Egypt Bans Muslim Brotherhood

picoico · October 4, 2013, 10:52pm

Re: Egypt Bans Muslim Brotherhood

Democracy isn't an emotion or a guess...it's a well defined concept, and they had it back then and it's structurally what we have today.

Liberal democracies as of the 1960's moving on have human rights legislation which is based on an ideology, and in some sense a totalitarian system could have espoused many of the same virtues, except of course those that admitted to a democratic polity (right to form a party, right to vote, and so on). Communism, for example, was way ahead of the democratic west when it came to gender equality, workers rights, etc.

So fair and equal treatment is neither exemplary of democratic systems, nor is it requisite.

[quote]

I believe the point you are trying to make is that secularism and democracy are mutually exclusive

[/quote]

No. Orthogonal. You may have a secular democracy. That precludes mutual exclusivity.

[quote]

Any religion would put its own believers ahead of others, and as such, cannot be considered **wholly **democratic.

[/quote]

Any ideology does. What chance does an Islamist have in a liberal system? None, in all reality...unless one is suggesting that democracies can negotiate between mutually exclusive modes of thought. They can't.

[quote]

If it were so, why was there such opposition to the constitution pushed through by the Brotherhood? Do you believe that they protected the rights of all minorities?

[/quote]

Majority of that opposition was not democratic. Those that worked within the democratic framework were a minority. It also had a hell of a lot of support on the street. Did it protect the rights of all minorities? Well, if their "rights" included banning Islam from the state, then no.

[quote]

Here is a litmus test: could a country run by Islamic parties protect an atheists right to publicly say that there is no God? Could such a country ever envision a Christian or a Jew as the head of state?

[/quote]

No, as that would be contrary to the ideology of the state and the accepted parameters for what an Islamist polity would lay out for acceptable leadership. Still a democracy. Far, far from a contemporary liberal democracy.

That's a test for secularism, not democracy.

[quote]

Lastly, adherence to the appearance of democracy without respecting the ideals is akin to paying lip service. It is not sincere nor can it ever be long lasting, as we have seen. They allowed protests because the army was never under their grasp.
[/quote]

Clap trap. For one, the ideal has been met: letting the opposition vent their frustrations in an open environment. Check. In spite of the fact that the opposition was calling for the undemocratic overthrow of a legitimately elected party. Double Check.

There's no evidence of the latter. In the early days it was unclear that the Army would usurp power using the protests as an excuse. Morsi would have appealed to his supporters stating such. Never happened until he was placed under arrest. The option was apparently available, but never availed nor threatened. Second, the police were under his control, not to mention his supporters.

But I suppose it's all fair so long as illiberal religious folks are on the receiving end...to the tune of thousands of dead...what was that about paying lip service to values?

Ghost14 · October 5, 2013, 1:06am

Re: Egypt Bans Muslim Brotherhood

picoico:

Democracy isn't an emotion or a guess...it's a well defined concept, and they had it back then and it's structurally what we have today.

Liberal democracies as of the 1960's moving on have human rights legislation which is based on an ideology, and in some sense a totalitarian system could have espoused many of the same virtues, except of course those that admitted to a democratic polity (right to form a party, right to vote, and so on). Communism, for example, was way ahead of the democratic west when it came to gender equality, workers rights, etc.

So fair and equal treatment is neither exemplary of democratic systems, nor is it requisite.

No. Orthogonal. You may have a secular democracy. That precludes mutual exclusivity.

Any ideology does. What chance does an Islamist have in a liberal system? None, in all reality...unless one is suggesting that democracies can negotiate between mutually exclusive modes of thought. They can't.

Majority of that opposition was not democratic. Those that worked within the democratic framework were a minority. It also had a hell of a lot of support on the street. Did it protect the rights of all minorities? Well, if their "rights" included banning Islam from the state, then no.

No, as that would be contrary to the ideology of the state and the accepted parameters for what an Islamist polity would lay out for acceptable leadership. Still a democracy. Far, far from a contemporary liberal democracy.

That's a test for secularism, not democracy.

