Talk:Islamist democracy

Democracy & Islam

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Official in Tehran University Lecture (Part I): Islam Has Nothing in Common with Democracy--Patchouli 13:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This lecture being real or fiction reflects the opinions of an extremist which is free to express his opinions. Farhoudk 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Calling for Religious tolerance? Have you heard of Bahais?

Have you heard about "Divide and Conquer" policy of Great Britain? Farhoudk 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rule of law? http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/iran12214.htm

Khatami

• Khatami? http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=401

Crowd: No more lies! No more lies! No more lies! No more lies! No more lies!

--Patchouli 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The crowd you mention above were secular reformists present in the meeting. They are opposing Mr Khatami everywhere. Farhoudk 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethics?????!!!!!!!!!

Here is a specific list of Khomeini's execution orders of noteworthy people.

• Ali Dashti
• Sadegh Ghotbzadeh
• Amir Abbas Hoveyda[1]
• Hassan Pakravan
• General Nader Jahanbani[2]

Many thousands of others were also executed for religious or political reasons.

In his memoirs, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, who was himself pivotal in founding the Islamic Republic, gives gruesome details of Khomeini's 1988 Massacre of Iranian Prisoners after the Iran-Iraq War. Khomeini's fatwa reads:

"It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution." — Christina Lamb, Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran', The Daily Telegraph, 2 April 2001

I think religion has priority over ethics.--Patchouli 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be advised that most of those mentioned above were holding high ranks in Pahlavi administrartion who was responsible for thousands of lives.

Farhoudk 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"democratic systems" ...are liable to the most flagrant abuse and diverse interpretation[3]

[http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2003/August/Khomeini/ Democracy? I meant theocracy The most truthful individual ] Come on!--Patchouli 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"democratic systems" also suffer from monopolistic interpretations! Farhoudk 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran student riots, July 1999

This article is a betrayal against all those activists and everyday people who have been tortured, lost their lives, been persecuted, lied to, etc.--Patchouli 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has been written to show the people how to maintain their Islamic faith in this tumultuary world and still love other people who are not of the same opinion. Its aim is to show how a Muslim people can live free with their own belief, interests and values.

Farhoudk 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.isna.ir/Main/PicView.aspx?Pic=Pic-841745-2&Lang=P

This picture shows reaction of students to lecture of President Ahmadinejad in Amir Kabir University of Technology at Dec 11, 2006 Farhoudk 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran

• Zahra Kazemi
• Atefeh Rajabi

• 

  Executing gays? Human rights?

• Evin prison

Human rights? Come on!--Patchouli 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The human rights is an Iranian code introduced to human kind 2500 years ago by Cyrus the Great, an Iranian whos name is mentioned in Quran. See Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an.

But for American Human Rights see this one!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm Is there any similarity between Iranian operations in Iraq 2500 years ago with American operations in Iraq today? I do not think so.

Farhoudk 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Democracy is not Secularism!

We should distinguish between two contexts:

•Context of definition, which is a mental context: In the context of definition, we opt for a particular definition and say that democracy means this or that.

•Objective context which exists outside the mind: Other elements, such as secularism, coincide with it and this is a different issue.

What occurs externally is coincidence not unity.

Example: water, heat, boiled water. We do not bring in the element of heat in defining water. In the external and objective world, water coincides with heat and it boils. This is the coincidence of heat and water.

Democracy where coincides with certain things, it can be secular or religious.

Example: Relativistic liberalism and democracy are not identical.

Democracy is not violated when a faith is embraced, it is violated when a particular belief is imposed or disbelief is punished.

We do not have one democracy but many democracies from ancient Greece to today.

We have a plurality of democracies in the international community.

What emerged was that a democracy prevailed in different eras depending on the conditions of the time.

Religious Democracy / Secular Democracy Religious democracy is an example of how democratic values can exist in a different cultural elaboration than what is usually known in the EU or US– indeed.

Religious democracy means that the values of religion play a role in the public arena in a society populated by religious people.

