Well are they?

Some people will bring up Turkey and here is what I have to say about that.

Turkey has gotten to where it is today (its secularism and semi democracy) by rejecting Islam.

Even today in Turkey the religous citizens dont have as much rights as the non religous citizens.  So the Turkish model seems to actually prove that if you want a secular, democratic nation, you need to force it.

More examples are that the shah's of Iran did not do enough to force secularism into the mainstream and therefore we have the mullah's today.  And the Egyptian and Palestinian examples also prove that in a democratic election where the radical religous parties are not controlled (like in Turkey) they will sweep to power. 

What do you all think? Can we get to democracy through Islam or do we have to do it by fighting Islam?

no, i dont agree. with christianity, it was never forced aside, the mentality was always more liberal then islam.

there were instances where religion had to be forced out of politics, but for the most part, religion and politics were almost always seperate because of the non religous monarchs.

Don't forgett the witch hunt, inquisation and their victims who were burnt at the stake.

I agree with Maju when he says:"Your question is valid for any religion: Europe has not walked the path of democracy by following the Inquisition and bowing under "God-appointed" monarchs."

Maybe i will make a thread about "Heinrich Kramer" the german inquisator and his book "malleus malleficarum" (The Hammer of Witches or the Hexenhammer).

Is Democracy compatible with Islam? Well, how many successful democratic islamic nations do you see?

The fundamentalists are more loudspoken than the "moderate" muslims. Some have said that they stay silent in other threads. How does staying silent help your case at all?

Democracy requires an acceptance of different thoughts and ideas, and at this time islam does not have this, so at this time, I do not think islam and democracy are very compatible. However, there could be a time.

But if the majority do wish to continue to be ruled in backward theocratic nations, I say let them have it their way.

This article answers your question:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000BCW7WG/qid=1140426288/sr=1-28/ref=sr_1_28/002-8386381-4831211?v=glance&s=books - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000BCW7WG/qid =1140426288/sr=1-28/ref=sr_1_28/002-8386381-4831211?v=glance &s=books

the thing with christianity it is that it is a pliable religion that adapts. that is why the christian world is mostly democratic today.

islam on the other had is strict and, for lack of a better word, backward in ideology, still clinging on beliefs, and rituals that are now obsolete.

well here what i think

a secular country does NOT mean a Democratic country.

and stopping religiouse groups from participating in the governmnet isnt Democratic.

also prsn41life forcing people to belive in what they dont belive in isn't Democratic either. dont you think so?

and maju many muslims belive that islam is  the correct way God wanted people to live from brith to death. thats include politics. and politics in Islam does include how to have a peacfull relation with non-muslims.

if you looked at history you will see that the percentage of non-muslims lived in Islamic empires/states was much much higher than non-Christans lived in a Christan empires/states.

Islamic times of spain and portugal are very good example of that, a spanish told me that houses of Christans muslims and Jews in Alandalusia were together in the same areas not sperated or put into communities, a well known arab christan and arab Jewish scintists came from that period, and  when Christans kicked the Muslims and the Jews of Spain islamic states took them.

And how many Christian countries were ruled by democracy in 1600's? Does this mean Christianity is not compatible with democracy? What is yoru point?

Why do you go that far even? Just in 1973? what was the "Christian" nation of Greek? A dictatorship under George Papadopoulos.

Well, to be more realistic. Those so called Christian nations that are democratic are not only silent about no democracy in the Middle East, but have supported raising dictators. In fact, in may parts of the world too including again George Papadopoulos' regime being supported by the United States.

So, maybe if the West remove its hands from supporting dictatorships through all contemporary history of the Middle East and from Shah of Iran to Qadafi, then maybe Middle East will be better.

However, I don't think this will happen. Realistically speaking, if the West will leave the Middle East politics alone for Democractice elections, maybe we will see more of Hamas stunning victories repeated again. Can they stand that? 

well said cok gec.

they (the west) just need to leave us alone. politicaly wise.

but to be more realistic since they (the west again) created Israel they wont leave us alone ( politicaly wise again) not anytime soon.

Can I get a check on todays date?

maybe we will see more of Hamas stunning victories repeated again. Can they stand that? 

Maybe the question is, can the muslim world stand that? These terrorist groups and theocratic states do not make the middle east's image any better.

Not actually. Look at the colonial empires: how many Muslims lived in British India? In French Algeria? Or in the Russian Empire?