Clap trap. For one, the ideal has been met: letting the opposition vent their frustrations in an open environment. Check. In spite of the fact that the opposition was calling for the undemocratic overthrow of a legitimately elected party. Double Check.

There's no evidence of the latter. In the early days it was unclear that the Army would usurp power using the protests as an excuse. Morsi would have appealed to his supporters stating such. Never happened until he was placed under arrest. The option was apparently available, but never availed nor threatened. Second, the police were under his control, not to mention his supporters.

But I suppose it's all fair so long as illiberal religious folks are on the receiving end...to the tune of thousands of dead...what was that about paying lip service to values?

Actually democracy has many definitions. "Structurally the same" is not exactly the same. The Romans had a Republic but the patricians were above the plebs, even though the latter had democratic representation. So no, it is not the same.

Furthermore, you are incorrect: many definitions of democracy do include "social equality" as a prerequisite for democracy. Thus, a state which excludes other religions and oppresses them, in a manner which can be deemed tyrannical (the exact opposite of equal representation) can hardly be called democratic. Muslim parties seek to do just that.

You make references to any ideology being rigid and inflexible, which is absolutely not true. Religion come from God, hence, it is unquestionable. How is one to debate its merits without offending the pious? Barring the faiths of the world, ideologies are man made, and thus, can be argued for or against logically. Religion cannot. It comes down to faith. Can you convince Morsi that his God is wrong and therefore, an atheist should be allowed to come to power?

You also mention "liberal democracy", as if it's a specific variation but as I said before, democracy has evolved. This is one of the criticisms of Israel, it cannot be both a Jewish majority and a democracy so long as it continues to exclude Arabs. And this is criticism from the "liberal West", so please avoid the slanderous insinuations that only Islamist parties can be undemocratic.

It comes down to this: you don't think democracy includes social equality in its definition because preexisting forms of said governance ruled over oppressed minorities. This is false, look up the definitions for yourself. Moreover, from a legal point of view, secularism can be considered vital to a democracy since any religious majority will infringe on the rights of the minority, which can be argued as being tyrannical, and hence, undemocratic.

rommel · October 5, 2013, 7:35am

Re: Egypt Bans Muslim Brotherhood

Stop kidding yourself the muslim world wants shariah they don’t want garbage and corruption that breeds and spreads like in democratic capitalism which is a system forced onto the muslim world by the imperialist nations like britian and france and continued today by dictators and puppets as you very well know.

Many in Muslim world want sharia as law of land: survey | Reuters

Shamraz_Khan · October 5, 2013, 7:46am

Re: Egypt Bans Muslim Brotherhood

^^^ Please tell us 1) what is sharia (since not everyone agrees on that) 2) whose version of sharia (shia/sunni,barelvi, etc)?

rommel · October 5, 2013, 7:50am

Re: Egypt Bans Muslim Brotherhood

Ghost14:

Actually democracy has many definitions. "Structurally the same" is not exactly the same. The Romans had a Republic but the patricians were above the plebs, even though the latter had democratic representation. So no, it is not the same.

Furthermore, you are incorrect: many definitions of democracy do include "social equality" as a prerequisite for democracy. Thus, a state which excludes other religions and oppresses them, in a manner which can be deemed tyrannical (the exact opposite of equal representation) can hardly be called democratic. Muslim parties seek to do just that.

You make references to any ideology being rigid and inflexible, which is absolutely not true. Religion come from God, hence, it is unquestionable. How is one to debate its merits without offending the pious? Barring the faiths of the world, ideologies are man made, and thus, can be argued for or against logically. Religion cannot. It comes down to faith. Can you convince Morsi that his God is wrong and therefore, an atheist should be allowed to come to power?

You also mention "liberal democracy", as if it's a specific variation but as I said before, democracy has evolved. This is one of the criticisms of Israel, it cannot be both a Jewish majority and a democracy so long as it continues to exclude Arabs. And this is criticism from the "liberal West", so please avoid the slanderous insinuations that only Islamist parties can be undemocratic.