But, in a secular society, some other characteristic is deemed important and focused on, and that becomes the basis for democracy.

Hence, what alters the hue and color of democracy is a society’s specific characteristics and elements.

Now it is also evident why secular and Islamic rules are not 100% compatible.

Islam and Democracy

Is a democratic Islamic state possible?

Cons:

• Secularists: We share the ideals of a democratic society, and a secular state. We therefore favor the firm separation of religion and state. Without such a separation there can be no freedom from tyranny. The sovereignty of the people dominates.

• Legalists: Democracy may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a Shariah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. Anything outside of the rigid, but pervasive, interpretation of the Shariah is rejected. The sovereignty of God prevails; there is no role for the sovereignty of people. The concept of free will is not recognized.

It is almost certain that legalists do not represent the majority of Muslims.

Pros:

•Ayatollah Khomeini: The concepts of time and place are essential in Dynamic Fiqh (Saheb Javaher Fiqh). All of the modern societies rules such as social security, insurance, labor’s law, municipality systems etc can be considered as state authorities of Islamic state. These types of rules which are outcomes of human experience and understanding are categorized as state commandments, beside primary commandments and secondary commandments in Fiqh. And the Islamic state has absolute and not limited nor bounded right to enact state commandments at all, even if it violates the primary or secondary commandments of Islam. The basis is the people’s vote. Muslim people not only have right to build their own Islamic state in absence of infallibles and it is not against Shariah, but also they must do it.

•Former president Khatami: "I, as the proponent of religious democracy, believe that no one in the world accepts anything other than democracy. Democracy has been inevitable so that it should comply with religious, ethical and moral values in our society." "Every work we may do to put aside Islam or democracy, it would be an attempt to torpedo the basic goals of the Islamic Revolution." "Today, two groups are the two blades of a scissors, preventing the genuine reform movement seeking religious democracy: One group consists of those with backward mentality who think the less freedom a society enjoys, the stronger religion will be. They oppose the democratic process and want to put down expectations of the youth. The second blade of the scissors is the group including those who believe that religion should be put aside from the scene of life in order to establish democracy and freedom."

•Dr. Soroush: There is a crucial distinction between religion and religious understanding by emphasizing that religious understanding is merely a variety of human understanding. Religion remains constant, while religious understanding changes. Fiqh is the religious experience of religion. God reveals religion, but it is up to us to understand and realize it. Secularism, democracy and other human understandings do not threaten religion; they merely help to increase the understanding of religion. Human understanding of Islam does not necessarily have all the answers. There is always room for improvement. Religion’s most important function is ethics. In other words, if we were to change religion, one should put ethics in its place. A religion in which this element is lacking is no longer religion.

•Professor Mehmet Aydin,Turkish Minister for Religious Affairs: Democracy is based on ethical values and of course Islam agrees with these values. Islam teaches us to love and respect our fellow human beings, so human rights are not incompatible with Islam.

Democratic religious circles in Iran

These groups are characterized by the followings: • Support for Islamic republic as the best form of government • Calling for Religious tolerance • Calling for democratic values • Rejecting liberalism • Rejecting secularism • Calling for the rule of law and civil society • They believe that ethics has priority over politics.

The main thinker and theorist of this circle is Mohammad Khatami, former president of Iran. They are mainly under the influence of ideas of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Official website of Khatami

http://www.khatami.ir/

Ethics in American Democracy !!!!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6067958.stm

Bush accepts Iraq-Vietnam echoes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm

Cleanup

This page is in bad need of a cleanup. Currently it reads like someone's essay, not an encyclopedia article. Much of the article seems to take the form of a debate, which should not be what we write here. Also many statements are make while attributed to 'Legalists' or 'Secularists' as though these were some organised and well-defined bodies.

