[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

2. Correct, politically Turkey is a secular democracy. You are making my point here. It has been a secular democracy 88 years.

It's been a secular Democracy despite not because of islam.

Originally Posted by Lotus

It is also actively Muslim in terms of the religious practices of the population. Has been for about 1,000 years. Just because it is referred to politically as a "secular" democracy does not mean there is no religion.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Therefore, as I type these words, Islam and democracy have a nearly century-long track record of being compatible in Turkey.

Wholly incompatible, at odds and in a prolonged power struggle which islam is now beginning to win.

Originally Posted by Lotus

So we see that when you said, "There's no example of islam and Democracy being compatible," you were mistaken. .

You have still not given an example of islam and Democracy being compatible. It's generally a Theocracy with the facade of democracy.

Originally Posted by Lotus

You can speculate about the future of Turkey all you want. But my argument is not built on speculation - I am providing hard evidence..

You have provided no evidence, merely your opinion.

Originally Posted by Lotus

So my initial point, that you made a false statement, remains established.

Only in your opinion.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Evidence, not speculation, shows that it is simply untrue to say, "There's no example of islam and Democracy being compatible." I will respond to the rest of your post just to defend myself:

Originally Posted by Lotus

3. Religious intolerance in Indonesia does not mean that Islam and democracy are incompatible there, just as religious intolerance in the USA does not mean that Christianity and democracy cannot coexist here. It just means that there are some intolerant people. When the mosque in Tennessee was burned last year, did that mean that Christianity and democracy are incompatible? No.

As islam is a political system as well as being a cult I don't think your comparison is valid. One mosque in Tennessee? Compared to the worldwide stealth imposition of the Pact of Umar? Now I'll be the first to admit a lot of mosques worldwide get destroyed, but it's by moslem-on-moslem violence. Rarely is it by another religious group or my lot.

Originally Posted by Lotus

4. India. India consists of more than Hindus. There are more than 220 million Muslims in India, making India the world's third largest Muslim country. India is also a democracy. So 220 million Muslims in India coexist with democracy.

Most give the figure as 165M but even at 220M they are still less than 15% to 80% + Hindu. Nice use of a large number to give credence to your claim. How did Pakistan come to be partitioned from India? If you'd like an instant replay observe Kashmir. More overwhelming evidence that moslems, when they reach a certain %, cease playing 'nice'. Cline's observation, from 2008 (I think):
Below two percent Muslims are well-behaved citizens and cause little apparent trouble for the host society.
At two percent and three percent Muslims begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
From five percent on Muslims exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They push for the introduction of halal ("clean" by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves--along with threats for failure to comply (United States, Switzerland, Sweden). At this point, Muslims work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, or Islamic law. (England, Netherlands, Philippines).
When Muslims reach 10 percent of the population, they increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris--car burning). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam, Denmark--Mohammed cartoons, murder of Theo van Gogh).
After reaching 20 percent of a population expect hair-trigger rioting, Jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning (Indonesia, Ethiopia).
After 40 percent you find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare (Bosnia, Chad).
From 60 percent you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and jizya, the tax placed on [conquered] infidels (Sudan, Albania).
After 80 percent, expect to find state-run ethnic cleansing and genocide (Syria, Egypt, UAE).

Originally Posted by Lotus

5. Bangladesh. Same argument as Indonesia. If the religious intolerance of some invalidates democracy then democracy does not exist anywhere on the planet. Religious intolerance exists in some form everywhere.

And you'll get the same answer. The madrassars are the lifeblood of radical (or to me mainstream, old-school) islam and the supposed moderate form is just a convenient facade for jizya from unsuspecting Western states.

Originally Posted by Lotus

6. Egypt. Just because they have the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean that they haven't had democratic elections, albeit imperfect. Does the presence of the KKK make the USA not a democracy? No. You make a non-argument about Egypt.

When has the KKK represented 39% of the voting public in an election? That's what the hilariously named Freedom and Justice Party are at right now and that's with almost 40% 'undecided'. That was a Straw Man and a pretty weak one too.

Originally Posted by Lotus

7. The democratic impulse in Islam which I mentioned pre-dates the division into legal schools. Abu Bakr, who was the first caliph (or leader after Muhammad), was put in his position by democratic election. Thus democracy has remained a paradigmatic ideal because Abu Bakr was the first of the Rightly Guided Caliphs as well as Muhammad's bff. Later caliphs turned into hereditary monarchs but still had sham "elections" for their sons out of respect for this precedent. The hadith which you produced does not change this fact.

What kind of representation do women get under this 'democracy'? And Dhimmis?

Riiiiiight!

I sincerely apologize for taking so long to respond, I am able to look in anonymously on WP but can't post. I eagerly await your response.