Bekijk Volledige Versie : Shari´a of hurriya (de vrijheid) in Irak?
Precies wat ik een tijdje terug al had voorspeld. Lees het volgende artikel:
Uit commentaren in de Arabische pers blijkt dat de door de Amerikanen beloofde democratie in Irak populair is bij islamisten ofwel fundamentalistische moslims. Vrijheid is de eerste voorwaarde voor invoering van de islamitische wet, de shari'a. De geallieerde aanval op Irak wordt door islamisten fel veroordeeld, maar nu die operatie onomkeerbaar is, is de tijd rijp om te denken aan de toekomst.
President Bush en zijn naaste medewerkers dragen in hun toespraken de zogenaamde dominotheorie uit. Washington gaat ervan uit dat de val van Saddam Hussein zal leiden tot een golf van democratisering in de hele regio. Arabische regeringen zouden de democratie omarmen als alternatief voor de radicale islam die veel oppositiepartijen in het Midden-Oosten propageren.
Versterking van antiwesterse gevoelens
In een onlangs verschenen officieel rapport van het Amerikaanse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken worden grote vraagtekens gezet bij deze voorstelling van zaken. Het rapport, getiteld ‘Irak, het Midden-Oosten en verandering: geen domino's', waarschuwt voor al te optimistische verwachtingen met betrekking tot het verspreiden van de democratie in de Arabische wereld.
De oorlog tegen Irak wakkert de antiwesterse gevoelens alleen nog maar verder aan. Als er, kort nadat Saddam het veld heeft geruimd, in Irak vrije verkiezingen zouden worden gehouden, dan is de kans groot dat er een islamitische regering wordt gevormd die vijandig staat tegenover de Verenigde Staten, aldus het Amerikaanse rapport.
Wil van de meerderheid
Het begrip "democratie" is niet eenduidig. In de Westerse interpretatie is een democratische regering liberaal, seculier en pro-westers. Maar volgens islamisten weerspiegelt een democratische regering de wil van de meerderheid van het volk. En de meerderheid van het volk steunt het sociaal bewogen, strikt islamitische beleid dat de islamisten voorstaan. Daarmee kiest de bevolking mogelijk voor een vrijheidsbeperkende grondwet als de shari'a. Naar Westerse maatstaven is zo'n beleid allerminst liberaal, seculier of pro-Westers.
Het vestigen van een democratische regering op Westerse leest zal in Irak extreem moeilijk zijn. De etnische en religieuze groeperingen in het land zijn onderling diep verdeeld. Het Pentagon wil daarom Iraakse ballingen inschakelen. Zij zullen de grondvesten voor een democratisch bestuur leggen. Uitgangspunt daarbij is dat alleen pro-westerse ballingen de dictatoriale traditie in Irak kunnen doorbreken. Maar ook de Iraakse oppositiepartijen in ballingschap zijn sterk verdeeld.
Langdurige aanwezigheid van de Amerikaanse troepen in het Golfgebied zal onvermijdelijk zijn. Tegen een dergelijke 'bezetting' zal toenemend verzet bij de bevolking ontstaan. En dat speelt de islamisten in de kaart.
'Vrijheid is de eerste voorwaarde voor invoering van de islamitische wet, de shari'a.'
Dit staat dus in het artikel dat door NIS is geplaatst.
Ik ben het grotendeels met de inhoud van dat artikel eens.
Alleen het bovenstaande citaat komt op mij een beetje vreemd over.
Waarom zou juist vrijheid de belangrijkste voorwaarde zijn voor invoering van de shari'a?
Verder vrees ik dat de Irakezen, eenmaal vrij, voor de dictatuur van Islam zullen kiezen. Botweg omdat ze geen enkele notie hebben van wat Democratie eigenlijk is. Bovendien heeft de Islam per definitie niks met de Democratie.
Dat is het tragische lot van de Islamitische wereld.
Ik geloof dat de echte moslim niet zonder een dictatuur kan.
Dat zie je op maroc.nl ook.
Democratie wordt hier nauwelijks gewaardeerd.
Ook hier verlangen de meeste moslims juist naar de harde hand van een Islamitische dictatuur.
Zelfs de moslims die in Nederland geboren zijn.
Ik denk dat Islam en Democratie elkaar nooit zullen kunnen verdragen.
