Don’t confuse ‘islamism’ with ‘muslim dominated countries’.There are many muslims who favour secular democarcies. And none of the countries you mentioned have Islamist governments places like Turkey, Tunisia and Morrocco are extremely poor examples.

Anyways if you want to look for islamist governments look at places where full shaira law has been enacted look at Iran (shia), or Afganistan in the late ninties.

The hallmark of liberalism is the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. Islamism is a pretty vaguely define construct primarily used by the west, but it is not particualrly hard to reconcile this principle of liberalism with the Ummah. Certain things will certainly be dogmatic while there will lot of space to dissent in some principles. What distinguishes the Ummah from most democracies of the west is that these two entities will be dogamtic about different things.

Again I don’t see why you can’t understand why Ummah/Islamism (totalitarionism by any other name…) isn’t compatible with liberalism.

The hallmark of Liberalism is the ability to dissent from orthodox tennants only because the ideal of liberalism is individual liberty and freedom.

Compare this to Islamism which is a totalitarian system that supresses dissent or deviation from the existing views laid out in the quran and the hadits, anyone who disagrees is automatically subjugated and is barred from sharing their beliefs with others (not allowed to proselytize).

Therefore the two systems are are completely irreconcilable.

I want to know where you people (living in democracies) think the line ought to be drawn?

You claim to live in Iraq, if so, you are living in a democracy also.

So to answer your own question consider this, if an iraqi government soilder mistakenly kills a visiting Canadian civilian ( I live in Canada , the canadian government never supported the war on Iraq) should we start teaching our kids to go out into iraq and start blowing themselves up and killing people ?

Don’t confuse my language as sympathies with “them”. I was merely trying to highlight to those who keep shouting for change in other people’s countries to stop for a second and think about what would follow that change.

At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I would like to get in touch with you. You neglected (rightfully so, I’m sure you would have been spammed to no end by some) an email address… contact me if you wish. I do not agree with all of your ideas, but at least you attempt to discuss them thoughtfully rather than bark brainlessly…

There are other forums where people from every side are more versed and more patient in their discussions and see little point in name calling; moreover they realize the opportunity to have a civil discussion with someone from a completely different idealogical foundation as a treat and not something to avoid stubbornly.

With all this bullsh** about “winning the hearts and minds”, and acheiving “a dialogue between the West and Islam” and all your other choice media soundbites, when someone actually steps out from the “other” side to discuss, a large number of people automatically have a kneejerk “OMG Fascist towelhead” reaction.

Don’t waste your time here, Aslam_Bagdadi.

Your wish was my command My dad says that Nehru is, indeed, a genuine Koshur surname. The surname derives from the fact that the ancestral Nehru’s live/lived near a canal/river or ‘Nahr’ in J&K. So you (or tef ?) are partially correct that it derives from living near a river–it’s just that the canal/nahr was in J&k.

kumar

Eswaran, thank you for your criticism. But, thats not the entire picture:

In return, those who paid the jizya were not required to serve in the military and were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and responsibilities. Non-Muslims were also exempt from zakat, or mandatory charity imposed on Muslims. In addition, if a non-Muslim chose to serve in the army, he would be exempt from the jizya.

Of course, there are varied interpretations of the humnaity of non-muslims under muslim rule ranging from complete acceptance to humiliation. Regardless, even in a democracy inevitably groups of people will be disenfranchised perhaps on the basis of race or wealth or whatever else.

The idea of treating different people differently is not unique to the Umma. It is what all liberal, social democrarcies with different economic systems with tend towards. Disparity is the natural state, and I am very skeptical that any system can effectively remedy that.

However, I do not want to discuss, if democracy is a superior idealogy to umma or not. The answer is not very important, and I willing to concede that democracy could be a better system, if that is the case.

In an islamic country, a woman is convicted of committing adultery. The woman is then stoned to death by hundreds of people. It later turns out that the woman did not actually commit adultery. Her brother seeks vengeance. Who does he kill? The judge? The accuser? All the people who stoned her? People who stood by and just watched? If you think it’s fair that all of them should be killed, well, good luck trying.

My question was not rhetoric. And, I am sincerely trying to understand where the line needs to be drawn. I want to know where you people (living in democracies) think the line ought to be drawn?

I want to include the electorate in the actions of a nation because they seem to have the choice… but thats just me. I also acknowledge that there is a not unique criteria that can be used to deciede where to draw the line.

So, I appreciate it if some of you can elobrate on where you feel the line ought to be drawn, and if there is more than one culprit in the chain of responsibility, who do you assign who gets what share of the blame?

Gosh you fascists are terribly sensitive these days.

You are a fascist – stop whining about it – there is nothing worse than a whining fascist – oh hold on yes there is – a suicide-bomber is worse than a whining fascist – but for the time being you should accept you are what you are and stop complaining about the accurate description -you son of fascist Qutb and fascist Maudoooodi -

I would have no problem with religious party coming to power in Pakistan. The religious party just might throw away the bagage of Kashmir (I dont know .. guessing)

I am quite surprised that not many of the articulate commentators in Sepia Mutiny have responded to your comments. FWIW, here’s mine.

I for example, believe that the kafirs should not have the same say in the matters of how a society ought to be governed That is a far cry from subjugation. Why do you automatically assume that Ummah will subjugate kafirs?

Consider a thought experiment. In this Ummah, the kafirs will have to pay jizya (if I am right about what I read). If the number of kafirs increase compared to the number of believers and they decide to not pay jizya because of their superior numbers, what will the Ummah do? If it doesn’t do anything, it goes against what Koran says and if it takes some action against the Kafirs, then that is subjugation, no?

I don’t really know why I am going to such great lengths to prove that Islamic rule will subjugate a lot of people. Will the Ummah allow a christian to preach (which is a duty of a believer in christ)? Isn’t that subjugation?

There are many examples of subjugation of kafirs under muslim rule, but you just brush them away as aberrations. Nice.

And finally, you asked who shares responsibility in a democracy. I will pose you a counter question.

In an islamic country, a woman is convicted of committing adultery. The woman is then stoned to death by hundreds of people. It later turns out that the woman did not actually commit adultery. Her brother seeks vengeance. Who does he kill? The judge? The accuser? All the people who stoned her? People who stood by and just watched? If you think it’s fair that all of them should be killed, well, good luck trying.

We cannot pretend that US influence, for good or ill, doesn’t exist over Pakistan, or Iraq, or Panama, or a bunch of togher countries. That ‘garden of eden’ before US intervention never existed. Small countries operate in an environment of big power politics.

Imperialism exists, and always has. The question is how to manage it.