Point well taken Dan--nothing is ever perfect. My point would only be that Egypt has inscribed in its Constitution a preference for Islam that is not true in Indonesia and the reality is that while preferably there would be protection for all religious groups and atheists, that failure doesn't undermine democracy as much as favoring one religion
I don't know enough about Indonesia to really say whether or not religious intolerance is growing or not. I have read some articles indicating that there has been some government tolerance of harassment, but whether it is increasing or not or whether the relatively small number of incidents has much significance, I don't know.

bbauska

RickyP, you are using the example of how Iran is a good example as to what Egypt is heading to

No I'm not.
I'm saying that there is an evolutionary pattern to the establishment of democracy. In fact, I've said Egypt is further along on it than Iran... Iran is largely intolerant of minorities, whereas the draft Egyptian constitution already makes allowances for minorities...
What i was pointing out, is that judgements about whether something is good or bad (Like the Iranian Revolution) depends on one's point of view. The majority of Iranians were fairly pleased with the fruits of the revolution.
You guys are like British about American revolutionary rabble.... They never thoiught Americans could rule themselves either...
If you are a purist, demanding democracies arrive full blown, with wide protections for individuals irrespective of their status, upon the removal of a despot ...neither Egypt nor Iran will satisfy. But that is an impossibly high standard. Few democracies have been born in that fashion.

danivon

You are also dead wrong about the first 12 being elected. Some of the first set were (although by 'election' it really meant by agreement between a small group of the elite). But the sixth Caliph founded the Umayyad dynasty, and from then on it was a hereditary position

.

To the extent that the Umayyad "candidates for the caliphate " were limited to descendants. ...they still required the consensus approval. And yes, of a small fairly elite group. Like Cardinals in the Catholic church. And if memory serves, inheritance was the preferred method of ascension to the caliphate by Shiites - just not the Umayyads...

And to this day, there is not, in the Sunni sect, a central authority over religion that proscribes ... there is still a requirement for consultation. Its that tradition of consultation I'm appealing to as a basis for "a tradition of democracy". You made the distinction for Ray about Morsi as "Theocratic" and that's the direction I intended.

rickyp wrote:To the extent that the Umayyad "candidates for the caliphate " were limited to descendants. ...they still required the consensus approval. And yes, of a small fairly elite group. Like Cardinals in the Catholic church.

Well, Cardinals are appointed. Perhaps you mean Popes. Except that the college of cardinals is usually quite a bit larger than the small group who got together to select the next Rashidun Caliph (and, of course, at the time the Pope was elected by all Christians in Rome - the restriction to Cardinals came in in the 11th Century).

This period, by the way, of selecting the Caliphs by what you call 'democratic' but could easily be seen as a small leadership cabal selecting from themselves lasted for less than 30 years, and was finished by 661AD. I doubt very much that this is much of a 'tradition' some 1450 years later.

And if memory serves, inheritance was the preferred method of ascension to the caliphate by Shiites - just not the Umayyads...

The Shia don't recognise the Caliphate, only Sunnis do. For an expert on Islam and it's sects you seem a little short on the facts. The first Imam, Ali (who was Muhammed's son-in-law) was also the fourth Caliph.

And to this day, there is not, in the Sunni sect, a central authority over religion that proscribes ... there is still a requirement for consultation. Its that tradition of consultation I'm appealing to as a basis for "a tradition of democracy".

Not really. Since the abolition of the Caliphate that is true, but in reality it is not 'democracy' that determines religious law and practice, it's more like debating within various (five currently) schools of jurisprudence.

You made the distinction for Ray about Morsi as "Theocratic" and that's the direction I intended.

Seriously, stop making stuff up then. Sunni Islam does not have much of a tradition of democracy. Rather, it has a long tradition of heirarchy, with the Caliphs at the top.

The Shia don't recognise the Caliphate, only Sunnis do.

They recognized the caliphate of Ali. and his son Hassan. It was after their deaths that the schism occurred,

Not really. Since the abolition of the Caliphate that is true, but in reality it is not 'democracy' that determines religious law and practice, it's more like debating within various (five currently) schools of jurisprudence

.

I never said it was democracy. I said it was a consultative process. And when sharia is carried out in a consultative process it provides a tradition where authority is not assumed, but where it is justified. And that tradition provides a better grounding for the establishment of democracy and the rule of law, than for a society which has been controlled top down, by royal fiat, for centuries...
Muslims learn, though the application of Sharia, that consensus and the rule of the majority matters. see Ijma.

IJMA' means consensus, that is, acceptance of a matter by a specified group of people. In Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) the matter on which ijma' is of interest is understood in one of the two following ways

:
The term Sawadal-azam is Islamic.