Geplaatst door Puk
Verder vrees ik dat de Irakezen, eenmaal vrij, voor de dictatuur van Islam zullen kiezen. Botweg omdat ze geen enkele notie hebben van wat Democratie eigenlijk is. Bovendien heeft de Islam per definitie niks met de Democratie.
Ondanks je weerstand PUK, zal de voorspelde ontwikkeling volledig democratisch zijn, wat op zich weer de bedoeling is van de huidige "bevrijding" van Irak.
Het begrip "democratie" is niet eenduidig. In de Westerse interpretatie is een democratische regering liberaal, seculier en pro-westers. Maar volgens islamisten weerspiegelt een democratische regering de wil van de meerderheid van het volk. En de meerderheid van het volk steunt het sociaal bewogen, strikt islamitische beleid dat de islamisten voorstaan. Daarmee kiest de bevolking mogelijk voor een vrijheidsbeperkende grondwet als de shari'a.
Democratie in de meest pure vorm en de uitkomst is daaraan ondergeschikt. Het volk beslist. Is dat ook niet wat democratie letterlijk betekent?
The General
08-04-03, 23:24
Moslims kenden raadpleging van het volk al toen ze hier nog hun vrouwen nog in de fik staken en de joden de schuld gaven van de pest.
VS zal nooit willen toestaan dat er democratie in de arabische landen zal zijn....simpel weg omdat keus van de bevolking niet de belangen van de VS zal bevoorderen.
Ze zullen kiezen voor :
-volledige vrijheid van pers
-ontmanteling van DE Zionistische nederzetting
-vrijheid van religie
-vrijheid van meningsuiting
-eerlijke verdeling van winst uit grondstoffen
-uitroeing van corruptie
-steun aan palestijnen
-steun aan tchechjenië
-steun aan kashmir
-creeren van 1 federale arabische staat
-eerlijke besteding van overheidsgelden
-enz enz.
en al deze punten druisen in tegen de westerse belangen...dus zullen ze echte democratie nooit toestaan
Geplaatst door Orakel
Ondanks je weerstand PUK, zal de voorspelde ontwikkeling volledig democratisch zijn, wat op zich weer de bedoeling is van de huidige "bevrijding" van Irak.
Democratie in de meest pure vorm en de uitkomst is daaraan ondergeschikt. Het volk beslist. Is dat ook niet wat democratie letterlijk betekent?
Tsja, pure democratie is ook de manier waarop monsters als Hitler etc aan de macht zij gekomen. Democratie is geen constructie die vrijheid, tolerantie zoals in Nederland garandeerd. Een democratie opzetten in een land als Irak lijkt me dwaas en niet erg realistisch. Men heeft daar een verlicht despoot nodig, als een volk geen democratie wil, dan zal het niet werken. (voorbeelden te over)
Geplaatst door Puk
'Vrijheid is de eerste voorwaarde voor invoering van de islamitische wet, de shari'a.'
Dit staat dus in het artikel dat door NIS is geplaatst.
Ik ben het grotendeels met de inhoud van dat artikel eens.
Alleen het bovenstaande citaat komt op mij een beetje vreemd over.
Waarom zou juist vrijheid de belangrijkste voorwaarde zijn voor invoering van de shari'a?
Verder vrees ik dat de Irakezen, eenmaal vrij, voor de dictatuur van Islam zullen kiezen. Botweg omdat ze geen enkele notie hebben van wat Democratie eigenlijk is. Bovendien heeft de Islam per definitie niks met de Democratie.
Dat is het tragische lot van de Islamitische wereld.
Ik geloof dat de echte moslim niet zonder een dictatuur kan.
Dat zie je op maroc.nl ook.
Democratie wordt hier nauwelijks gewaardeerd.
Ook hier verlangen de meeste moslims juist naar de harde hand van een Islamitische dictatuur.
Zelfs de moslims die in Nederland geboren zijn.
Ik denk dat Islam en Democratie elkaar nooit zullen kunnen verdragen.
Maar goed Puk, als mensen democratisch ervoor kiezen om te leven onder wetten die erg streng zijn dan is dat hun keuze. :)
Ieder land moet zelf weten hoe ze willen leven en dat moeten wij maar respecteren.