In contrast, how many non-Muslims are there in Northern Africa? In modern "secular" Turkey?

its the year 2006. if you are comparing muslim countries to that of europeans ones in teh 1600's, then you prove my point.

you guys should be ashamed.  my personal opinion is that islam is not compatible, its either one of the other, and i applaud people like Ataturk who made the right decision.

How about this...who cares?

What is real democracy? Real democracy is decision making by a vote of the whole populace, which is impossible. What is a republic? elected representatives. However, in an elected legislature, which by definition is democratic, it does not mean religion must be kept separate,

Separation of church and state is an American idea. Even when Europe started to change religion still held official status (and in many countries it still does).

I don’t care if religion is involved in Islamic governments. It is their concern and if the people want it (which is most important) then you have true free government. Just because it isn’t in the image as the west would like it means nothing.

For example, freedom of speech in the Muslim world and in Europe doesn’t work, but in America it does, that is just a difference in culture. However if that is how the people want it then it is a freedom in it self.

what are you guys talking about?

democracy being a paradox? democracy not even being a democracy? tell that to the billions of people hoping one day to live in a truly free democratic state and rid themselves of their tyrant dictators.

what do you have to say to those people? what do you have to say to the freedom loving afghans, who prayed for the taleban to fall, what do you say to the iranians, who want the mullahs gone, but cant do anything about it, what do you say to the belarusians? waht do you say to the zimbweians?

i bet all those people are happy with the status quo right?

your comments are the very same reasons that dictators claim in order to stay in power.

Strategos and Prsn4life, drawing the same conclusion of my example as other forumers did is not so difficult.
Christianity existed in 1600's and Christianity exist today in 2006. If you are living in 1600's and you said that "look at those Christian autocratic and crusading states, Christianity is not compatible with democracy" it will be as plain igorant, naiive, and simple-vision as saying today and standing with many non-democratic Muslim countries that Islam is not compitable with democracy.  Understand now?

what are you talking? it is the year 2006, 1600's was a different era! today, the muslim nations have no excuse for not being democracy!

look what has happened in egypt and palestine, islamic radicals quickly take control.

Wither they have an excuse or not, it does not give you or anyone here the right to push the blame to religion and it is clear that doing so is definitely a twisted presentation as I explained in my example.

Now, you talk about it as if the Middle East is isolated from the outside world. You seem unknowledgable about the fact that the delimma of democracy in the middle east is also a by-product of the "democratic " West!!

Was Shah of Iran a democracy? No. But he was supported by the United States. Who supported Saddam too before 1990 invasin of kuwait? Who helped Qadafi to take control except the American base in Tripoli. Even if you want to talk about Saudi Arabia, who supported King Abdul Aziz except Britain?

You seem to be living abroad and away from the Middle East. So I guess you can watch the new movie Syriana. Though it is not a documentary movie, but you will get the idea. This is not an idea produced here in the Middle East to throw the blame out. It is an accepted fact even by Westerners themselves.

i have seen syriana.

your argument is sensible, i agree, the west hasnt been too benevolent. egypt was a dictatorship anyway, all the countries in the middle east were dictatorships so the west supporting another dictator doesnt make a difference.

the only exception here is Iran, in which there was a democracy. the USA apologised and admitted its mistaken overthrowing mossadegh in 2000.

Well, there was a constitution, political parties, free press, and a parliment in the Kingdom of Hijaz after the WWI.  Britian decided to support King Abdul Aziz just to serve its interest. So it gives signals to all citizens in that region and till now that Western powers don't mind supporting a non-democratic choice if it means securing their interest.

After the 1990 Gulf War, Bush the father came on TV encouraging Iraqis to revolt against Saddam and promised them support. Guess what? they revolted and the United States, the winning side in the war, was just watching the failed revolt against the tyranny and the butcher of Shia in the south and the Kurds in the north and finally they put the no-fly zone areas.

 Of course, this argument if it is expanded to include the rest of the world, it will become inevitable to observe many examples were actually democratic choices were removed and dictatorships were installed as in Greece coup and Chili.

We have all pointed out that neither west nor muslim world are perfect, but I believe the west is headed in the better direction

Ok. Then Im glad you saw the big difference between "Islam" and "Muslims". Having said that, I guess then your second observation that Muslims are behind the West. Well not all, but most and truly behind the West. Reasons? we can discuss that in any form.

However, my previous objection was to blame Islam in a general statement as you made earlier. Christianity and Islam existed before and exist today.  Christian world went from advancement to decline to advancement again.  Civiliazation raise and fall. As it is not fair to blame Christianity for the decline in medival ages of Europe and the massacres done by its name, it is also unfair to point in the same direction to Islam.