1. We need to write from a neutral point of view
2. We need to attribute statements
3. we need to cite our sources

DJ Clayworth 19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear DJ Clayworth,

Thank you for your attention. Please let me know your opinion about new version of the article. Farhoudk 09:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

about 655,000 people have died in Iraq as a result of the 2003 invasion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm

Deletion

I tried to put this article up for deletion a few weeks ago, but I'm a little inexperienced with editing, so I did it wrong. Could someone who knows what they're doing put it up for deletion again? This article seems hopelessly propagandist. It should not be recreated without specific quotes from Iranian or other scholars defining religious democracy. Makerowner 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has been written not to propagate a wrong picture from existing real condition. But tries to make a clear underestanding about what main thinkers of this context were trying to introduce to humankind and without considering what is or what was their real action. Otherwise theory and practice will become confused and no results will derived. So please be aware that the writter (being an Iranian) made his utmost effort to remain unaligned and neutral to personalities but only reflect the main idea introduced elsewhere. Also please note the references made by the author about Iranian scholars such as Dr. Soroush who is lecturer in the various universities in the US now. farhoudk 25 November 2006

I made some modifications. farhoudk 25 November 2006

Religious democrcay is a term heavily in use in Iran and many thinkers are working on it. It is notable and differs from "Islamic democracy" which some believers of main stream Islam are interested in, which mainly refers to western type democratic counties of Muslim people like Turkey.Sina Kardar 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Religious democracy" is a subject of research initiated in Iranian schools of philosophy. Ofcource most books and articles (if not all of it) are written by Iranians. The term is a translation from Persian. It originated from Persian sufism and Rumi's philosophy. It has nothing to do with the current Islamic republic in Iran and has nothing to do with Ayatollah Khomeini. Sina Kardar 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article also lacks global scope. This is a topic that is important to many countries in the Muslim world and elsewhere, yet the article focusses almost entirely on Iran. Also, calling an article 'religious democracy', then only dealing with one religion is misleading. This article should definitely be merged with 'Islamic democracy' and kept under that name. The article also only shows the views of supporters of this philosophy. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. Many statements are unsourced. The article should have something along the lines of 'Dr. ABC, an advocate of religious democracy and professor at University of ______, says [definition of religious democracy, reasons for advocating it, etc.]. Dr. XYZ, an opponent, responds [reasons against it].' That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Remember: no original research, neutral point of view, sources for information, global point of view. This article fails to meet all of these standards. Makerowner 21:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait! It is not like that. First of all historically the big part (if not all) of Islamic philosophy has been made in Iran. Second, the word religion is used instead of Islam because religion means core of Abrahamic religions (minimal Islam). Third, Just like modern music that emerged in the west. When you read an article on music it is naturally western POV. Fourth, I am sure if a particula philosophy subject was hot in United states, you would not complain why all references are to US philosophers. Why do you think a country like Iran can not be an origin for a concept and have a huge community of critics and experts on a subject? Sina Kardar 22:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My complaint is not that the article focusses on Iran (which is of course natural), but that it is exclusively based on Iran. The article on the presidential system of government will probably have a lot of emphasis on the United States, but it will also talk about the many other countries that have it. My other complaint is that the article only mentions Islam in relation to democracy. Many Western democracies were founded on Christian principles and operated under them for decades, why not discuss some of the events, problems, debates, etc. of those countries? Other countries have tried to integrate Islam and democracy (Malaysia, Pakistan), yet the article barely mentions them. Also to say that the article is based on the Abrahamic religions in general, rather than Islam in particular is naive. There are no Christian religious democracies (unless you count the Vatican, which is basically just the head office for the Catholic Church) and no Jewish religious democracies. Only Islam (specifically in Iran) claims to have religious democracies, so there is no justification for using the broader term. It would be like having an article on "St. Patricks's Day in Abrahamic Religions". The title is at best inaccurate, and at worst misleading, in that it makes the concept discussed seem broader and better-accepted than it is. While I understand that Iran can be "the origin for a concept and have a huge community of critics and experts", it must also be noted that personal freedoms in Iran are limited, and viewpoints unfavourable to the government are difficult to promote. The community of critics and experts will not be able to debate freely and publish their conclusions in the same way that they would in other countries. The biggest flaw of the article is the style and lack of sources: it reads like an essay. The author is obviously trying to convince readers of the merit of this system. I have no opinion on it (and I would like to point out that the people arguing back and forth about the human rights records of liberal and religious democracies are being immature. The article on the theory of religious democracy and the validity of said theory have little to do with this). However, the encyclopedia is meant to show the different viewpoints on a subject from a neutral point of view; the reality is that most political scholars outside Iran do not consider it a democracy, religious or otherwise. Makerowner 04:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I had to catch a bus and I was in a hurry. So I did not explain properly. I think here is the source of misunderstanding:

• 1. "Religiouy democracy" is a term invented by Abdolkarim Soroush. It is purely a theoretical subject and has nothing to do with the Islamic Republic of Iran or Islam. Soroush himself is among the most aggressive opponents of Islamic Republic. His philosophy is influenced by Rumi and Karl Popper. I guessed the reason why he used the word "religious" is because in Rumi philosophy, the emphasis is on very core of all religions and throwing out the details. I just understood that I was wrong (I am not an expert ofcourse). He used the term "religious democracy" in contrast to "secular democracy". He discussed the term at a very general level with no emphasis on a particular religion.[4] He got prestigious Erasmus prize for his works and also he was chosen as one the most influencial figures of the year by times magazine. Soroush has expertise on Islam and Christianity and philosophy of Science. He is named Martin Luther of Islam by western thinkers.
• 2. I am not defending the way the article was written. I did not write it and I am not an expert. All I am saying is that the subject is important and is based on 150 years of works by Iranian philosophers. I am not sure even this is the best title for that. Maybe "Religious democracy (Iranian philosophy)" is a better subject ?
• 3. About freedom of expression in Iran, I have to say that I have experienced it and I understand it very well. Most of these philosophers were imprisoned or are now in exile in Europe. However the debate continues openly despite the high price. I admit that they are really brave. Please note that their works are too technical to be accessible to normal audience. So the regime is not as sensitive to these discussions as to a direct criticism of the leader in a newspaper.
• 4. Another point is that: these guys think concepts like secularism, democracy, .. are historical concept and can only be seen in western historical context. They believe they need to redefine everything from the scratch.
• 5. I agree that there is a term "Islamic democracy" and many muslims are talking about it. That is different from our topic. Islamic democracy is simply establishment of "western democracy in muslim countries". That's all. It means secularism and democracy as defined in western history. So there is no new philosophy there.
• 6. Even Islam in Iran is not the same as mainstream Islam. Mainstream muslims do not see Iranian muslims as proper muslims. The first target of mainstream Islamic fundamentalism was not the west. It was Iranians. Al-Qaeda did its first operation in 1989 (1988?) and killed thousands of Iranians in Mecca. Ofcourse from western point of view that does not matter. What matters is September 11. The term "Islamic" is confusing. The term Shia is also confusing as people like soroush do not see themselves as Shia either.
• 7. The article put too much emphasis on Islam which is irrelevant to the topic.
• 8. Finally, I have to emphasize that I am not defending the article in its current form. I just wanted to comment on the issue. There are many criticisms on the subject by Iranians and non Iranians and many articles in English in western journals. On the other side it is a bit confusing if we do not introduce the whole philosophy in wikipedia and instead having one article on one term.

