Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Of Crazed on December 28, 2007, 03:17:24 AM
-
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIE0IUn4WIiaMBpjG8SI_6H5RXzgD8TQ55L00
Screw you terrorism.
Screw you Musharraf.
-
I second that sentiment.
-
Musharraf, Bhutto, Sharif...distinction without difference.
-
So, they're all the same to you?
-
Please don't make me repeat myself.
-
There's a difference between repetition and clarification. Actually, a bit of clarification would be nice. Therefore I ask again:
So, they're all the same to you?
-
People who don't wear olive drab are all the same to him.
-
*steps over g-c's pwnt body and starts a new thought...*
Is it possible to have a lasting democracy in a Muslim nation? (ok - so define democracy how you will)
-
*steps over g-c's pwnt body and starts a new thought...*
Is it possible to have a lasting democracy in a Muslim nation? (ok - so define democracy how you will)
I believe it is. Most of the Muslim world is at a point in its history in which conditions for democracy simply aren't ideal - a wide gap between the rich and poor, prevalent corruption in government that forces people to rely on personal connections, etc. The process of liberalization in government has to include solutions to these problems. They go hand in hand. There's nothing particularly un-Islamic about having a democratic form of government, in any case.
If most Muslim states do have problems with democracy, it's more of a cultural than a religious issue. The liberalization and democratization process has to take place slowly and with the support of most of the population. Since most Muslim states don't have much of a history of democracy in government, it may take a while. And a few countries have taken significant steps towards democratic governance (Indonesian elections of 2004, for one example.)
-
Not every nation is made for democracy. The nature of the Muslim religion and the conservatism of Muslim people means that a Muslim nation tends to be more suited to an authoritarian government. Would a benevolent one be preferable? Sure.
Another case: the Russians. The Czars were authoritarian, the communists were authoritarian, and only now when presidents wield more power does the nation get under control.
Democracy isn't for everyone.
-
Is it possible to have a lasting democracy in a Muslim nation? (ok - so define democracy how you will)
It's a really flawed question though in the first place, but it gets asked alot in the "west." We don't ask the same thing about Christianity, even though China has officially questioned whether the (Christian-esque) US is truly a representative democracy or not (back to the caveat in your question jd) and Christian majority nations like Guatemala and Haiti have some of the worst human rights abuses around against their citizens. Turkey, on the other hand, is majority Muslim, as easily defined as democratic as the US is, and has better gender equity in the workplace than the US, the UK, and a lot of other nations.
-
*steps over g-c's pwnt body and starts a new thought...*
Is it possible to have a lasting democracy in a Muslim nation? (ok - so define democracy how you will)
Whole western world is based on Christian nation, ofc it's possible. It has to take time, not forced down their throats.
-
We don't ask the same thing about Christianity, even though China has officially questioned whether the (Christian-esque) US is truly a representative democracy or not...
I can tell you this, the 109th Congress (I believe) legislated with the direct support of only 17% of voters.
And as to Pakistan... I certainly don't have my hopes up.
-
Is it possible to have a lasting democracy in a Muslim nation? (ok - so define democracy how you will)
It's a really flawed question though in the first place, but it gets asked alot in the "west." We don't ask the same thing about Christianity, even though China has officially questioned whether the (Christian-esque) US is truly a representative democracy or not (back to the caveat in your question jd) and Christian majority nations like Guatemala and Haiti have some of the worst human rights abuses around against their citizens. Turkey, on the other hand, is majority Muslim, as easily defined as democratic as the US is, and has better gender equity in the workplace than the US, the UK, and a lot of other nations.
M - It's only a flawed question if one assumes that it was not going to be asked about "Christian" nations. I asked about Islam because of the topic of this thread. And you're right about asking that about any country or religion. Just in this case, I was looking on thoughts about Pakistan and other Muslim nations. How might a lasting Muslim democracy look, and what aspects of Islam are compatible with what forms of democracy?