Ik geloof absoluut niet dat er de komende jaren vrijheid van religie , mening etc zal zijn in het midden oosten. omdat de VS misschien de echte mening niet wil weten van de mensen daar en omdat de mensen daar zelf helemaal niet al die vrijheden willen. Wie zijn wij om mensen in andere landen hun eigen gewenste repressie te ontzeggen :lole:
Ik vind ook dat we nergens meer moeten ingrijpen in de wereld. Iedereen moet het zelf maar uitzoeken. Laat mensen zichzelf maar bevrijden. Ieder land heeft het systeem dat ze zelf willen.
Alleen wanneer een repressief systeem ons bedreigt moet er iets worden gedaan.
Laat ik jullie eens vertellen dat er 14 eeuwen geleden al sprake was van en democratie in de islam.
1. Democratic Systems in Islam
The Quran says, “Obey God, obey the Prophet and obey those in authority among you.” [4:59] The primary sources of Islamic law are therefore the words and commands of God as laid out in the Quran, the sayings and traditions of the Prophet (ahadith), and the rulings of political and religious leaders.
The Holy Quran is the highest standard by which man can order his life. As such, it is a model only the Prophet of God could uphold to its fullest. Yet, it is still not possible for the average Muslim to follow the Prophet’s example directly. Muslims therefore rely on the authority of their leaders to guide them in upholding the principles of law laid out in the Quran and the traditions. The Prophet himself stated, “Whoever is chosen by the people after me will be the caliph, and you must listen to and obey him.” Those in authority include the rulers of the nation, its religious scholars and its judges.
1.1 Shura: Consultation and the Adaptability of Islamic Law
Rule in Islam is based on the concept of shura, a term which has two meanings in Islamic governance:
1. Shura is a referendum on which the majority of people agree, and is the basic method for choosing the ruler in Islam. Similarly, it is the means to approve his decisions. Muhammad Abu Zahra in The History of Islamic Thought and Leadership in Politics and Belief, writes:
2. “All the Muslims, including the Shi`a and all the different schools of thought, [which at one time number over 470] agreed that leadership as defined by the Prophet, in the saying ‘If you are three make one your leader’ can only be implemented by election. That is done in every district, (hayy), at the state level (wilayat) and above that by the federal authority, (al-idara al-markaziyya).”
3. The advisory board (al-majlis ash-shura), which advises the ruler, is a group of elected experts. The task of such groups is to observe and oversee the ruler (muraqabat as-sultan). They are in this position to form an opinion of the ruler and his rule, and to control any aspirations he may have to override the rights of the people. They must be aware of the variations in these rights within ethnic, cultural and environmental norms. This system is like that being implemented in America today, where we have the federal system, the state and local governments, and municipalities. The judicial system acts to check the executive and legislative branches, ensuring fair and correct implementation of law. We also have the free press, which acts as a watchdog over the government, issuing warnings at the slightest sign the interests of the people are being betrayed.
Everything that impacts human life accounted for in the law and falls under the jurisdiction of the ruler. Yet the ruler himself has no personal choice in ruling, as do contemporary monarchs. The Prophet prohibited the ruler, who has been chosen or appointed, to usurp authority he does not possess. He is tied to the law, which as the ruler is his duty to enforce. The majlis ash-shura ensures that he does so.
In the Shari`ah there are laws that are immutable or nearly so, similar to the constitutional basis of Western democracy and the US Bill of Rights. However, the remainder of the law is adaptable, changing with:
1. The practical application of the “immutable” law, established in the earlier rulings of judges; ie. case law.
2. Society’s evolving needs.
It is the job of the Dar al-Ifta, the Center for Legal Rulings, to form the basis for new laws that will address innovations in technology and custom. The Prophet did not demand that a particular rule be imposed on new innovations, but allowed the people to develop a law as needed, based on the precedent established in his lifetime and by Islamic scholars in succeeding generations. The evolution of the law was left in the care of the people for laws must take into account geography, environment, ethnic and cultural considerations, and variations in belief and understanding.
Baruch Spinoza said, “Everyone varies in their view of individual life.” Each person has a different opinion on every matter, therefore the implementation of shura, or election by majority, is essential in the formation of a new law that will successfully and effectively govern the people.
1.2 Democratic Election of Leaders
From the beginning, Islam has mandated democracy through a shura (elected council of leaders), a process through which people sit together, consult with one another, and select one person to represent them. This process was recently employed in Afghanistan where, according to a fifteen-century old tradition, the people choose representatives who then gathered to choose not only a leader, but a cabinet and national assembly. The recent loya jirga that confirmed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan, demonstrated once again that Islamic rule is based on democratic choice.
