No Democracy in China

[Sean]

Originally Posted by myrrh

However, that being said, no one is trying to force Sharia, or Communism on Western Democratic countries

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 and Tibet 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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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 and Tibet 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]

Originally Posted by myrrh

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...

Originally Posted by myrrh

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...

Originally Posted by myrrh

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...

Originally Posted by myrrh

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]

Originally Posted by myrrh

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:

Originally Posted by myrrh

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:

Originally Posted by myrrh

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.