Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

I'd question the legitimacy of this poll. A much more respected polling institute, Zogby, released numbers about two months ago that said an overwhelming majority (72%, I believe) of Iraqi's actually wanted a secular government free from Sharia and the Qu'ran/Hadiths.

And for the record, Malaysia is about as far into secular islam as you'll ever find. Malaysia is not an Islamic state. It's a state of Muslims. There's a big fucking difference and if you guys don't know it you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Qatar= Muslim government.
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (mindanao island of the philippines)= Islamic community.

 

[FightyF]

Well, except that Iran government is a Theocratic Republic, and Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy which is administered under Islamic Law.

But that doesn't mean that it's an Islamic government. The Iraqis want an "Islamic based" government, rather than a monarchy, or a half assed democracy like in Iran. The Taliban looked like the closest thing to an Islamic government in recent history.

Needless to say, religious regimes don't necessarily have to be "bad"-- it's just that history has shown us that they nearly always are. And I feel that if a people are trying to start a new society, and trying to implement a new form of government, they should go with what the odds favor, so to speak. Far less chance of trouble that way. And I'd say the same exact thing if it was a Christian theocracy being agitated for.

These Islamic governments lasted for 500 years, and they did face heavy decline and did go "bad" after centuries of success. The same can happen to any form of government that isn't vigilant in keeping it's founding ideals.

Democracy is the best when it comes to ensuring freedoms and voices for minorities, it almost guarentees these ideals. But does a democracy guarentee security and a redistribution of wealth that will help the poor and unhealthy? I can say that in the West, democracy is doing a great job of minimizing poverty but it requires an infastructure (government and economical) that takes decades upon decades of building. Countries like Iraq can't have that kind of infastructure built overnight.

Perhaps the best models for Iraq are Japan and Germany, I think if it were made clear to Iraqis that this is the end goal, most Iraqis would embrace it. I don't think any of them see that kind of silver lining, especially when there are issues such as lack of power, lack of security, that affect their everyday lives more than anything else. I'm just ranting now...

 

[Hitokage]

Democracy is the best when it comes to ensuring freedoms and voices for minorities, it almost guarentees these ideals.

Completely and blatantly untrue. Democracy itself is popular majoritarian rule, which means that power is held by the majority faction on a per-issue or per-seat basis... minority factions can go pound sand.

 

[Azih]

Yeah, a democracy in and of itself allows majorities to have their way with minorities. That's why Consititutions are important.

Plus for pete's sake, during a lot of periods in history state sanctioned religions and/or religous governments were the norm (some of them were sucessful, some of them were decent, some of them weren't). I really have no idea where you're getting your history from Loki but it doesn't extend very far.

Hell ancient Egypt was a theocracy, the Mughal empire was a theocracy, any monarchy that depended on an idea of a 'divine right to rule' was a religious government by defintion.

 

[Loki]

Plus for pete's sake, during a lot of periods in history state sanctioned religions and/or religous governments were the norm (some of them were sucessful, some of them were decent, some of them weren't). I really have no idea where you're getting your history from Loki but it doesn't extend very far.

So you're saying that religion and government have coexisted peacefully, and to the benefit of all citizens, more often than not? Because I disagree with that assessment. There are exceptions, obviously, as you've noted, but on sum, I think that history shows us that it's not wise to mix the two unless necessary. I don't see what's so controversial about that statement.

any monarchy that depended on an idea of a 'divine right to rule' was a religious government by defintion.

False. Divine right of kingship was more a cultural belief and a tool of political power than a religious doctrine. The belief that rulers were divine, or descended from deities, traces back to ancient Egypt (likely to Sumer, actually); it was also seen in feudal Japan (where the emperor was believed to have descended from the Shinto sun goddess), and, of course, in medieval and Renaissance Europe. Medieval monarchs' belief in their divine right of kingship in no way created a "religious government"-- that is, unless you simply mean that the monarch was viewed as semi-divine and was therefore revered; still, this is not "religious" in any way save for the memes being employed. European monarchies were de facto religious governments, however (as I said earlier), since the Roman Catholic Church wielded greater power than the monarchs in many (if not most) instances.


EDIT: And yes, I'm aware of how the concept ties in with certain Christian/Catholic doctrine, and the writings of some early saints; my point was that the concept of divine right extended across many different eras and thrived under many different religious systems. Therefore, it is not a "religious" concept, per se (except for the fact that it needs a religious/deistic framework to function in), but rather a political/cultural one which was adapted to fit the times/customs/beliefs of the host nation.


EDIT#2: As to how all this relates to your comment, it's because a "religious government" is generally understood to be one in which religious doctrine holds sway over the populace, with the full power of government behind its enforcement. The divine right of kings, by contrast, is simply a single idea used by rulers to consolidate power-- it has no religious doctrine surrounding it which will be forced upon the people, or which will inform/dictate the ruler's decisions/actions.