A clear example of democracy’s role in Islam is manifest in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) passing without appointing a successor to rule the Muslim state. He intentionally left it to the Muslims to come together to make this crucial decision based on what he had taught them.
The Azhar scholar Dr. Abu Zahra said:
“The Prophet never gave a single word or sign indicating who his successor would be… and in the meeting which took place to elect the calipha, the Companions were in utter disagreement as to who should succeed the Prophet, but in the end were able to choose Abu Bakr as-Siddiq by the consensus of the majority.” [2]
Essentially, there were three groups who differed in who should succeed the Prophet:
§ The Ansar, the Prophet’s supporters in Madinah, who felt the leadership should fall to one among them as they supported the Prophet when he immigrated from Mecca.
§ Another group, led by Abu Bakr and Umar, believed that the immigrants (Muhajiroon) who came with the Prophet to Madinah should lead, because they were the first to enter Islam.
§ The third group called on Ali to lead, due to his familial relationship with the Prophet.
The disagreement did not last long, as through shura the three groups quickly reached the consensus that Abu Bakr had the highest credentials to take the reins of leadership. The majority voted for him, and the Islamic precedent for peaceful transition between rulers was introduced. Once the majority had decided, the individual citizens ratified the selection by pledging their allegiance one-by-one to the new head of state.
In electing a candidate from among the three parties vying for succession, the first, most exemplary Muslims imprinted their stamp of religious authenticity on the electoral system. The fact that the Companions (Sahaba) did not establish a monarchy or a dictatorship irrevocably demonstrates that leadership in Islam is the choice of the people.
Once a selection is made by the shura council, each individual Muslim has the option to accept their choice or not. This is known as taking a pledge of allegiance (baya’). If a group feels the choice was made unjustly, they may refuse to accept it and form an opposition party. In the end however, a judge accepted by both sides must make a final arbitration and choose between the two parties based on the validity of their claims.
The executive aspect of governance is also conducted through consultation. The ruler, chosen by the shura and confirmed by the citizen’s individual pledge of allegiance, is obliged to consult on executive decisions. He therefore consults with a council, parliament or advisory group whose specific role is to advise.
Whenever the Prophet (peace be upon him) had to make a decision that would affect the Muslim nation in whole or part, he gathered his followers to conduct a shura. In one instance, before the onset of a battle, one of the companions asked the Prophet if the location of the Muslim camp should be chosen through Divine inspiration or consultation. The Prophet answered that it should be the product of consultation, and proceeded to follow the group’s recommendation to settle beside the nearest water well.
Umar, the second caliph, said, “Whoever is chosen by the people after me will be the caliph, and you people must listen to him and obey him.”[3] Upon Umar’s passing, the shura chose Uthman, and after Uthman’s assassination, they chose Ali.
With the election of Ali there arose a dispute, and Muawiya took over the caliphate. Later the rule went to his son, and the system thereby changed from democracy to a monarchy. Thereafter, the selection of the ruler was dynastic and remained so through the time of the Ottoman caliphs.
Muawiya separated the political and religious systems. However he regularly consulted with Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar, who possessed vastly greater knowledge. The system thus changed into a political leadership advised by religious leaders.
1.3 The constitution of Madinah
The democratic election of a leader was the model on which the city of Madinah was founded. The Prophet, while invited by Muslims from that city, became its ruler by the choice of all its citizens, which included Jewish and polytheist tribes. He then developed a binding social contract, a pact signed by all the tribal leaders naming Muhammad as the leader, and establishing laws binding the tribes to cooperation, assistance in defense of the city, and the protection of its inhabitants.
It reads in part:
“The Jews of Banu ‘Awf are one nation with the Muslims. The Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs, their freedmen and their persons shall be protected except those who behave unjustly or sinfully… Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. Their condition must be one of mutual advice, consultation and charity… No man is liable for a crime committed by his ally. Support must be given to him who is wronged… To every small group belongs the share which is their due, as members of the larger group which is party to this covenant….”