-
*steps over g-c's pwnt body and starts a new thought...*
Is it possible to have a lasting democracy in a Muslim nation? (ok - so define democracy how you will)
I believe it is. Most of the Muslim world is at a point in its history in which conditions for democracy simply aren't ideal - a wide gap between the rich and poor, prevalent corruption in government that forces people to rely on personal connections, etc. The process of liberalization in government has to include solutions to these problems. They go hand in hand. There's nothing particularly un-Islamic about having a democratic form of government, in any case.
If most Muslim states do have problems with democracy, it's more of a cultural than a religious issue. The liberalization and democratization process has to take place slowly and with the support of most of the population. Since most Muslim states don't have much of a history of democracy in government, it may take a while. And a few countries have taken significant steps towards democratic governance (Indonesian elections of 2004, for one example.)
I only wish the U.S. and the U.K. were better suited for democracies.
-
What does annoy me is in Britain i keep getting told by Muslims that it is the religion of peace yet never see that.
I have already seen Muslim leaders on the news blaming and condemning American and the West as they murdered Bhutto
Yet, even the Pakistan government and the opposition blame a Muslim terrorist group... hmmm
-
I also like how Christians call their religion one of peace.
"I like Christ. But not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-
You're assuming terrorist groups are a normal manifestation of Muslim ideals. That's like assuming secret polices or capitalism are normal manifestations of Christian Ideals.
-
Christianity is more suited to social capitalism or non-Marxist socialism than capitalism. I'm agnostic, and I know that.
-
Please read "Islamic Culture and Democracy: Testing the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Thesis," an article that uses data collected using the comprehensive World Values Survey, for the answer to this question.
-
How might a lasting Muslim democracy look, and what aspects of Islam are compatible with what forms of democracy?
"This question" seems a bit vague (aren't all these discussions here a bit meandering?). Are you referring to the above question? Perhaps this would have been more clear had you given a bit of summary or some sort of explanation of how this fits into your point.
Edit: Also, it appears your article is not available for a reasonable price on the web, and is apparently only published in a Comparative Sociology (text?)book that probably isn't much the coffee table book. Could you post a link, or some suggestion on how oen might acquire this piece?
-
GC, an answer? never 'the' answer for me.
Myr, yes whatever, it was just an example to how you shouldn't group things like Muslims and terrorism. Hence you made proof of it, Christians or Catholics are allot of things.
*
And I thought: «Al Qaeda, I won't forgive you for this!»
Al Qaeda denies it's involvement in the killing of Bhutto, and I believe Al Qaeda more than Pakistan authorities, I must say. The rumors seem to be false, and Al Qaeda representative say it was theater, Al Qaeda would never attack women. And for that I must believe, if you think they are disrespectful to women because they make them use their costumes, well they have their own costumes that they have to wear, it's tradition (lol, nothing different from the other discussion about the British system). And in the contrary, they are quite respectful of women.
Bhutto's own party members say the government is afraid, they always blamed Musharraf for the assassination, specially because it was weird why so many government policemen and bodyguards and agents around and even then a bomber came to the party.
What do you think?
-
GC, an answer? never 'the' answer for me.
Myr, yes whatever, it was just an example to how you shouldn't group things like Muslims and terrorism. Hence you made proof of it, Christians or Catholics are allot of things.
*
And I thought: «Al Qaeda, I won't forgive you for this!»
Al Qaeda denies it's involvement in the killing of Bhutto, and I believe Al Qaeda more than Pakistan authorities, I must say. The rumors seem to be false, and Al Qaeda representative say it was theater, Al Qaeda would never attack women. And for that I must believe, if you think they are disrespectful to women because they make them use their costumes, well they have their own costumes that they have to wear, it's tradition (lol, nothing different from the other discussion about the British system). And in the contrary, they are quite respectful of women.
Bhutto's own party members say the government is afraid, they always blamed Musharraf for the assassination, specially because it was weird why so many government policemen and bodyguards and agents around and even then a bomber came to the party.
What do you think?
I personally dont believe Al Qaeda are respectful to women especially a women (in this case) who is outside the conservative tradition role/view of a women they agree such as Afghanistan before the invasion.