So, how can we achieve maximum enlightenment and freedom of thought and conscience along with cohesion and continuity? By following four well-known Islamic principles:
Khilafa, institution of an Islamic government
Shura, government by consultation
Sawad al-a'zam, rule by majority
Amr bi al-ma'ruf wa nahi 'an al-mukar, enjoining right and forbidding wrong

source:
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/meaningofijma.htm

Seriously, stop making stuff up then. Sunni Islam does not have much of a tradition of democracy. Rather, it has a long tradition of heirarchy, with the Caliphs at the top.

Sunni Islam is based upon the Quran and the Haditha and the Sunna. The Caliphs stopped being both temporal and spiritual leaders of Islam in 935... Where state affairs were largely dictatorial governments, , day to day life was still rule by Sharia. Which continued to have the tradition of "consultation": which you characterize as debating.
Interesting to note that in houses of parliament "debate" is held to be part of our process of democratic government .

If one considers that inherent to the Sunni tradition is a respect for consultation and consensus in its application of Sharia, then Egypt has the advantage of the populace committed to this value.
Consider the potential engagement of a people, who have little to no experience with participatory democracy, or the respect for a consultative process in any aspect of their lives? Engaging in a democratic process, and accepting the results of that engagement, are difficult.

danivon

the restriction to Cardinals came in in the 11th Century

I was comparing the current election of the pope to the original selections of Caliph. Ineptly phrased.

rickyp wrote:

The Shia don't recognise the Caliphate, only Sunnis do.

They recognized the caliphate of Ali. and his son Hassan. It was after their deaths that the schism occurred,

Well, no. They saw Ali as the first Imam. So they see the first three Caliphs (and of course the Umayyads who took the Caliphate from Ali in battle) as being venerated only as companions of Muhammed, but not as Caliphs - and they really saw those Caliphs as illegitimate. They didn't recognise the Caliphate of Ali, as they saw he was already the first Imam before and after his selection, and the subsequent removal of his line from the post as usurpation.

It's kind of like saying that the Scots recognised the English monarchs because James I was King of England. They didn't, and they didn't care about James being King of England, they just saw him as James VI of Scotland, which he already was before 1603. When the English changed the rules of succession, the Scots were far from happy to accept the Hanoverians as their kings, and rose up a few times in support of the Stuart line.

Look, stop trying to come off as an expert on Islam and Muslim thinking, when clearly you can't tell the difference between the 12 Imams and the early Caliphs. Or at least admit you made an error with your original claims.

I never said it was democracy. I said it was a consultative process. And when sharia is carried out in a consultative process it provides a tradition where authority is not assumed, but where it is justified. And that tradition provides a better grounding for the establishment of democracy and the rule of law, than for a society which has been controlled top down, by royal fiat, for centuries...
Muslims learn, though the application of Sharia, that consensus and the rule of the majority matters. see Ijma.

Ok, two corrections for you.

1) Consensus is not the same as Democracy. Sometimes it actually stifles democracy.
2) 'Ijma' refers to consensus among scholars. So it's not really 'democracy' is it (that would be at a stretch, consensus of the people as a whole). It's more like academic consensus. That is not 'democratic' - it's about persuading people of the most compelling argument or theory.

The term Sawadal-azam is Islamic.

It's definitely Arabic, and is an Islamic concept meaning a great mass of people. But oddly enough, there's quite a lot of disagreement in Islam as to whether that means you have to follow majority rule or not, and who constitutes the majority (and of what, given that different sects are often seen by others as un-Islamic). Or what it can even 'rule' on.

So, while some hold that it means 'most Muslims', what is really usually means is 'most scholars'. And often, 'most scholars in a particular school'. And still, there's an allowance that these majorities can be wrong - indeed it's common for people to just split off and follow the minority view instead.

Seriously, stop making stuff up then. Sunni Islam does not have much of a tradition of democracy. Rather, it has a long tradition of heirarchy, with the Caliphs at the top.

Sunni Islam is based upon the Quran and the Haditha and the Sunna. The Caliphs stopped being both temporal and spiritual leaders of Islam in 935... Where state affairs were largely dictatorial governments, , day to day life was still rule by Sharia. Which continued to have the tradition of "consultation": which you characterize as debating.
Interesting to note that in houses of parliament "debate" is held to be part of our process of democratic government .

Well, yes, but the fundamental difference since 1918 in the UK is that the people get to elect the members of parliament doing the debating in the more important House of Parliament [the Commons] and we accept that the other House where people debate is not democratic [the Lords]. That's why there are constant debates in the UK about whether or not to change the way that the Lords are put in place, so as to make it more democratic.