This document, The Constitution of Madinah, establishes the importance of consent and cooperation for governance in Islam. According to this pact, Muslims and non-Muslims are equal citizens of the Islamic state, with identical rights and duties. Communities of different religious orientations enjoy religious autonomy, which is essentially wider in scope than the modern idea of religious freedom. The principles of equality, consensual governance and pluralism are beautifully enmeshed in the pact of Madinah.
Since then, this lengthy document has proven an exemplary historical model of a binding social pact in which a multi-religious, multi-cultural society was bound by one law. Note that, in signing the contract, the non-Muslim parties did not accept the Prophet as their religious leader, but rather signed with the conviction that he would provide the leadership needed to build an ideal society. In later centuries, the system of governance in Madinah became the basis of the ideal city, a detailed model developed by al-Farabi and later scholars.
A tradition in Islam states: “Whatever the body of Muslims collectively sees as good is also considered good by God, and what they see as bad is also considered bad by God.” Just as culture, geography and natural circumstances impact our needs, the Prophet recognized the importance to develop a system that would be useful for that time or those circumstances. He stated, “Majority opinion is best.”[4]
1.4 The Model City
Despite the change of the system of succession to a dynastic model, the Islamic system of governance established by Prophet Muhammad evolved rapidly in the fields of law, economics, industry, agriculture and religious understanding. Later, as the Umayyad dynasty was succeeded by the Abbasid, Islamic theology, philosophy and political theory also flourished, culminating in al-Farabi’s The Model City, and later in the writing of Nasr ad-Din at-Tusi.
Dr. Abdul Wahid, a scholar of Islamic history at al-Azhar University, writes:
“Al-Farabi as an Islamic scholar versed in the Quran, hadith and the practice of the Sahaba (companions), and through his extensive study of previous civilizations… composed a formulation of Islamic political theory in a way that had never been done before him.”[5]
Al-Farabi defined fifteen characteristics of the ideal leader:
1. Excellent understanding and the ability to quickly observe and grasp what he is told.
2. Possesses the power to recollect what he hears, reads, senses; is not forgetful.
3. Highly intellectual; can understand the direction of a group from which an idea is generated.
4. Eloquence, and ability to express what is in the heart.
5. Passion for education and seeks its benefits for all citizens.
6. Must not tire easily and be exceedingly patient.
7. Not greedy for food and drink.
8. Efficient and effective in addressing the physical needs.
9. A lover of the truth and its supporters; a hater of falsehood and its supporters.
10. Quickly recognizes duplicitous people.
11. Extremely generous, above stinginess.
12. Worldly wealth must not be a factor; whether it is possessed or not should be of no concern.
13. Loves justice and freedom.
14. Rejects oppressors and oppression.
15. Firmly decides the course that will benefit society, despite intense opposition.
1.5 Islam’s Legacy to the West
The Islamic precedent of developing law and governance according to the will of the majority, as well as adapting legal precedents to address new and evolving needs are Islam’s legacy to the Western world. A famous Islamic saying states, “Islam is not simply a religion between the individual and his Lord, but a way of life in which people are taught to live in the world as if they are living forever.”
Abdul Halim Mahmoud said, “The Islamic culture and civilization as a whole was the source of inspiration and source of information for principles and rules on which the Western civilization built its laws and rules.”[6]
Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, in his book Renewal of Religious Thinking said, “Europe was extremely slow to grasp Islam, its principles, rules and its scientific perspective.”
Briffault, who wrote the book The Making of Humanity, said:
“We have to be fair. Roger Bacon studied the Arabic language and sciences in Oxford and they have adopted the Arabic approach about which they wrote. Roger Bacon was like a messenger, bringing principles and rules from the religion of Islam and presenting them to Europe and Christendom.”
Dr. Iqbal, quoting The Making of Humanity said:
“What we call today knowledge and its principles, appeared today from the spirit of new research and new ways that have been developed from the examples of what happened before, and the scales of the past and the precedents of the past, and all these principles and rules and scientific curricula, were brought to the European world by the Arabs.”