 

[Azih]

So you're saying that religion and government have coexisted peacefully, and to the benefit of all citizens, more often than not? Because I disagree with that assessment. There are exceptions, obviously, as you've noted, but on sum, I think that history shows us that it's not wise to mix the two unless necessary. I don't see what's so controversial about that statement.

The fact that you just threw it out there with no backup? You use the 'history shows us' phrase an awful lot Loki and you leave it at that as if it actually proves anything. On its own it doesn't. You need more.

Not only that but

Needless to say, religious regimes don't necessarily have to be "bad"-- it's just that history has shown us that they nearly always are

You're using the term 'bad' which is an extremely strong and extremely vauge term to use both at the same time. Needless to say I can point to plenty of mediocre religious based governments and quite a few very successful ones throughout history. Hell here's another one
http://www.stormwind.com/common/islam.html

False. Divine right of kingship was more a cultural belief and a tool of political power than a religious doctrine. The belief that rulers were divine, or descended from deities, traces back to ancient Egypt (likely to Sumer, actually); it was also seen in feudal Japan (where the emperor was believed to have descended from the Shinto sun goddess), and, of course, in medieval and Renaissance Europe. Medieval monarchs' belief in their divine right of kingship in no way created a "religious government"-- that is, unless you simply mean that the monarch was viewed as semi-divine and was therefore revered; still, this is not "religious" in any way save for the memes being employed. European monarchies were de facto religious governments, however (as I said earlier), since the Roman Catholic Church wielded greater power than the monarchs in many (if not most) instances.

They derive their divine right to rule from some specific RELIGION, thus their entire justification to rule is tied to that specific religion and is beholden to it. That religion HAS to have special status in the government and more often then not is the state approved religon (since a non believer wouldn't be impressed by the Kings God given power) There you go, a religious government. And the fact that it's common to a lot of different governments throught history is completely irrelevent (hell a lot of religions have a ton of similarities). The end is always the same. The religion has special status over all others, to mostly an extreme degree.

 

[FightyF]

Completely and blatantly untrue. Democracy itself is popular majoritarian rule, which means that power is held by the majority faction on a per-issue or per-seat basis... minority factions can go pound sand.

I never said that minorities would have power, but rather voices.

 

[Senior Lurker]

Alright why do Arab Shia people get to have all the fun?

First, it's Shia in general and not just Arab shia. Second, it's sunnis that deprive themselves from said "fun", since Sunnis stopped practicing pleasure marriages after the khalifah Omar banned it. There is a specific hadith about Omar himself saying that it was one of two pleasures that the Prophet approved of while he banned.

Shia only follow teachings that came from the prophet; either directly or through his 12 disciples/descendants (afterall the belief is that he was a prophet chosen by god and anything he does or approves of is automatically legitimate), so they consider a ruling like that to be wrong since not only did it not come from the prophets teachings, but it directly opposes them as it banned something that the prophet approved of.

Also, what the article fails to mention is more details about those pleasure marriages, and how they differ from, say, prostituion. It has been said that married women cannot practice it, much like how women cannot have more than 1 husband (pleasure marriage IS marriage but one that ends after a set time).

It hasn't been mentioned that after a temporary marriage ends, the woman has to wait for a period of (40 days? forgot how many exactly) which covers at least one or 2 "periods" to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. Just like the case after a woman gets divorced or widdowed. This helps preserve offspring as it's the way to identify kids with their fathers. This is one side pleasure marriage is different from plain-old adultry.

I think pleasure marriages for married men are generally discouraged though, and in some cases men have to get permission from their wives if they want to do it! (like if they are in a trip by themselves or something?). And unmarried girls HAVE to get permission from their fathers/grandfathers if they wanted to do it, and unless that family is leading a really tough life, there is no reason why the father would approve a temporary marriage for his unmarried daughter when she could get a permanent husband to live with and start a family.

That doesn't mean it cannot be exploited and abused though. But, followed right, it certainly is better than adultry. Remember that after a woman goes out from a pleasure marriage, she is "on-hold" for some time before marrying another man (she can renew the contract with the same man though as has been mentioned). It's also a legal way for men who cannot commit to permanent marriages (eg for financial issues) to not have to resort to adultry. The same goes for widdowed/divorced women who either couldn't find new permanent husbands (and those temporary ones might become permament, who knows).

The fact is, if Iraq goes back to being an islamic government, with sharia as the law, eventually women will lose all their freedoms, be forced to wear burqas, not be given an education, be treated like slaves, etc.