I think you are right on this. Christianity practices in Europe went against science at the begining. Something that most early Muslims did not face regarding science. Therefore, a lot of Muslims wont' know that religion can stand against science sometimes.

Well, that is the precise point I was talking about. Most Westerners will fail to understand that for Muslims, religion (Quran and Sunnah) has not posed a conflict to science.

Now most Muslims know that early centruries of Islam are characterized by religious awakening and religious conservatism. However, science flourished much better during those centuries than later centuries. Therefore, there is no correlation between religious conservatism and science acceptance, at least in the Muslim world.

The change that occured is people reaction to science later where they decided to involve religion in matter that should not be in conflict to it. For instance, Fatwas in the Ottoman time of prohibiting printing machines that were discovered in Europe pointing toward fears of Quran manupilation. While Quran is silent about that, those scholars have done a great mistake in their analysis. They used religion for that decision, however, definitely they are not more or less conservative than previous Muslim scientists.

islam is a system of life to many muslims and it encourage science and learning and knowledge.

dont see how its dangerouse to science !

also the printing  or painting or drawing part is only for living things except plants trees ..etc. and for the sake of learning and knowledge it is i think allowed by many modern scholars. note in the past it was allowed too many scientific works had drawings in them. so painting a living thing for the sake of beautiy and decoration is forbiden in islam.

but anyway there are many muslims in the past which are doing the drawing things for the sake of decoration only. its a sin which is considered one of the (minor) sins. while making pictures of God and the prophet is higher (major) sins since it comes under insulting the religion.

but drawing some living things or not drawing them at all is just a matter how religious a person is. doing so wont change the fact that he/she is still a muslim beliving in the main pillars of Islam ( the 5 pillars) .

I think it is a myth that religion has always been detrimental to science and cultural advancement. No doubt the Catholic church halted such advancement but it was more due to ignorance than conspiracy.

The Muslims actually mapped the circular system of the human body. They correctly measured the distance between the Earth and Moon. I also hear they invented Algebra but I also heard the Chinese did. The Muslims also theorized that if an atom was split the energy would destroy a city the size of Baghdad.

The Christians advanced in different areas, in culture. They developed the music language and developed it to what you see today. IN fact, I once read that Islamic music hasn’t advanced in hundreds of years but western music has advanced quite well. Before the Renaissance in Italy, there was the Chargolonian renaissance which saw advancement in metalwork and I think it should be said that the Christians were masters at developing beautiful manuscripts. Then we heave a renaissance and I don’t think I need to elaborate on that.

Don’t get me wrong, Christian religion played a counter productive role in the advancement of science but it was the dark middle ages. In the dark ages especially people were ignorant and still developing a post Romantic world. It isn’t as bad as people make it out to be (especially anti religious people).

no they are not, if they belive in the 5 pillars of islam then they are muslims, some branches or sectors of shias were considered not muslims by some scholars (sunni ones.

on the other hand some shi'e scholars (imams) also consider sunnis as not muslims.

from both sides the ones who decided who is muslims or not muslims are mostly the ones who usually think "if you dont think like i think then you are kafir" !.

"Some people will bring up Turkey and here is what I have to say about that.

Turkey has gotten to where it is today (its secularism and semi democracy) by rejecting Islam."

We never reject ISlam.We are proud of being Muslims.Please don2t use these kinds of words!

I certainly agree with you.We succeeded to be a modern civilization as a Muslim.

We saw  democracy in Denmark.They said bad sayings to our cultere and religion and they said this is democracy! I certainly disagree!

im sure you have heard of ataturk.

he made the wearing of the hijab illegal for sometime, killed many religious people who stood in the way of his reforms, as well as many many other things.

dont deny it, its not a bad thing that ataturk was willing to go to extreme measures for his country.

and its certainly obvious that turkey is majority religous (60% of the women wear the hijab), and that is why the islamic parties always win, and i believe the last "coup" was in 1996, when a mililtary campaign removed a democratically elected religous government that wanted to make turkey a bit less liberal (like limitting alcohol stuff like that).

and you guys are trying to tell me that turkey is democratic because of islam? no turkey is democratic because of its fight against islam. and thats not a bad thing.

so all the muslims in turkey are fundemental?

so why cant women who wear scarves drive? or go to university? or go into government buildings?

why cant the president of turkey bring his wife to political gatherings?

are they all fundamentals?

why cant you guys admit that turkey is where it is today because it has rejected and sometimes oppressed its religous majority.

the turkish method actually isnt a very good one though, because i believe everyone should have equal rights, but still, turkey is great today because of ataturk's anti islam policies, which last to this day.

Nobody rejects we are are a republic.But nobody can say that Turkiye rejects ISlam..

You don't know me so you must be restpecful to my opinion.I can both drink alcahol and go to cuma ok?

Turkish Republic has multi-party elections since 1950. Islamists won twice. One in the 1990s, and one in 2004. It can also be debated that the current government is not Islamists. In any case, 'Islamic parties always win' is obviously wrong.

In fact there was no military campaign. The military threatened them and the Islamist PM resigned. Later that party was tried in court for unconstitutional activities and was banned. They applied to the European Court of Justice, which agreed with the decision of the Turkish judiciary. I.e. Turkey was right to ban it. So this event doesn't really count as a military coup, like the one in 1980. Turkish press often refers to it as 'the post-modern coup'. 

what silly precepts i made my religion on?

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by barish Originally posted by prsn41ife so why cant women who wear scarves drive? There is no such thing. Actually it's the women who are forced to wear scarves and not to drive not far away in Saudia.

yes but they are talking about Turkey

Islam doesn't deny democracy...What Islam orders is equality and giving the same rights to all the people and it doesn't make any discrimination in races and genders.

Islam is in fact, in its idea, compatible with democracy. But being a majorly Muslim country doesn't mean that the state doesn't have to be secular...Secularism is very important in every aspect.

Turkey,Malaysia are good examples in this, the harmony of Islam and democracy..

But what created and supported the dictatorships in the Islamic world, is the former and today's imperialist powers...Better ask them about this, plus, the Islamic concept of democracy is deformed a lot by Wahabite ideology either, and radical extremism.

Just agreed with Beylerbeyi upon this..There wasn't even any Islamic party formed in Turkey for a long time...And yes, they had only won twice in the elections...Well, it is democracy, everybody can win, but making such a generalization is wrong.

The last one cannot be referred as a coup, only an ultimatum.

Originally posted by erkut Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by barish Originally posted by prsn41ife so why cant women who wear scarves drive? There is no such thing. Actually it's the women who are forced to wear scarves and not to drive not far away in Saudia. yes but they are talking about Turkey

we are talking about turkey because the subject is if islam is compatible with democracy, an turkey is (atleast to me) a prime example that to become liberal and democratic, you need to do some very drastic things.

Originally posted by barish Originally posted by prsn41ife so why cant women who wear scarves drive? There is no such thing.

are you sure?

but you do agree about the other things.

so the army giving the government an ultimatum to leave or else isnt a coup????

anyway, if its democracy, then why did the army force the government to leave?

and didnt ataturk's successor (or himself, dont quite remember) ban islamic parties from even forming?? maybe thats why.

and secondly, this new government is also islamic but because they dont want to get kicked out like the previous administration, then have toned it down a bit.

infact, there was something on bbc news a while ago that was talking about how religous muslims want turkey to be less liberal, for example banning alcohol and other things....

the fact of the matter is that, by providing the turkish model as evidence, it is clear that democracy and liberalism can only come from fighting islam.

for example, the dictator of egypt has kept egypt secular only by banning islamic parties ( for a long time). and now with the elections, the radical islamic parties have gained tremendous power, now the future of egypt is not so clear any more, another country like saudi? like iran?

i wish islam is like that. if it was like that then there would be no problem.

but islam is not like that! islam is waaaaaay to strict and the religious always interfere with the non religous because they think that that is what God wants. for example, Iran, after 60+ years of secularism, you would think that the religous community would be used to it right? but no, they kept forcing their ideals till they finally got an islamic revolution.

Well, gotta make the difference between an ultimatum and a coup..It is referred as a post-modern coup,but cannot be called totally as a coup, as there hadn't been a total military intervention...Just an ultimatum and the government had to resign.It would have been a coup if the parliament was shut down and military had got the administraton.

Things are a bit different in Turkey..Army, who has been a major force in foundation of the republic, is considered as its guardian.And when some governments try to do some acts threatening a Republican Turkey, army intervenes for protection of the republic, like in that significant example.

Atatürk's successor was Ýsmet Ýnönü, and he was the man who brought full democracy to Turkey in 1946 by allowing other parties to be founded.

Atatürk had made the same attempt for two times but the parties founded had been the bases for reactionary and anti-republican groups and had unfortunately been shut down due to that fact

I am personally a Muslim either but I drink alcohol...It is person's freedom to do whatever he/she wants to...You can't impose it, it is their own choice..If someone drinks, it's his own choice, if not, that's another choice..

