamic faith - although it's of course acceptable for anyone to leave another faith to convert to Islam.

And yes, democracies were generally formed through violence. That seems somewhat unavoidable any time an oppressive, tyrannical leader is threatened with a loss of power. They certainly aren't going to just hand it over. Hell, even Ghandi had a hard time keeping any violence from happening as he led peaceful protests against British rule. But that doesn't invalidate what he was doing in the least. So honestly, I'm not really sure what the point you're making about violence invalidating democracy is supposed to be.

Ultimately, while democracy has it's flaws, it seems to me to be the most effective form of government in that it recognizes basic human nature, individuality, freedom of expression, the undeniable human instinct to explore new ideas, and it provides a means of correcting shortcomings as they become apparent. But let's face it - every system of government is administered by human beings, and human beings are inherently flawed, which means mistakes will always be made, and corruption will always be a concern. No system of government is perfect.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Blah, blah, bla-bla, blah, bla blah, blah, bbbb, bblaaah.



Did I say blah?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Now you're just being a provocative muppet, jOHN.

Time out.

[cock-a-doodle]

This ..., but Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.

Give me a (this is B.S.mo) break. NO system of government has racism and discrimination written into to them. At least none that anyone pays attention to. It's all just magically gone...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29601858/

And i hate that little opinionated bitch jOHN too.

[cock-a-doodle]

:D;):):p


OMG! I got 'em back!

[Deckard]

I find myself wondering how these Sharia societies are supposed to come about.

Is it forced on the population against their will?
Or do they get to vote on it ... y'know, democractically?

[cock-a-doodle]

I find myself wondering how these Sharia societies are supposed to come about.

Is it forced on the population against their will?
Or do they get to vote on it ... y'know, democractically?

Hell, I've been wondering the same thing about Western decmockracy lately.

[bryantm3]

This idea is based on the claim that every other system is like the pre-civil rights era, which I don't know about Communism, but Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.

whether you believe in sharia law or not, it seems foolish to approve china's decision to supress their people. it's a non-sequitur; it has nothing to do with the chosen and religious imposition of sharia law. rather, it shows your disapproval of the western system of democracy.
what you fail to understand is that different culture groups around the world have different needs and live in different ways. in saudi arabia, many people are happy with the sharia law system; however, in america, we have many different religions and very different traditions in reference to government. to assume that a western country could survive under a sharia law is foolish, first, because the majority of the united states is christian. secondly, because in the united states we believe that people become closer to God by their own personal relationship with God, rather than having religion forced upon them by a central power.
the inverse is also true. the united states has tried to impose democracy on iraq and afghanistan over the past 8 years and has mostly failed. i suppose you see this as an infringement on your traditional system of government, however, in one case, the country was not under sharia law: iraq had a secular government with a dictator in power, and in the other case, the theocratic country directly funded and helped a terrorist group attack our country and kill thousands of people. therefore, we have a right to impose on afghanistan because they attacked us. in the second case, we had no right to invade iraq, but i imagine that some countries that will go unnamed over there were pretty hepped up to do the same to impose their rule on that country.
so, either way, you've got your turban in a wad because we're imposing our law on iraq and getting in your territory. fair; it's your country, it's your right to have whatever form of government you wish to have. but i fail to see the parallels between sharia law, and the secular dictatorship in china that persecutes its people and has historically forbidden established religion, except the old, tired logic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

[bryantm3]

if that was a bit scathing, i apologise, but the more i hear about the current chinese government, the more i dislike them. they're gradually trying to build up as many allies as possible, even in cambodia, where china funded and gave weapons to the khmer rouge to continue their genocide against the cambodian people. now, china is coming back in and rebuilding their country and trying to act like everything's alright, and it's working. so it's a little upsetting to me to hear both an approval of china and a disapproval of democracy in the same sentence.

[cock-a-doodle]

because in the united states we believe that people become closer to God by their own personal relationship with God, rather than having religion forced upon them by a central power.


Well, when one considers the bullshit religious views pushed the past 8 years that were really nothing religious other than the "ideal paradise".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/index.html

And here we are.

[Strangelet]

I find myself wondering how these Sharia societies are supposed to come about.