75%, eh, I have a feeling that women aren't being allowed to chip their opinion in on this.


if you'd rather live in a non-democratic, sharia-run country, go move to Saudi Arabia and tell us how much better it is than the US or whatever country you're currently living in.

WTF? Iran IS an Islamic country, you know, and they have a woman vice-president, and they have women cops, and they don't wear retarded burgas like the poor sods in Saudi or Afghanistan. Just because the fucked-up Saudi Arabia claims to be the right Islamic way doesn't mean that Iraq would turn out to be like it.

Now if you also think the situation about women and slavery and crap is like that in Iran then go fuck yourself, as it would be clear that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Plus the only people that are abusing it are the Wahabis (another "sect" of Islam) and Wahabi influenced Sunni's. I don't consider Wahabi's muslims, they are animals. They have killed more people than any other religion/group/sect whatever and i'd say 95% of the people they killed are Shia muslims. Oh and for the record, I'm a shia muslim and no I'm not a radical muslim or anything, peace is first on my list and war/fighting/killing isn't even on my list.

Those mother-fucking wahabis (and their likes) are the source of Islam's troubles I tell you. And I don't think it's fair for animals to be compared to those freaks. We've been hearing reports though that they have been very active in Iraq trying to convert simple folks there without them knowing. They bring in money and aid and try to draw those poor folks who have been living under oppression for more than 30 years to their sides. You can guess where they get their funds from.

I don't think they will succeed much in Iraq though since most Iraqis seem to have a strong Shia faith. But still their fucking strategies are scary, and they are apparently doing it in Sudan and other places too.

 

[Hitokage]

I never said that minorities would have power, but rather voices.

Still wrong, sir.

 

[Azih]

WTF? Iran IS an Islamic country, you know, and they have a woman vice-president, and they have women cops

That's true, from the little I know if you piss an Iranian woman off she'll rappel down a building after you, run you down in a car while her friends fire machine guns at your tires then leap out and motherfucking nunchuk you to death. She might also possibly blow up your corpse with dynamite.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=53728&ak=null

I think the problem here is that people just don't realise the crazy amount of diversity and variety within muslim pracitices. They just see the Wahabis who are frankly completely insane.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I'll take the realist political perspective and say it doesn't really matter. I'm sure whatever figureheads are allowed to hold sway for the next several years will of course give at least a modicum of lip service to Islamic ideals. Much like Christian Presidents here (though our current may not be the best example).

I have a cynical (though not totally ambivalent) belief that we invaded Iraq as a direct move to secure our geo-political power in an increasingly unstable region, and we're unlikely to give up that position and let the cards fall where they may as far as Iraq's self determination. PR to the side.

It's interesting to watch the tapdance play out though. If this were 50 years ago in a less televised/media intense/pc age the invading power, even a US power, wouldn't play this self-opposing figure so often in the matter of independent debate. Perhaps we would even be more brutal in our suppression of insurgency and all talk about what sort of government would be put in place would be more out in the open...and entirely on this side of the ocean. None of this, "we can only lend a hand in security and offer our support to the Iraqi people in making them an independent nation, blah blah." talk.

Could all this play out with the possibility of Iraq being another Iran in 5 years? Forget outrage, I'd really be perplexed with our government at that point.

 

[Azih]

Iraq and Iran are completely different entities and you can't really compare the two. There are a number of reasons for this but the most important one is that Iran is for all intents and purposes homogenous while Iraq is anything but.

Where Iran is almost completely Persian and Shiah, Iraq is split between Arab Sunnis, Arab Shias, and the Kurds. These groups are if anything much more suspicious of each other than they are of the Americans.

 

[Firest0rm]

It should be noted that Iraq's Shia follow the original Shia school of thought, which Al-Sistani is part of and one thing that differs Al-Sistani from his Iranian counterpart is that he believes that no clerics should be in a political position. Which is why he refused to run in the elections, however he endorsed the main Shia party.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Iraq and Iran are completely different entities and you can't really compare the two. There are a number of reasons for this but the most important one is that Iran is for all intents and purposes homogenous while Iraq is anything but.

Where Iran is almost completely Persian and Shiah, Iraq is split between Arab Sunnis, Arab Shias, and the Kurds. These groups are if anything much more suspicious of each other than they are of the Americans.

That's true, and I appreciate the clarification. But I was using it more as an example of Mid-Eastern country opposed to US policy or interests rather than suggesting a slide into greater Iran. I didn't mean to make it sound like such a crass generalization.

 

[Guileless]

Our Western brand of democracy is the best form of government because it most effectively channels human nature. Human nature is the same here in the US as it is in Iraq, both now and in ancient times when the first civilizations started there.

