Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelet
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.