It comes down to this: you don't think democracy includes social equality in its definition because preexisting forms of said governance ruled over oppressed minorities. This is false, look up the definitions for yourself. Moreover, from a legal point of view, secularism can be considered vital to a democracy since any religious majority will infringe on the rights of the minority, which can be argued as being tyrannical, and hence, undemocratic.

you are completetly wrong on your argument islam is not a religion its an ideology encompassing both the political aspect to do with lifes affairs such as economy, forign treaties, justice and education. Secondly it also has a sprirtual aspect the relationship between individual and the creator.

No ideology in existence has both politcal and spirtual aspect.

You claim islam does not allow debate or question its foundations? again another slur and inaccuate presumption. If you bothered to read the history of islam it encourages debate and questioning its scholars throuhout its history debated all comers, philospgers, athiests anyone because of the conviction of having the stronger evidence and stronger argument.

Islam in its history has had 1 billion hindus in India, its had christians in middle east why have they not all been converted by the sword or slaughtered during islamic rule??? Please answer this question since you claim islam does not protect its minorities.

Also since you mentioned the jews in spain when the inquistion took place the jewish population ran to the capital of the islamic state in what today called istanbul in turkey. they their lives and honour would be protected another proof against your claim islam cannot protect the minorities.

Only under secualrism and capitalism have we seen the disaster that has inflicted the entire muslim world, africa, south america where no one is safe from the scourge of unhindered capitalism and its ugly sister which has inflicted corrupt rulers and dictators for decades!

rommel · October 5, 2013, 7:53am

Re: Egypt Bans Muslim Brotherhood

Ghost14:

Actually democracy has many definitions. "Structurally the same" is not exactly the same. The Romans had a Republic but the patricians were above the plebs, even though the latter had democratic representation. So no, it is not the same.

Furthermore, you are incorrect: many definitions of democracy do include "social equality" as a prerequisite for democracy. Thus, a state which excludes other religions and oppresses them, in a manner which can be deemed tyrannical (the exact opposite of equal representation) can hardly be called democratic. Muslim parties seek to do just that.

You make references to any ideology being rigid and inflexible, which is absolutely not true. Religion come from God, hence, it is unquestionable. How is one to debate its merits without offending the pious? Barring the faiths of the world, ideologies are man made, and thus, can be argued for or against logically. Religion cannot. It comes down to faith. Can you convince Morsi that his God is wrong and therefore, an atheist should be allowed to come to power?

You also mention "liberal democracy", as if it's a specific variation but as I said before, democracy has evolved. This is one of the criticisms of Israel, it cannot be both a Jewish majority and a democracy so long as it continues to exclude Arabs. And this is criticism from the "liberal West", so please avoid the slanderous insinuations that only Islamist parties can be undemocratic.

It comes down to this: you don't think democracy includes social equality in its definition because preexisting forms of said governance ruled over oppressed minorities. This is false, look up the definitions for yourself. Moreover, from a legal point of view, secularism can be considered vital to a democracy since any religious majority will infringe on the rights of the minority, which can be argued as being tyrannical, and hence, undemocratic.

you are completely wrong on your argument Islam is not a religion its an ideology encompassing both the political aspect to do with life's affairs such as economy, foreign treaties, justice and education. Secondly it also has a spiritual aspect the relationship between individual and the creator.

No ideology in existence has both political and spiritual aspect.

You claim Islam does not allow debate or question its foundations? again another slur and inaccurate presumption. If you bothered to read the history of Islam it encourages debate and questioning its scholars throughout its history debated all comers, philosophers, atheists anyone because of the conviction of having the stronger evidence and stronger argument.

Islam in its history has had 1 billion Hindus in India, its had Christians in middle east why have they not all been converted by the sword or slaughtered during Islamic rule??? Please answer this question since you claim Islam does not protect its minorities.

Also since you mentioned the Jews in Spain when the inquisition took place the Jewish population ran to the capital of the Islamic state in what today called Istanbul in turkey. They knew their lives and honor would be protected another proof against your claim Islam cannot protect the minorities.

Only under secularism and capitalism have we seen the disaster that has inflicted the entire muslim world, africa, south america where no one is safe from the scourge of unhindered capitalism and its ugly sister democracy which has inflicted corrupt rulers and dictators for decades!