Are Islam and democracy compatible? Or are they mutually exclusive?

It's worked for brief periods in Lebanon, Turkey, Malaya and Indonesia.

I'm thinking that Muslim countries would need explicit bans on any religious political party, and strong constitutional laicity to function.

I'm presuming that OP is posting this now because Turkish democracy just suicided.

/thread

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majlis-ash-Shura

For example the first rashidun calipjate was elected this way
>cue autistic shiite screeching

Some more
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura

All this shows is that Muslims leaders consult with each other before making decisions.

It has no bearing on the idea that a kuffar should have just as much of a say over the law of the land as a Muslim which is what democracy requires.

the closest you can get is Iran. which has an elected government that governs, so long as the ayatollah approves.

>democracy
There's that word again. Name at least one democratic country.

Middle eastern dindu tactics is to always blame outside forces even when its obvious they only have themselves to blame.

switzerland and probably some of the european micro states.

M8, The Middle East was ground zero for Cold War proxy conflicts for decades and a colonial land grab before that. There's legitimate argument that external factors had tremendous impact on the region.

Islamic republic is the form of government most sanctioned by Allah.

>Ba'athist Iraq was democratic

>Live in a democratic muslim country
>mfw this thread

Tunisia?

Yep

/thread

also, to the retard saying laicity is needed, kys. it's a system developed under completely different circumstances in fucking france where voltaire and enlightenment reigned supreme. muslims don't need that shit, and really don't have the history or the culture to correctly implement it - even the frenchies always had problems

long story short, muslim democracies exist, and it's islam is incompatible with democracy insofar as corporatism and lobbying is compatible with democracy - there simply aren't perfect democracies anywhere period. expecting one from muslims is simply wrong

>There is no room for democracy.
Christianity repeatedly going on about the divinity of kings, the divine rights of kings, the duties of kings, endless stories about kings, the royal bloodline of Jesus, and the right of rulership granted by God.

...And yet...

(Granted, there's a reason nearly every modern representative republic has a separation of church and state.)

All the abrahamic religions are both political and religious systems, as are many of the non-abrahamic ones. Gotta get something as loose knit as Buddhism before it becomes otherwise.

>Christianity repeatedly going on about the divinity of kings, the divine rights of kings, the duties of kings, endless stories about kings, the royal bloodline of Jesus, and the right of rulership granted by God.

Have you ever touched a Bible?

What are you on about?

>vvvRedditvvv diminishing board quality with historical misconceptions again

>Gotta get something as loose knit as Buddhism before it becomes otherwise.

Modern democracy is mostly a western invention influenced by the religious and philosophical currents of the early modern era. The reason why it hasn't worked as effectively elsewhere as it has in the developed world is probably because other places simply haven't gone through the same socio-religious developments. Shoddily putting up and force feeding the cumulative product of five centuries of historical development isn't going to yield ideal results right away. With that approach it'll take another couple hundred years to do.

>Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's
>the kingdom of heaven is not of this world
Do you understand the importance of these statements or are you fucking brain dead?

Yeah, all that and "king of kings" sure sounds like democracy to me. Thanks for proving my point.

Four years of seminary... Have you?

>and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you. - Samuel 13:4

>Pray for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. - Timothy 2:2

>Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. - Romans 13:1

>Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, - Titus 3:1

>Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. - Peter 2:13-14

The only the power a Christian King must answer to is God, and all rightful authority is through Him... So long as the authority is righteous in the eyes of God, the people can get right fucked. That's as anti-democratic as it gets.

but in a veird way its a political system that declaratively negates political systems(not realy tho)

the thing is, technicaly, in theory, all muslims are equals, they are all slaves of god, and are all part of the umma, a global community of equals, theres not supposed to be any hierarchy, especially not in anything resembling a priesthood, its all supposed to be one monolithic, bland, relatively disciplined holarchy, where its merely those who studied the word of god a bit more explain it to those who havent got time to do so, and if a ruler or commander is necesary the most straight and faithfull among them will decide on a temporary ''emmisary of god'', but realy thats supposed to be a descendnt of the prophet and no one else(big problem right there)

in reality off course none of this works out, its all bizarely hierarchic and traditional to a fault and whoever got a piece of paper saying he studied the koran and went on a pilgrimage can claim to be a hodja and order thousands of people around and more wars have been fought over who gets to be caliph than over water rights, also local tribal logic is allways incorporated simply for lack of a better, more functional or viable system, and traditional customs and taboos serve to keep things in working order on a day to day basis

so realy it snt that islam is automaticaly a political system, a lot of it is implicit, kind of how a lot of how a christian society should work is implicit in the new testament, but its all so vague and illdefined people simply have to impose either theocratic or tribal despotisms of some kind just to maintain a semblance of order