While religion-based governments are fine in theory (just as communist utopias are), Loki is right that they haven't worked in practice because if you give people the authority to interpret God's words and impose their interpretation on others through the government, they will inevitably abuse that authority. It's human nature.

Saying that "secular governments have also fucked people over" misses the point. All governments have fucked people over. Again, human nature: those in power will inevitably misuse the power for their own advantage and to the disadvantage of others. Western democracy is the best at discouraging fucking people over through the rule of law, a free and fair press, and electoral accountability.

Theocracies have no need for those institutions, as they simply have the guy in charge telling everybody what God orders them to do. Secular dictatorships are the same, with only a semantic difference: the leader effectively is god. A succesful form of government limits the natural tendencies of those who achieve power over others.

Citing historical examples of "mediocre religious governments" also misses the point. While it may have been fine to be a "mediocre" government in the 16th century, it's not sustainable in a globalized world of cutthroat competition. You're either moving forward (India & China) or moving backwards (Egypt & Saudi Arabia). If you're moving backward, you're probably not a nice place to live and may even produce people willing to participate in suicidal mass murder.

And the religious-based governments of the past were predicated on a stable population that, for the most part, stayed there their whole lives and lived almost exactly as their ancestors had. Today we have global media and culture, immigration, inexpensive and ubiquitious air travel, economic globalization, and a host of factors that make a government overtly based on religion a dangerous anachronism.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

And the religious-based governments of the past were predicated on a stable population that, for the most part, stayed there their whole lives and lived almost exactly as their ancestors had. Today we have global media and culture, immigration, inexpensive and ubiquitious air travel, economic globalization, and a host of factors that make a government overtly based on religion a dangerous anachronism.

oh, well said.

 

[Senior Lurker]

Where Iran is almost completely Persian and Shiah, Iraq is split between Arab Sunnis, Arab Shias, and the Kurds. These groups are if anything much more suspicious of each other than they are of the Americans.

Not really. It's known that Sunnis and Shia were getting along fine before the ba'ath fucktards took over. And Kurds also don't have troubles with Shia, especially that they were both oppressed groups during the shitty regime. And when we say sunnis we don't mean wahabis; they might be closer to wahabis in faith, but wahabis belive shias (and all infidels for that matter) should simply be eradicated, while regular sunnis don't (regular as in non-wahabi sunnis). For some reason though it seems most Sunnis who become more 'pious' tend to draw closer to wahabism (or the other strict sunni group, the Muslim Brothers).

The sole trouble comes from those shitcans to which Zarqawi and bin ladin belong. Who was it that turned anything to gold by touch, Midas? Well those crap depositories change anything into shit by touch. Pooptas, they should be called. So if baathists could take a moment to reflect on the shittyness they incurr before giving the fuck up, and if wahabis could fucking mind their own business and take their filthy beards somewhere else, THEN we might start to hear Iraq settling a little more, and US won't find any more excuses to sit there. But since that's not gonna happen, let's watch those turds crapify our lives, country by country.....

Spoiler

How many insults/swears more can I say before getting the ban stick?

 

[Azih]

Sure I can agree with that; the Sunni on Shia violence in Pakistan started when the Wahhabi idiots started setting up madrasas in the country with the help of Saudi funds.

Stupid Al-Sauds paying off the Wahhabis to keep peace in their country just exported the problem to all the countries in the region.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

75% want a religeon based government, yet this wasn't in their ballot to vote on, so I'm wondering where this is coming from.

I think it's 100% made up out of pure speculation, even if it may be somewhere in the ballpark where figures are concerned.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

But that doesn't mean that it's an Islamic government. The Iraqis want an "Islamic based" government, rather than a monarchy, or a half assed democracy like in Iran. The Taliban looked like the closest thing to an Islamic government in recent history.

Whats not Islamic based about a theocratic republic or a monarchy thats administered under Islamic law? And if you want to get technical about it, the Taliban was just a tribal government based around strict interpretation of Islamic law, kinda like Saudi Arabia, just without a crown prince.

 

[FightyF]

Still wrong, sir.

Hmm...I see your pov, and I guess I shouldn't use the word "guarentee". Perhaps I was being too comparitive to other forms of government? Ie. Minorities don't have any voice in a dictatorship, or a theocratic government, while they MAY in a democracy.

Whats not Islamic based about a theocratic republic or a monarchy thats administered under Islamic law? And if you want to get technical about it, the Taliban was just a tribal government based around strict interpretation of Islamic law, kinda like Saudi Arabia, just without a crown prince.

I'm seperating the law and government portions. A monarchy isn't an Islamic government, and though their laws could be based on the Sharia, the whole thing is supposed to be under the guidelines of Islam.

 

[Azih]

Minorities don't have any voice in a dictatorship

That depends entirely on the dictator.