If, however, we just see debates between members of an elite, even if they carry out votes and abide by the majority, or come to consensus, that is not the same thing as democracy. It's still just the elite deciding amongst themselves.

If one considers that inherent to the Sunni tradition is a respect for consultation and consensus in its application of Sharia, then Egypt has the advantage of the populace committed to this value.
Consider the potential engagement of a people, who have little to no experience with participatory democracy, or the respect for a consultative process in any aspect of their lives? Engaging in a democratic process, and accepting the results of that engagement, are difficult.

Look, if you want to point to a reason why Egypt may be able to take up democracy, a far better example would be the period of the Kingdom of Egypt - 1922-1953 when regular national elections were held and the country had a relatively liberal regime under the Wafd party.

danivon

the restriction to Cardinals came in in the 11th Century

I was comparing the current election of the pope to the original selections of Caliph. Ineptly phrased.

Yep, and I'm not sure we'd see the College of Cardinals as being really democratic, even though there is a proper process for selecting the college and internally they vote (somehow, not sure what they do exactly). And it is still a lot larger than the ad-hoc committees used to select a successor Caliph. Even then, it was not codified or carried out every time. Sometimes, the outgoing Caliph would name a successor and there was no election at all.

So, basically, the current system of electing Popes is less democratic than many of us would expect - certainly less democratic than many Protestant sects are at choosing their pastors and leadership. It's also a lot less democratic than the original selection of Popes was before. And yet, it still looks more democratic than the handful of selections of Caliphs in Islam.

You really are reaching and it's getting silly.

danivon

) 'Ijma' refers to consensus among scholars.

Not according to By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
whom I quoted and linked you to as an authoratative source. It can refer to consensus among scholars, Or among all Muslims.
Who's your source?

Danivon

Look, if you want to point to a reason why Egypt may be able to take up democracy, a far better example would be the period of the Kingdom of Egypt - 1922-1953 when regular national elections were held and the country had a relatively liberal regime under the Wafd part

Fair enough. Perhaps part of the reason Egyptians took to democracy in this period was that, by nature or nurture of their religion ... they are prepared to accept the need for debate and consensus?
At the very least, it indicates that the religion itself, is not antiethical to democracy.
Which I think you and I agree upon...

rickyp wrote:danivon

) 'Ijma' refers to consensus among scholars.

Not according to By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
whom I quoted and linked you to as an authoratative source. It can refer to consensus among scholars, Or among all Muslims.
Who's your source?

Wikipedia is a good start. It does indeed say that it can be either, indeed:

Wikipedia wrote:Views within Sunni Islam branched off even further in later generations, with Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi defining even a simple majority view as constituting consensus and Ibn Taymiyyah restricting consensus to the view of the religiously learned only.[9] Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari's position was not entirely clear, as modern scholarship has attributed to him both the view that consensus means a simple majority,[9] and that it means only the consensus of the companions of Muhammad.[10]

You were the one starting off telling us it was democratic. Even Sunnis can't agree what it means. As they can't agree on the actual definition of the way that they should come to agree on a theological/religious law point such as this, it's pretty clear that:

a) there isn't a consensus among all Sunnis, just within sections of the Sunni community, and it can differ within them
b) It's still not about democracy, any more than Christian theological consensus is.

Fair enough. Perhaps part of the reason Egyptians took to democracy in this period was that, by nature or nurture of their religion ... they are prepared to accept the need for debate and consensus?

Maybe it's nothing to do with their religion, and more to do with a longer exposure to British and French influences, while other parts of the Arab world were being ruled by the Ottomans.

At the very least, it indicates that the religion itself, is not antiethical to democracy.
Which I think you and I agree upon...

I don't see it being much more or less antithetical to democracy than any other religion, no. But I'm not going to claim anything untrue as evidence.

Ricky, I am getting a migraine reading this discussion. Your argument as far I can tell goes like this: (1) Since the interpretation of Sharia proceeds on consensus and some Caliphs were elected by democratic means a long time ago, then somehow Islam is conducive to democracy. What about the fact Islam historically does not allow for separation of church and state (and is anti-secular)? What about the lack of belief in freedom of religion in Islam? What about while there may not be a top-down hierarchical structure that doesn't mean there are not local religious elites? Also, the lack of a hierarchy in Islam is one reason that radical Muslims are able to find support for their positions without being contradicted by a caliph or pope--like figure. Hence, there is a lack of consensus in Islam.
Taking a sliver of what appears to be a non- hierarchical structure in Islam and then making an interpretive leap that means Islam is conducive to democracy and ignoring all the aspects of Islam that appear to be antithetical to democracy is a stretch that gumby would be jealous of...