-
And from that, you think they're responsible of the attacks?
-
From what I have heard and understand the attacks were by a group that is an off shoot of the Taliban that are more know for their attacks in Afganastan. This group focuses their attacks only in Pakistan and is back by Al Qaeda but is not them. In the last 6 months or so the group has been on offensive causing hundreds of deaths in Pakistan.
What bothers me the most is how the government of Pakistan is handling it. First we hear its a gun wound, then it goes to a skull fracture. I have not seen it but reportedly there is a picture of a gun man behind her, and multiple eye witnesses say she was shot. The government was also quick to blame Al Qaeda.
-
And from that, you think they're responsible of the attacks?
No, but disagree with what u said about their views on women.
-
The government was also quick to blame Al Qaeda.
All Pakistan has to do is point to the big bad Al Queda and the Pakistani government comes out looking like a victim instead of being blamed for not protecting Bhutto sufficiently. It's pretty convenient.
Myro, I see where you're going with linking economies and religion... You might want to check out the economic theory in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It explains why modern capitalism emerged in Europe as opposed to other places on the globe, and links it to Calvinism... Calvinists though that material wealth was a sign from god that they were chosen for heaven, but Calvisism pretty much kept them from spending their stuff, so it just kept getting reinvested and reinvested. Combine that with the industrial revolution, et voila... capitalism on a bun.
-
The government was also quick to blame Al Qaeda.
All Pakistan has to do is point to the big bad Al Queda and the Pakistani government comes out looking like a victim instead of being blamed for not protecting Bhutto sufficiently. It's pretty convenient.
I think that irrelevant of the perpetrator, it is still easy to blame the government for "not protecting Bhutto sufficiently".
Personally, I find it less likely than not (33%, perhaps) that the Pakistani government would assassinate Bhutto at this time; it seems a politically stupid thing. The most likely candidate seems to be a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda (or an offshoot, as OC points out) - their goals fall much more into the death-and-chaos realm. Admittedly, Musharraf has quite a bit to gain from such "chaos" as it fits well with the justification for his own authoritarian rule - but then, why step down as head of the military? And if his regime did do it, would his administration really believe that it could somehow rally people towards Musharraf for security against Al-Qaeda?
But in the end, I don't know - it's all speculation at this point (excepting the circumstantial evidence put forth by the Interior Ministry of Pakistan). Pointing a finger speculatively at Musharraf is no more knowing than pointing a finger speculatively at Al-Qaeda.
-
Oh ya for sure, but there's no way Musharraf would pass up this chance, on the global stage as well as domestically to some extent, to look like a victim.
-
Another thing i don't understand is that they are arguing about what killed her: bullet, sun-roof thingy or shrapnel from a bomb or a mixture of the three. Why was no autopsy carried out especially considering the nature of her death...
-
I believe that bodies are very sacred in Islam, even more so than Christianity...she probably either didn't want an autopsy or it was unheard of.
I also heard - this was CNN, mind you, and I normally watch the BBC - that the person shot her, then blew himself up for insurance against her living.
-
NPR said people saw a gun men. I don't know how valid the car thing is.
-
I believe that bodies are very sacred in Islam, even more so than Christianity...she probably either didn't want an autopsy or it was unheard of.
But considering the situation - would save further arguments or even more violence and deaths
-
Público says she died from impact.
-
Another thing i don't understand is that they are arguing about what killed her: bullet, sun-roof thingy or shrapnel from a bomb or a mixture of the three. Why was no autopsy carried out especially considering the nature of her death...
The doctor apparently concluded that a bullet caused her death. As for the government changing the "official" cause of death, that's because Musharraf wants to avoid too much blame for her assassination on account of his not providing her sufficient security. Still, I don't see how her banging her head on the edge of the car's sunroof as a result of the blast is any better for Musharraf than her being shot. Both would have been a result of loose security.
-
I wonder if Musharraf is going to use this to his advantage. The whole reason he came to power is so he could combat these terrorist. If he really wants to do that, here is an event he could use to give a reason why. Then again, I am sure being in power is one if his only goals. :idk: