One in four is Muslim, study says

[picoico]

@Reason

No. Please cite any elections or referendums to prove the existence of these alleged consensuses. Chairman Mao worked with a handful of people and consulted them. Does that mean Mao’s China was democratic?

Rather, Mao was very well capable of consensus without democracy…the claim that consensus is impossible without it seems to be yours.

Regardless, the first Caliph and second Caliphs were elected in a similar process by Ansar and Muharjirun. Those who did not dissolve their tribal affiliation respected the decision. This is called “consensus”.

No. Please cite any elections documenting who selected these alleged “representatives.”

Done.

Sticking with the example of China (there are numerous others), there is a form of representation there, for more democratic than the caliphate. At least these guys are elected, albeit in a sham democracy.

Depends. Caliphs in the Imperial era were effectively representatives of tribes which threw their support behind said individual. Tribal elders did indeed represent their tribes (probably much more intimately than any elected official could). This is representation.

I don’t understand your characterization of these elections as Sham, unless there is only one candidate on the ballet.

The caliph’s advisors represented only Muslims. No “kafir” was allowed into the “Politburo”,

…and? Ignoring the fact, of course, that many Caliphs did indeed have Jewish and Christian advisors (rolls eyes). That’s neither here nor there, as what we could call “citizens” was determined by faith. Historically, there was limited self rule for non-Muslims, so no need for such close involvement in the affairs of a different state.

[quote]

if you will during the early calpihate (although the Ottomans did have at least one Jewish vizier). You call this representation when a majority of the people it ruled were non-Muslim? Is China democratic?

[quote]

Yes, LOL…people were represented by their tribal leaders. Perhaps more so than I am by my MP. But that’s a different matter…

I really don’t care if China is democratic or not…it is, however, a legit form of government.

In theory it doesn’t; in practice thus far it has. Can you point to any other representative system?

Shrugs…pick one…I’m not making any exclusive claims as to who has or has not a monopoly on representation.

The same can be said about many countries–including your own. Why was Zia commanding troops protecting King Hussein in Jordan? Why was Pakistan “meddling” in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban? Why is Pakistan training the military of Zimbabwe? And so on. It is funny how Muslims say zero about their own countries in this area yet whine incessantly about a distant, foreign country being involved in other countries.

LOL…yes…it can. Hence my statement that they’re no better…which is not to say everyone else is best. No?

This is not to say that such things don’t exist elsewhere; they do. However, they are only common in the Muslim world.

Shrugs…some are specific problems, others…not really. I mean, it’s become quite fashionable to focus on the Muslim world, and to treat it (absurdly, and idiotically) as a homogeneous mass, but that’s how people deal with complex issues…they deal with complex abstractions. Those not familiar with how intellectuals break down issues as such are prone to chicken-little syndrome…no dear, the sky isn’t really falling even though the streets are indeed flooded.

There are no laws in Latin America that say the testimony of a minority religion’s male is half that of a majority religion’s male or that a minority religion’s female’s testimony against a majority religion member is not allowed.

Only a valid gripe against all Muslim states if indeed all Muslim states had such laws.

There are no laws in Japan or Taiwan that ban women from working

Only a valid gripe against all Muslim states if indeed all Muslim states had such laws.

There are not armed religious militant groups in country after country in Latin America, Europe, or Eastern Asia.

LOL…now that’s funny…remove "religous’, and viola…and yes, you can count BlackWater and other mercenary-terror groups in that crowed too.

UK: Rebuilt it, democracy

Rebuilt themselves, gave US democracy.

Japan: Rebuilt it, wrote its democratic constitution, was once occupied by the US

Was already industrialized, but no doubt US foreign policy here was at it’s best. It worked. Democracy? Whoop-de-doo…Japanese don’t mind it, so whatever.

Germany: Rebuilt it, democracy, was once occupied by the US

Same as above.

South Korea: Democracy, was once occupied by the US

South Koreans had democracy…but didn’t see spectacular economic growth until a certain dictator came along…

Taiwan: Democracy

Could have had Saddam as leader, would still have been an ally.

The Philippines: Former US colony, democracy today

Usurping Moro land, as the Chinese are doing to the Uighars.

Israel: Democracy

Usurping Palestininan land.

Egypt: Autocracy (although according to your statements in this thread it is “democratic”)

Actually, according to your equating of consensus and representation to democracy…I never made such a claim.

Saudi Arabia: Monarchy
Jordan: Monarchy

Point?

Turkey: Democracy
Poland: Democracy
Mexico: Democracy

You forgot Pakistan, Iraq (at one point), China (largest trading partner), several Latin American dictatorships during the 80’s, and so on.

The rest of the countries on the list had no significant democratic tradition until modern times yet they transitioned to democracy in recent decades despite being closely allied with the US. The only exceptions on this list are Arab states…

I’m really trying hard to discern what your point is…