Is it forced on the population against their will?
Or do they get to vote on it ... y'know, democractically?

ah but they wouldn't even consider sharia law. They'll vote for a pragmatic secular leader like mossadeq, long before they'll suffer another ayatolah, if they were *really* left alone by the west. myrrh knows it, you and I know it.

[myrrh]

whether you believe in sharia law or not, it seems foolish to approve china's decision to supress their people. it's a non-sequitur; it has nothing to do with the chosen and religious imposition of sharia law. rather, it shows your disapproval of the western system of democracy.
what you fail to understand is that different culture groups around the world have different needs and live in different ways. in saudi arabia, many people are happy with the sharia law system; however, in america, we have many different religions and very different traditions in reference to government. to assume that a western country could survive under a sharia law is foolish, first, because the majority of the united states is christian. secondly, because in the united states we believe that people become closer to God by their own personal relationship with God, rather than having religion forced upon them by a central power.
the inverse is also true. the united states has tried to impose democracy on iraq and afghanistan over the past 8 years and has mostly failed. i suppose you see this as an infringement on your traditional system of government, however, in one case, the country was not under sharia law: iraq had a secular government with a dictator in power, and in the other case, the theocratic country directly funded and helped a terrorist group attack our country and kill thousands of people. therefore, we have a right to impose on afghanistan because they attacked us. in the second case, we had no right to invade iraq, but i imagine that some countries that will go unnamed over there were pretty hepped up to do the same to impose their rule on that country.
so, either way, you've got your turban in a wad because we're imposing our law on iraq and getting in your territory. fair; it's your country, it's your right to have whatever form of government you wish to have. but i fail to see the parallels between sharia law, and the secular dictatorship in china that persecutes its people and has historically forbidden established religion, except the old, tired logic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".


Yeah, after I wrote this thread, I thought about it and seen that what I meant to mean, wasn't conveyed.

The point of this was not to compare governments, because like you said, I don't think that a Sharia based government would work anywhere except in a Muslim country.

However, that being said, no one is trying to force Sharia, or Communism on Western Democratic countries, while the opposite is try with the US and the West. They are forcing their forms of government upon other nations, and this is what I have an issue with.

[myrrh]

Give me a (this is B.S.mo) break. NO system of government has racism and discrimination written into to them. At least none that anyone pays attention to. It's all just magically gone...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29601858/

And i hate that little opinionated bitch jOHN too.


You can mention Saudi Arabia all you want, but it is not a Sharia based country. It has elements of Sharia, but also has elements in place that are based on their old tribal customs.

There is no Islaamic state on the planet now. There are only countries with Muslim majorities.

[Deckard]

There is no Islaamic state on the planet now. There are only countries with Muslim majorities.
Still curious to know how such an ideal Islaamic state is supposed to actually come about. By force? By vote?

(EDIT: ...or by stealing someone else's land and for everyone of similar belief to settle there? *ahem*)

[Strangelet]

However, that being said, no one is trying to force Sharia, or Communism on Western Democratic countries, while the opposite is try with the US and the West. They are forcing their forms of government upon other nations, and this is what I have an issue with.

i think where we miscommunicated is our conflicting definitions of "western democracy". My definition is rule by majority choice. which is a "greater than" mathematical concept as universal as the number 4. there's nothing western about it. I think you have it lumped with imperialism which I get, because western governments like to dress imperialism as "democracy".

Which means we aren't arguing at all, because, like I said, I'd be happy to live under sharia law if it was the overwhelming majority and the choice of the people. But I admit this is kind of facetious to say this because I honestly don't think sharia law could ever be brought into being this way. But I could be wrong...

[Sean]

However, that being said, no one is trying to force Sharia, or Communism on Western Democratic countriesWell, let's not pretend that China's government isn't throwing oppressive policies around. We don't have to look any further than Taiwan (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/03/09/2003437953) and Tibet (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96R9H7O0&show_article=1) to see exactly how little we should be celebrating their behavior.

China no longer sees the Taiwan issue as a problem since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office. Nevertheless, it continues to deploy more missiles along its southeast coast, which now number about 1,500.

and:

DHARMSALA, India (AP) - Tibet has become "hell on earth" under Chinese oppression that has driven Tibetan culture to the verge of extinction, the Dalai Lama said Tuesday, in harsh comments marking the 50th anniversary of the failed uprising that sent him into exile.

Hard for me to cheer China on.

[myrrh]

Still curious to know how such an ideal Islaamic state is supposed to actually come about. By force? By vote?

(EDIT: ...or by stealing someone else's land and for everyone of similar belief to settle there? *ahem*)

One of the rulers would have to decide to enact a Sharia form of government. By doing so, then would have the backing of all the Scholars, and if the Scholars would say to back it, then the people then would agree.

Right now, the Scholars are against the current governments because they are not ruling in accordance to Islaam. For example, the whole Hamas issue. The people complain that Saudi doesn't send them money and in general doesn't support them, even though they are their fellow Muslims. But the issue is that the Scholars in Saudi, are advising the governments not to go help them because they are really just a political party, doing actions that oppose the teaching of Islaam, and enter into actions of terrorism. Suicide bombing, randomly firing missiles into civilian neighborhoods, and all the other things we hear about. You can just imagine what they know and we don't know. And the ultimate proof against parties like Hamas, is that when they got into power, they didn't establish an Islaamic government.

But to answer your question more directly, the people in the countries really need to change and start being like Muslims. Then it will ultimately trickle up to the leader. Once the people correct themselves, the ruler will have to correct himself. How would this happen? I think that this would happen by the pressure of the people being applied to the ruler. For example, here in Morocco the government is doing everything it can to suppress every theological idea other than it's own. However, the people here know enough about Islaam that they know that the government's version of it is not correct, and the government it putting laws into place that go against the laws of Islaam. This is getting the people mad. And when the only real Scholar here speaks against these against, they shut him down. For example, this Scholar lives here in Marrakech, and he opened three Quran schools that were essentially free for the people. Well, because he said some things a few months ago, the government swooped in and shut all these schools down. This is how the government here oppresses the people.

However, like I said, the people here in public they will tell you they love the King (probably so that they don't get arrested) but in private they will say that what he is doing is wrong. This is creating a rift. And I feel that in a matter of time, this rift will create too much pressure on the King and he will be forced to listen to the people, or the people will wait until evidence arises that the King is doing something that allows for the people to fight him. What would be an excuse to fight the King? A prime example would be if he banned the Adhan (call to prayer), like there is talk of him doing in areas that are heavily filled with tourists. Should something like this happen, this could be a trigger that causes riots etc.

If you ever go to Rabat, the people are out in front of the Parlament building protesting over job issues and the like, nearly every day. I have never seen so much protesting at the US capital, like I do here. I mentiont this just to show how the people don't like the way things are and now they are voicing it.

Another thing I want to mention is that Sharia doesn't forbid elections. However, the difference between a Democracy and Sharia is that Democracy is really a government without limits, and Sharia is a governments with limits set out by Islaam. By this I mean that in a Democracy, really anything can happen, as long as the people want it. In Sharia, if the people want something that would go against Islaam, it would not be allowed. Like a prime case for example of this would be Gay Mariage, in a Democracy, this can be allowed if just enough people were with it, while in Sharia, this would never be allowed.

And this goes into another topic that I was thinking of. That is that it is just a matter of morals here. That is that the morals of say the US are rapidly declining do these ideas of individualism. While this idea is being promoted it seems to be great, but the society at large is suffering. An example of this can be in pornography. Lets take the US, since was born and raised there, and compare it to Saudi Arabia, since I also lived there. In Saudi, pornography is outright banned. Websites and all that are blocked and you can bring it into the country. While a US citizen might think this is extreme, one can not deny that there are negative aspects to society by allowing the open sale of pornography. 50 years ago, the ideas on the subject were different then they are today. Now one may say that the US has grown and progressed or whatever nice term is out there, but the reality is the bar has just been going down. Instead of before where pornography was not allowed, it is allowed now until the point where you get to child pornography. This is still a no-no. But if you follow this pattern then perhaps in another 50 years child pornography would be not viewed like it is now. In a society that is ruled by the people without bounds, this is certainly possible. However, in a society where the rule is confined within the bounds of Islaam, this would never be a possibilty because Islaam cuts off this things before they are able to begin.

[myrrh]

Well, let's not pretend that China's government isn't throwing oppressive policies around. We don't have to look any further than Taiwan (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/03/09/2003437953) and Tibet (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96R9H7O0&show_article=1) to see exactly how little we should be celebrating their behavior.

China no longer sees the Taiwan issue as a problem since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office. Nevertheless, it continues to deploy more missiles along its southeast coast, which now number about 1,500.

and:

DHARMSALA, India (AP) - Tibet has become "hell on earth" under Chinese oppression that has driven Tibetan culture to the verge of extinction, the Dalai Lama said Tuesday, in harsh comments marking the 50th anniversary of the failed uprising that sent him into exile.

Hard for me to cheer China on.


I am not cheering their actions like these, rather just the one action of them openly saying that they are not going to be a Democracy. This is different then most of the other non-democractic countries around which instead of saying 'no' they try to mix a bit of democracy into their systems in order to please Western governments.

[Strangelet]

here in Morocco the government is doing everything it can to suppress every theological idea other than it's own. However, the people here know enough about Islaam that they know that the government's version of it is not correct, and the government it putting laws into place that go against the laws of Islaam. This is getting the people mad. And when the only real Scholar here speaks against these against, they shut him down.
....
This is how the government here oppresses the people.


the government oppresses the people because they don't have any strong leadership. The reason the people don't have any strong leadership, is because all the would be leaders are poking through religious arcana, instead of watering the problem down to lack of justice, freedom, and transparency.

for example. they tell their flock to riot if there's no prayer hour...


Should something like this happen, this could be a trigger that causes riots etc.


when they should be telling the people they have a right to a fair government. meanwhile people are standing around unheard and disorganized about the real problems...


If you ever go to Rabat, the people are out in front of the Parlament building protesting over job issues and the like, nearly every day. I have never seen so much protesting at the US capital, like I do here. I mentiont this just to show how the people don't like the way things are and now they are voicing it.


i mean tell me if I"m wrong. but that is the perception I'm getting...


And this goes into another topic that I was thinking of. That is that it is just a matter of morals here. That is that the morals of say the US are rapidly declining do these ideas of individualism. While this idea is being promoted it seems to be great, but the society at large is suffering. An example of this can be in pornography. Lets take the US, since was born and raised there, and compare it to Saudi Arabia, since I also lived there. In Saudi, pornography is outright banned. Websites and all that are blocked and you can bring it into the country. While a US citizen might think this is extreme, one can not deny that there are negative aspects to society by allowing the open sale of pornography. 50 years ago, the ideas on the subject were different then they are today. Now one may say that the US has grown and progressed or whatever nice term is out there, but the reality is the bar has just been going down. Instead of before where pornography was not allowed, it is allowed now until the point where you get to child pornography. This is still a no-no. But if you follow this pattern then perhaps in another 50 years child pornography would be not viewed like it is now. In a society that is ruled by the people without bounds, this is certainly possible. However, in a society where the rule is confined within the bounds of Islaam, this would never be a possibilty because Islaam cuts off this things before they are able to begin.

the family business does work in saudi arabia, kuwait, dubai, morocco, egypt. the so called morals are for the little people. The ruling class have no problem jetting off to a western country, say somewhere in europe or las vegas to get their rocks off. So lets be clear when we are talking about islamic inspired morals in middle eastern countries who they are for. or so is what i"ve been told from family.

[Sean]

One of the rulers would have to decide to enact a Sharia form of government. By doing so, then would have the backing of all the Scholars, and if the Scholars would say to back it, then the people then would agree. So then wouldn't the short answer be "by force"? I have a hard time believing that everyone would just be on board because the scholars said they should be, and they'd have no opportunity to voice any opposition. So when you say that under Sharia law, people are still allowed to vote on things, the complete thought is actually that they're only allowed to vote on things the rulers decide to allow them to vote on. That kind of nullifies the true value of voting.

And earlier in the thread, you said this:
Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.

But now you say this:
Like a prime case for example of this would be Gay Mariage, in a Democracy, this can be allowed if just enough people were with it, while in Sharia, this would never be allowed.

That would be a discriminatory policy against gays.

[//\/\/]

but won't you just have people arguing over how to interpret sharia law...?

but that's another discussion - i'm against a system that's based on religion anyway; so what's in it for the likes of me - somebody who isn't devoting his present to the promise of something better later on?

[Juanita Rodriguez]

blawwwww, blah.