Meanwhile it is the 2 year anniversary, and there have been massive protests and a few deaths and many injuries today. My sense is that the regime has been relatively restrained. How do others see it?

So far, yes, they have been restrained. Which is positive I think.

Freeman, I'm sorry about the migraine...
I realize I have been belabouring a point. What I'm arguing against, more than for, is that nothing in Islam is necessarily anti-democratic.
I'll let someone else, below, make the same case.
And Freeman, in the Sunni dominated Islamic world, there has been a separation between the temporal powers and the religious leaders since 935 . (Armstrong, Short History of Islam)
The argument about whether or not there is possible a separation for a devout Muslim ... is similar to arguments about whether a fundamental Christian can separate his religious beliefs from the way he conducts his political affairs.
How do you take the religion out of the person?
I agree that Shiites wish for a theocracy....as they have managed to achieve in Iran.They are 15% of the Islamic world. The Ahmayid on the other hand, are an Indian Islamic sect based on separation of church and state....

Is Islam compatible with democracy?

In pre-modern times all the world’s religions supported monarchies and feudal societies and then moved to accommodate modern forms of democracy. Similarly, Muslims today are debating the relationship of Islam to democracy. While most wish for greater political participation, government accountability, freedoms and human rights, there are many different ways to achieve these goals.
There are various reactions to democratization in the Muslim world. Some argue that Islam has its own mechanisms and institutions that do not include democracy. Others believe that democracy can only be fully realized if Muslim societies restrict religion to private life.
Still others contend that Islam is fully capable of accommodating and supporting democracy. They argue that traditional Islamic concepts like consultation (shura) between ruler and ruled, community consensus (‘ijma), public interest (maslaha) and interpretation (ijtihad ) can support parliamentary forms of government.
Many believe that, just as the modern democracies of America and Europe accommodate diverse relationships with religion, Muslims too can develop their own varieties of democratic states that are responsive to indigenous values.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/2 ... m-faqs.htm


freeman

Taking a sliver of what appears to be a non- hierarchical structure in Islam and then making an interpretive leap that means Islam is conducive to democracy and ignoring all the aspects of Islam that appear to be antithetical to democracy is a stretch that gumby would be jealous of...

If one looks at how the Christian church, or even earlier the Jewish religious leaders, were heavily involved in temporal affairs .... one could conclude that democracy could never grow from those religions. And yet, over time, the religions adapted and changed to meet the needs of their populace. One of those needs was the acceptance and tolerance of other religions.
England has the C of E. And being Catholic was at one time, a dangerous practice in England...
I think its very dangerous to assume that Islam is unlike other reiglions. If one assumes that it isn't also, as other religions, constantly changing and evolving, as the many competing sections of the Sunni community demonstrate.
There is a lazy caracticture of Islam that is often used to paint the Islamic world as somehow backwards primarily because of its religion. Or even only because of its religion. In fact, the causes of the slower political development in the area are political. They have far more to do with years of colonization ending with the Ottomans, and the British and french. And the creation of despotic regimes that fought the development of democracy. Sometimes, like the Saudis they have used religion to bolster their regimes. Sometimes, like in Egypt, they have tried to secularize a conservative Muslim nation that didn't want to be secularized...
Its easy to fall in the trap of simplifying the problem of the growth of democracy as the nature of a religion. In reality, Islam has never been the reason, or will be the reason, democracy has not evolved as quickly.
Hell, when democracy was first tried in Iran and Egypt it was the colonial powers that saw it come to an end....

danivon

I don't see it being much more or less antithetical to democracy than any other religion, no. But I'm not going to claim anything untrue as evidence.

and yet:

Wikipedia is a good start. It does indeed say that it can be either, indeed

The Shia don't recognise the Caliphate, only Sunnis do. For an expert on Islam and it's sects you seem a little short on the facts. The first Imam, Ali (who was Muhammed's son-in-law) was also the fourth Caliph.

Well, I thought I should check my sources. In 656 Caliph Uthman (3rd) was assassinated by malcontent Muslim soldiers who acclaim Ali ibn Abi Talib as the new caliph. Not all accept this and civil war ensues...
Ali defeats Aisha , the prophets wife, but Uthmans kinsman oppose Ali also. In 657 Ali loses an arbitration and is deposed by Muawwiyyah. He is murdered 4 years later...
Interestingly, upon his death, Ali's followers (The Shia) acclaim Ali's son Hasan as caliph but Hasan makes a deal with M and retires....
So, according to this history, (Karen Armstrong, a short history of Islam) Ali and Hassan were caliphs, and at the time they held that "office" their followers recognized them as such....
I think that since you discovered your claims about Ijma were partly in error, perhaps you are wrong here too? At least partly.
I don't mind being told I'm wrong, if I actually am...but it would be nice if you occasionally sourced your claims and didn't just assume inerrancy in your own claims.