This is my opinion. I am not a fan of Soroush. I just tried to describe what I saw. I think it is better that the author of the article and perhaps others comment on the issue. I leave the discussion as I made enough comments. Thanks alot.Sina Kardar 10:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your statements. I see now that I have oversimplified the subject. I think something more along the lines of "philosophy of Soroush" and clearly separating it from the government of Iran's policies and philosophies. I am no where near an expert on the subject, not even well-informed; I just thought that the article was unclear and unencyclopedic and tried to help clean it up. You seem to have a good perspective on the topic and I would like to help you in making the article better reflect your eight points. I particularly like #4. I have looked at African and Native American democracies in some detail, and they have similar concepts of rejecting Western definitions and terms and using more traditionally-based models. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the theory of religious democracy as you describe it seems somewhat parallel to Japan's process of modernization without Westernization during the 20th century. Sorry if I caused any offense, and thank you for your contribution. Makerowner 05:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as worldwide view goes, the term "religious democracy" is used in considerably wider context elsewhere, so if this article is to be specifically about the Iranian philosophical concept, that should be noted somewhere near the beginning. In particular, Christian Democracy is often referred to as a form of "religious democracy". In an even different sense, the word "religious democracy" can also mean democratically organizing religious groups, e.g. by electing church leaders, such as the methods proposed by the Radical Reformationist churches, as opposed to hierarchical organization of "non-democratic" churches like the Roman Catholic one. It's also used in countries like the United States to refer to religious political groups like the Christian Coalition; for example, in the title of this book. --Delirium 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that mullahs want a government job.--Patchouli 06:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Abdol-karim Soroush

Abdolkarim Soroush is a well-known Islamist who calls for "democracy" and believes Iran needs more Islam. He thinks there is insufficient Islam in Iran.--Patchouli 10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain more. What do you mean? Farhoudk 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shiites believe that all Muslims should be ready to sacrifice themselves, and not willing to do so is considered as a sin. The mastermind of this plan was Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush who is today criticizing the Islamic Regime and realizing that his mistakes cost Iranian education a great deal.--Patchouli 11:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli, I think many of our problems are due to lack of rationality and religious fanaticism rather than the religion itself. But your position is understandable. --Aminz 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Patchouli, Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush is not mastermind of the theory you mentioned although he is a Shia scholar. His criticism about Islamic republic of Iran is based on his ideas about Islamic state which is in contradiction with current Iranian constitution. And his idea is not the only one against it but there are various POVs which are not belong to the same cultural and political side. But I used some of his works to describe Religious democracy since they were well prepared.

Farhoudk 12:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• The religion should be stripped of unethical practices. Dr. Soroush has not outlined any specific plan. His use of "democracy" and "freedom" are questionable as there are a myriad interpretation for these words.--Patchouli 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli, you probably refer to stoning, and other punishments... Hmmm. Western scholars do complain. To be honest with you, I am not familiar with the works of Soroush in any detail but he is at least better than others. But as you are following his ideas, I think you should have raised a good point :)--Aminz 11:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Even some well known Iranian fundamentalists are against such practices as stoning! It is important to know the spectrum of Muslims in Iran before any discussion. Sina Kardar 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is more than hundred years that Iranian religious intellectuals solved these issues. They do not care about such trivial questions any longer.Sina Kardar 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I had made a merger proposal way before User:Aminz did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_democracy&oldid=100416484.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_democracy&oldid=95852984
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_democracy&oldid=95737201

--Patchouli 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be a subsection of Islamic democracy (Per my understanding of Feldman) . Parts of this article seems to be related to religious democracy. So, we might want to move them into relevant article. The religous democracy will have 3 parts, Islamic Christian and Jewish democracy. But their details can be discussed in their specific articles. --Aminz 10:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Patchouli removed the section Christian democracy several times from the article since he/she intends to show that the article does not have wide viewpoint of relation between religion and democracy. It is better to rename the article to its original name as Religious democracy to cover all POVs. Farhoudk 10:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We can have one article on Religious democracy which briefly explains Islamic Christian and Jewish democracy+other religious democracies which I may not know. The details however go to the child articles. --Aminz 10:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Aminz, I agree with you to have have one article on Religious democracy which briefly explains Islamic Christian and Jewish democracy+other religious democracies and the details go to the child articles. Please do it. Or User:Patchouli. Farhoudk 11:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I made in the same proposal at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-11 Islamic democracy also. I still approve a merger with Islamic democracy.--Patchouli 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends:

I read your discussions here. Frankly, I think you are not qualified to write about the subject and know not much about what you are talking about. I suggest merging the articles and not wasting your times! Sina Kardar 13:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

.--Patchouli , Now that everybody are in agreement. Please do start implementing proposal of User:Aminz.

Farhoudk 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)