Think about it the way you think about Communism fags, practice is more important than theory when assessing Christianity's impact on the European state.

buddhism spread and survived almost solely as a state religion, or trough state endorsmen or religious conflict(or things like wars of succesion being painted as religious things) from tibet to kambodia

it started to spread when that one idian emperor decided its gonna be state religion in india, then it spread to bactria where it also became state religion, and in tibet, well, its tibet, then it went on trough asia from there and in most of south east asia it functioned no differently than the catholic church, legitimising monarchic rule and justifying wars and helping to monitor, control and educate the population one way or another

in china it flourished when the current emperor was favorable or it was ignored or repressed when current emperor was unfavorable, and few people knew how to start shit up like buddhists did from mass uprisings to shaolins basicaly being wh40k tier warrior monks with their own fiefdoms and religious law

in japan it largely a militaristic thing, japanese zen is basicaly a religion of work, order, discipline, the bushido is based on it and so on

o shit

Tunisia is a bad example.

Also
>democratic
Lol!

Until recently it was controlled by a dictator and islamists.

>Until recently it was
So, you agree that it is now, though?

>buddhism spread and survived almost solely as a state religion,
Not saying Buddhists can't get involved or embroiled in politics ( or war ), but the religion itself has almost nothing to say about rulership of any sort.

Indeed, it's a bit odd that Buddhist nations are so infamous for their collectivism, when it is one of the few religions that leaves salvation entirely up to the individual, with no divine intervention involved. There's various levels of belief in various deities and spirits, but unlike Christianity, and nearly every other religion, salvation is no way dependant on obedience to them, only on the individual's ability to break free of his own ego.

All the abrahamic religions, and most other religions, demand obedience not only to the divine, but to various mortal authorities, often describing hierarchies in great detail.

Yes. Or rather, it could have been compatible but fucking communists cocked it all up and purged them into oblivion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadid

List of democratic Muslim countries
>Tunisia
>Algeria
>Syria
>Iraq before the war
>Yemen
>Sudan
>Turkey
>Bosnia
>Albania

Oh boy, this meme again.

Islam is arabic for submission.

>Iraq before the war

>Saddam wasn't democratically elected

That's right.

And i Suppose you believed it when Bush said that Saddam possessed nuclear weapons?

>Turkey before Erdogan
It may have been laicistic, but Muslims were still in the majority.

those countries are secular democracies/ "secular" "democracies", they don't call themselves Islamic afaik

>enlightened governance
>he thinks revolutionary and decadent european political forms are """enlightened"""

They all call themselves Islamic more than the US calls itself Christian (and have the statistics to match).

Not that there aren't some other arguments I could make with that list.

>It has no bearing on the idea that a kuffar should have just as much of a say over the law of the land as a Muslim which is what democracy requires.

Democracy doesn't require this. Universal suffrage is not a necessary requirement of a democracy

This verses do not justify the separation of church and state

>100% of the vote

The only societies that exist are western, Eastern civilization died with the Qing dynasty

In the West it does.

Once it gets its nuts chopped off like Christianity did, yeah, no problem.

OP speaks the truth!

Algeria is democratic, but that's it.

The founders of modern democracy were deist, which was as about as close an atheist you could get in those days and be persecuted.

I would guess that there are no such major figures in Islamic history for a good reason.

and not be persecuted*

>Mudslimes Dindu Nuffin.

He's onto something. Islam as practiced in Arabia is a creed for Niggers and Sandniggers. It's not a coincedence that both the more civilized versions of Islam and feats in the Islamic Golden Age were done by non-Arabians like Persians.

There have been, and maybe again... There's certainly plenty of minor ones - and maybe even a few popular ones, albeit, among the latter, not many in islamic countries.

Not that there aren't, as others have pointed out, majority muslim nations that are nonetheless democratic to one degree or another.

Remove the people from the equation, just take a remote view of the texts, and neither religion is particularly democratic minded, but it is ultimately up to those people to decide how they want to apply that text. Religious text does not apply itself.

Not the kindest way to put it, but basically this.

>4

you tried

No one has even answered the question desu