I like the link you posted, "Is Islam compatible with Democracy"
It says all sorts of things that are "possible"
problem is few if any of these possibilities seem to be happening in the real world. Some day Islam will eventually move to a more centrist position, right now however, it is far from that point and it has too many rabid Islamist nutjobs at this point to allow any real semblance of a democracy to take hold in this region. Some day, certainly, right now? Not a chance. Is it me and others being Islamaphobes? of course not, we are simply realists and not thinking pie in the sky what if's, the reality is harming the entire religion (just as has happened with all major religions at one time or another, they just so happen to be in the midst of their "bad times")

tom

Some day Islam will eventually move to a more centrist position,

I don't know what you mean by centrist position. I doubt you do.
However, if you are blaming Islam for the lack of democracy in the region. when you say this:
tom

it is far from that point and it has too many rabid Islamist nutjobs at this point to allow any real semblance of a democracy to take hold in this region

I'd ask you to support that by demonstrating a couple of nations where Islam is the primary reason for a lack of democracy. I think you'll find the reasons for authoritarian regimes have little to do with Islam, and more to do with the ability of a small elite group to maintain their hold on power, and privilege in order to extract wealth from their nations...
The two earliest attempts at democracy by middle eastern nations, apart from israel, were in Egypt and Iran. Both attempts were ended with the intervention of foreign nations.Britain and france in one case. The US in the other.
It had a great deal to do with the geopolitical and economic needs of those two nations. In short, in order to further the aims of their nations, two democratic governments were willing to help end democracy in both nations... By your reasoning this would mean the Cof E or Christianity in general are responsible for the lack of democracy.

If Islam were incompatible with democracy why is it that there are a number of nations with majority Muslim populations that enjoy successful democracies? (Malaysia, Indonesia, Azerbajian) And a few more that have attempted democracies, only to have the military intervene in the process. (Pakistan)

Your not a realist Tom. You don't recognize reality. You recognize only your perception of Islam, which I doubt has substantial depth.

rickyp wrote:So, according to this history, (Karen Armstrong, a short history of Islam) Ali and Hassan were caliphs, and at the time they held that "office" their followers recognized them as such....

I think there's a distinction to be made here - the Caliphs were successors on political and administrative matters, and the Imams on religious matters.

However, the Shia believed they should be united in Ali and his descendants, whereas the Sunni that it should be separate and the Caliph should be selected (and while there's some talk about this being by election, it was never democratic in any real sense).

So, when Ali got to be Caliph by Buggin's Turn, and then he named his son Hasan as successor (who then gave it up after the Umayyads beat Ali in a series of battles), the whole point was that it wasn't viewed the same by both sides.

Of course the Shia agreed on one political leader, and they were fine with it being the guy they'd always wanted for a short period (5 years, most of which were taken up with fighting a civil war (the First Fitna), but that doesn't mean they recognised the Caliphate itself - they saw it as being half of a job, with the Imams being the people to do the whole job.

I think that since you discovered your claims about Ijma were partly in error, perhaps you are wrong here too? At least partly.

I think we can safely say that your claims about Ijma were no less wrong than mine - you implied it was democratic, I pointed out that it is about consensus among scholars, turns out it is either of those, or possibly something in between, depending who you are.

That's the point - Muslims, even Sunnis, even Sunni Scholars, can't agree what 'agreement' means in practice. So it's pretty pointless to use the 'Sunni' meaning of Ijma as if it applies to all of them. Perhaps if you are arguing that this has application to Egypt, you could show how Egyptian views on Ijma are one way or the other, or that one school of thought is more prominent than another.

So far, you have pointed to a Canadian Muslim, and an Anglo-Irish former nun. As educated as they are about Islamic history or theology, what do they tell us about contemporary Egyptian views?

I don't mind being told I'm wrong, if I actually am...but it would be nice if you occasionally sourced your claims and didn't just assume inerrancy in your own claims.

My claims came from a reading of Wikipedia topics on Ijma and the Caliphs. I don't assume they are 100% correct, but I do think there's enough to question yours.

By posting a quote that shows me to be less than 100% correct, that is admitting it - Do I need to prostrate myself too?