There goes the neighborhood - Tunisia Edition

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Which statement?

By the good graces of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Turkey has been a Secular (barely still due to the succesful lobbying of moslems) Republic since 29 October 1923. He ensured that Turkey was made a progressive SECULAR country. Yes, the majority of Turkey is moslem but the full impact of that scourge is yet to be felt. Soon, very soon though. Just in time to complete the downfall of Europe.

Indonesia is going through a period of religious turmoil as churches are attacked and then blocked from being rebuilt or repair in line with islamic tenets.

India? Hindu India?

Bangladesh? Where the High Court had to remind the majority moslem population back in '72 that they were a secular state because of the brutality meted out to women? That Bangladesh?

EGYPT??????? Home of the Moslem Brotherhood?

Which of the four established schools of sunni islam are you referring to? Also which philosophical tradition are you suggesting is the guiding light? Athari, Ash'ari or Maturidi? Democratic? GTFOOH!

The huge, raging clue in that quote is the simple but telling phrase 'My community'.....Kufr beware!

Most Sunni (please feel free to correct me) use the Bukhari Hadith for guidance, correct?

Bukhari:V9B84N59 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.’”

So to recap: You're wrong, couldn't be more wrong unless you were lying.

1. Which statement? I guess the one which I bolded.

2. Correct, politically Turkey is a secular democracy. You are making my point here. It has been a secular democracy 88 years. 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. Therefore, as I type these words, Islam and democracy have a nearly century-long track record of being compatible in Turkey. So we see that when you said, "There's no example of islam and Democracy being compatible," you were mistaken.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.