[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fuzznug: *
No, it's not the democratic way to infringe upon basic rights
[/QUOTE]
Neither is the Sharia Law based on that. And History proves it.
My view is that some people cant stomach the fact that anyone would choose to be ruled under Islamic guidance and law. Maybe because they have a distorted view, due to what they've seen already, or maybe they just cant tolerate another lifestyle. Whatever it is, they should know that not everyone’s ideal way of life is the American way.
America needs to learn how to live and let live with other nations, just like she teaches her citizens to. Like America really gives a rat’s ass about the Iraqi public, she’s more interested in replacing one puppet with another. Ahmed Chalabi for example.
Puppets dont go down too well with the public for long. History has proven that too. Just ask the Iranians.
The demonstration by Iraqi Shia Muslims took the media and the US military completely by surprise, when thousands of Shia men converged from the north and south on the Palestine Hotel late on Monday afternoon.
It was extremely well regimented, with long robed and turbaned clerics first ordering the crowds to sit down in Saadun Street, just under the broadcasting positions of the assembled television news organisations. Then the chanting began, at first with the now obligatory call for Islamic unity between the majority Shia and their Sunni Muslim counterparts.
Then the crowds called for the immediate release of the cleric - Sheikh Muhammad al-Fartusi - who is the representative in Baghdad of the powerful Hawza Council of Ulema, which is based in Najaf. Outside the Palestine Hotel other chants included “No to colonialism” - a reference to fears of US intentions in Iraq - and “Release Fartusi or else”.
In a statement to the media, Sheikh Hussein al-Assadi, a student of Sheikh Fartusi, warned that, since US forces had set foot in Iraq, they should be aware of Muslim sensibilities, “otherwise there will be an explosion”.
“We suffered under Saddam, we don’t want to suffer under the Americans, too,” he said.
Then, with a word from one of the organising clerics, held shoulder-high among the crowd as they beat their chest in the traditional Shia fashion, the demonstrators marched away north up Saddun Street.
One of Toronto’s main papers, the Toronto Star, is running a special section of Robert Fisk’s articles. This latest one by him is an interesting read, but pretty disturbing.
*Then the crowds called for the immediate release of the cleric - Sheikh Muhammad al-Fartusi - who is the representative in Baghdad of the powerful Hawza Council of Ulema, which is based in Najaf. Outside the Palestine Hotel other chants included "No to colonialism" - a reference to fears of US intentions in Iraq - and "Release Fartusi or else". *
As the almost daily Baghdad demonstrations are showing the Iraqi people want the right to rule themselves and choose their own form of government, not for outsiders to decide that.
Why is it so difficult to understand that a theocracy voted in by a majority of people is NOT a democracy. A theocracy would infringe on the rights of the minority, stifling free speech, free press and freedom of religion. A government where ayatollahs have the final say is not a democracy, it doesn't matter how that government came in to power. Where would the democracy be for the 40% non-shias in Iraq?
Democracy is defined as the will of the people. It is voting by the people for the people they want and for the govt they want. So it is in esscense a democracy by its very nature.
Let the people of iraq decide, why should you care. Worry about the 2004 elections.
Rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. A system is not fair or just that permits 60% of the population to oppress the remaining 40% in the name of the majority. Majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that protect the rights of minorities - whether ethnic, religious, or political. The rights of minorities does not depend upon the goodwill of the majority. They are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens. Can that happen under a shia theocracy?
You didnt read what i said. Democracy is when people vote. Yes it can. Kurds in Iran dont want an independent state as they are treated more than fairly. While in Saudi a darling of the US muslims arent treated equally. Equal and fair education for women in Iran. Not so in Saudi or Kuwait. Women can vote in Iran. Not so in Kuwait or Saudi. Iran has held regular and free elections. No other Arab country has done that.
Religious minorities? Iran has many minorities and all are treated equally. From Christians to Ba'ahis, i think that is how you spell it. Secondly why cant the people vote for what they want? Isnt that the American principle freedom to vote for the govt you want? If the Iraqis want a theocracy. Why cant they have it?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: Rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. A system is not fair or just that permits 60% of the population to oppress the remaining 40% in the name of the majority.