2. Individual Freedoms in Islam
2.1 Freedom of speech
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “A good believer must listen and obey as long as he is not being ordered to commit a sin.” This hadith delineates the limits between the giver of law and the rule of man. The object of rule in Islam is to implement God’s Law – that legislated in the Quran and Hadith, known as Shariah (Islamic law). The ruler who does so is to be followed, and the one who does not is to be corrected. Ensuring the rulers remain on the path of law is the job of the scholars of Islam and their inherent responsibility. It is not the task of the common people, but all citizens are free to express their opinion without fear of retaliation in Islam. Contrary to what is seen in most Muslim nations today, where one word spoken in criticism of the rulers may land a person in prison, Islam allows all to speak, as illustrated so significantly in the case of the lady who corrected the second caliph, Umar.[7]
In contrast to what radical Islamists claim today, militant opposition to rulers is not allowed so long as they permit the observance of Islamic worship. Therefore, traditional Muslims understand that a citizen has no right to create confusion, disrupt the peace, upset the leadership, or attempt to eliminate their authority by force as long as the governing authority gives the people the freedom to carry out their religious obligations. Under such conditions, a citizen has no right to oppose their nation’s system of governance.
2.2 Freedom of religious belief
Prophet Muhammad freely propagated the message of Islam, yet gave all people the freedom to choose any other religion. Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians were contractual members of the Muslim community. The Quran states, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”[8] Accordingly, Muslim jurists have concluded that while Islam is the preferred belief and way of life, it cannot be imposed on anyone. In fifteen centuries of Islamic rule throughout the globe, there are no incidents in which Islam was imposed by force according to Islamic law. When non-Muslims became members of a Muslim nation, either through capture of territory or through migration, they were free to practice their beliefs. Furthermore, special consideration was given to believers in heavenly revealed religions: the Jews, Christians (known “People of the Book”) Zoroastrians, and later, other faiths. They were afforded not only freedom of religious belief, but were allowed to maintain their own religious law and practices, even when these conflicted with the teachings of Islam.
Islamic civilization is firmly founded on the concept of ‘rule of law.’ For that reason, the law is published and known, and citizens and courts are expected to uphold it. In addition, Muslim citizens must adhere to Islamic law. If a Muslim citizen commits a religious violation, he is judged according to Islamic law. A non-Muslim citizen is judged in religious issues by the laws of his own faith.
Further, it was deemed unlawful in Islam to desecrate or destroy non-Muslim houses of worship. At first restricted to certain faiths, this category was later extended to include the Hindus of India and other beliefs. A traveler in Muslim lands should not be surprised to see in them churches, synagogues and temples of other faiths, often erected in places of prominence.
Shaykh Ahmad al-Jurjawi writes:
“From the beginning of the history of Islam until today, you cannot see that the Muslims come against the Jews or the Christians living among them… Even the Crusades did not originate from Muslims, but came from the Europeans. We see that Salahuddin al-Ayyubi would even have his physicians treat Christian soldiers and later send them home to England safely.” [9]
2.3 Freedom of commerce
Islam affords the citizens of a Muslim nation the freedom to conduct commerce as they please, as long as their actions are not unlawful. Travel is not restricted. Trade is open and people are free to work in any profession. Islamically, borders and nations exist as subdivisions for administration, not as barriers to migration or material gain.
2.4 Freedom to petition the government for redress
Umar, the second caliph, said, “In the case of divorce in an unconsummated marriage, the husband can take back part of the dowry.” A lady in the congregation challenged Umar with a verse of Quran: “Don’t you know that God said, ‘If you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?’ [4:20] To this Umar replied, “She is right and Umar is wrong.”
2.5 Taxation
The inherence of democratic principles in Islam is made even more clear in examining the application of zakat,[10] a form of taxation applied to Muslim citizens of the state. The system of taxation applied to non-Muslim citizens, who also enjoyed benefits from the state, is known as jizya. Funds collected from zakat and jizya are diligently applied to social welfare and state defense, producing a higher standard of living and suppressing the need to commit crimes. Both systems are extremely similar to the US system of taxation, which benefits everyone.
Dus verdiep je eerst in wat je zegt voor je wat rondroept.
zoals je hierboven gezien hebt...(als je het althans gelezen hebt)...was er al sinds de begin van de islam sprake van democratie.
De profeet(saws) had de gewoonte om bij beslissingen eerst zijn mensen te raadplegen alvorens hij beslissingen nam (met uitzondering van beslissingen die werden geopenbaard door God zelf)
De Rode Roos
09-04-03, 11:22
Daarom willen de shiieten 1 man, 1 vote. Zij hebben een absolute meerderheid en zullen via de democratie een theocratie willen vestigen. Als dat de wil is van de bevolking, wie houdt ze tegen? Waarschijnlijk de Amerikanen.