[/QUOTE]
Before mouthing accusations, please could you show us any proof that the Shia-majority in Iraq has called for subjugating the minorities in Iraq? I am talking about Iraqi Shia's not anyone else so I expect to you to address this point only, otherwise I will conclude you have no proof to back up your claim.
I don't think you read what I wrote. Not coming from a democratic tradition, I understand your failure to grasp the concept. Democracy is not merely "when people vote". There must be democratic institutions and laws that protect the minorities. 60% cannot impose their brand of government, laws and religion on the remaining 40%.
Evening Malik. I was about to post the same thing. And look at this young whipper snapper. Not coming from a Democractic background. Atleast i can say i dont come from a racist background. Anyway Sem i suggest you read it yourself. But dont try Fox news or your resident 80 year old World War 2 vet. Rather Check Amnesty International or the Human Rights watch or the Red cross.
Anyway answer the questions that Malik and I pose to you.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Can that happen under a shia theocracy?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
If the supreme court can install Bush in the white house and call it democracy, i dont see why you cant accept the majorty votes, be it 51% or 99.99%?
Bottom line is, Theocracy or democracy, is not for me, you, or the average Joe to decide. The decision is up to the Iraqi people, wether they want theocracy or democracy. We should respect and accept thier choice. So pipe down for now.
I read everything you wrote, and failed to find any proof from you whatsover to back up your claims that the Iraqi Shia Muslim majority will opress the minorties. So I will give you another chance please could you show us any proof that the Shia-majority in Iraq has called for subjugating the minorities in Iraq? I am talking about Iraqi Shia's not anyone else so I expect to you to address this point only, otherwise I will conclude you have no proof to back up your claim.
Come on let's see your proof?
P.S. Hey CM bud nice to see you back, lean (metaphorically of course) and mean as usual :)
Pray tell, on what basis do you think a shia theocracy would do anything else but subjegate the minorities? Can you point to one example where minorities are protected in such a government? The only example out there is Iran where you can be executed for practicing free speech. So how about putting the burden on you to prove that it won't happen in Iraq? As far as coming from a racist tradition, spare me. There is not a more racist society than the Arabs. One more time for those of you who come from dictator-type goverments and have confusion as to what democracy really is - a theocracy is not a democracy, no matter how it came to power.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: Pray tell, on what basis do you think a shia theocracy would do anything else but subjegate the minorities?
[/QUOTE]
That is something for you to prove. Come on give us the proof where the Iraqi Shia Muslim majority have talked about subjugating the minorties of Iraq? Give us any examples where people from the Iraqi Shia Muslim majority have subjugated minorites in Iraq in the past?
Now don’t lose your rag. If you did not give a damn about my “agenda” then why do you keep replying to me?
Come on now, let us see the proof to back you your accusations against the peace-loving Iraqi Shia Muslim majority of Iraq? I am a patient and tolerant person, and I’m prepared to wait for you to provide the proof, however long it takes.
A democracy and a theocracy are opposing types of governments. The only thing they have in common is that they end in "cracy". It doesn't matter how benelovent the shias are, if they impose their ideology on all (through an election they control becase of their numbers or otherwise), there will be, by default, an absence of freedom of religoin. That would translate into other laws that prohibit freedom of expression.
Malik, I don't give a damn about your agenda because it is blatantly one-sided, closed-minded, biased and derogatory. If you would be more open to other ideas and climb off your soap box where everything American is evil - your arguments would carry much more weight. It may surprise you that in chats with other Americans, I usually play devil's advocate with the blind, pro-American patriots. I am much more successful in showing them my point of view than you are because I am able to acknowledge the good and the bad of all soceities where I seem them. You never acknowledge anything except in a derogatory anti-American way. I respond to you posts because a) they could represent 1/2 of the posts at any given time on WA; b) they are sometimes so blatantly biased, it's like hitting a beachball with a baseball bat; and sometimes c) to see if I can elicit just one response that is not bathed in 110% anti-Americanism and might accept any tiny piece of blame or responsiblity for the world's ills on your own society (not your adopted one).
Now don’t lose your rag. If you did not give a damn about my “agenda” then why do you keep replying to me? 