Not really, it hasn't been in that way in Turkey...It is not fighting Islam, but fighting the people who doesn't believe in secularism and is trying by force to impose their ideology on other people, like in Iran...

Originally posted by barish Originally posted by prsn41ife Originally posted by barish Originally posted by prsn41ife so why cant women who wear scarves drive? There is no such thing. are you sure? but you do agree about the other things. Yes, I'm sure. That would be really ridiculous. Do I agree about other things? I can understand you. You live in Iran. Iran is ruled by fundamentalists. And they claim that we act according to Islam. That's why you hate Islam. But I think "true" Islam is compatible with democracy.

i dont live in iran, and i wasnt raised in iran.

i live in the GREAT USA!!!

and i hate all religions. i believe religions hare corrupt and a form of control over the masses for people who want power.

so, are avoiding the other facts i listed. 

we need more muslims like you.

After the death of Prophet Mohamad,Peace be upon him,The first Rightly Guided Caliphs (successors) of Arabia were elected in the following order:Abou Bakr al-Siddik,Omar ibn al-Khattab,Osman Abou Affan and Ali Ibn Abi-Talib who was assassinated on the order of Moaawya Ibn Abou Sufian who declared himself Caliph and ruled from Damascus adopting the Byzantine custom of heredidetary monarchy. So democracy was known to the Arabs but absolute monarchy was copied from the Christian west.

For many centuries the Caliphs held secular and temporal powers and were called"Amir El Mouominin" or Leader of the blievers. What has happned since is that a number of countries have separated the secular from the temporal power thus becoming more democratic.

Some  good examples of Islamic democratic counties are Turkey,Bosnia Herzegovina,Malaysia,Indonesia,Egypt  etc.

To answer the question: Are Islam and democracy really compatible? Just check out this thread:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10159&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10159&am p;PN=1

I think it says it all.

Not quite. It is one case from a country. According to the link from Maju's post, "Conservatives still dominate the Afghan judiciary".

who says they're not coming around to the concept of democracy? See for yourself... 

Lahme = Meat

http://www.youtube.com/w/Arab-meat-%28lahme%29-song?v=XFxll8LiR1I&search=lahme - http://www.youtube.com/w/Arab-meat-%28lahme%29-song?v=XFxll8 LiR1I&search=lahme

Are you kidding? Turkey isn't fully democratic. This is just because she has some unfair policies towards religious population.

Islamic country surely can be democratic, you can take Malaysia or Pakistan( Before Musharaf) for example, but never Turkey, at least until now.

turkey is not an example of a muslim democratic country.

firstly, like barbar said, they arent a full democracy, secondly, religous people are not tolerated in turkey. so turkey would be an example of how a country has to fight islam in order to be secular.

but malaysia is a good example of democracy and islam, althought not completely either.

If voting rights, seperation of church and state, consent of the majority and citizen involvement in state affairs directly or via representation are not reflective of a democracy then what is? Turkey has all that.

The mind of a true scholar. Simplifying an arguement with broad generalizations. I guess Turkey is full of automatons with no religion then.

All religions are tolerated in a multi religious country such as Turkey. Citizens have abundant mosques, churches and synygogs to practice as much as they like. A dress code is stipulated at state offices and university levels. However, that has eased up since Erdogan has been Prime Minister. Unfortunately, because the pendulum has shifted in the other direction. Now breaks at prayer times are abundant in governmental jobs. Sounds good unless you're not an avid moslem. Such interuptions are encouraged by conservative religious staff management in post offices, banks, etc. where non-conservative muslims are discriminated against. This is against Ataturk's and the secular republic's laik identity. No problem for individuals who pray at work, just do not demand it and close shop in the middle of the day to do it if you work for the government. But this is the very behavior that has been going on in Erdogan's AKP version of democracy. This is the very type of usurpation that Turkey has been dealing with and has been trying to safegueard the citizens from!

Egypt is not Islamic - let alone democratic.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not tolerated, and Al Azhar (the highest religious authority) is paralyzed by the government. 

They've had the same government for the past 25 years, and the current president is pushing for his son to inherit the presidency.  (Thanks to the Assads of Syria, others have learned how to get around the system to allow for the inheritance of the presidency in a so-called republic.)

Mubarak's opponent from the last elections, Ayman Nour, is in jail for alleged forgery.  I don't know if this sounds belivable to you; but Mubarak supposedly received 89% of the votes.  (Reminds me of Saddam receiving 99.9% of the votes, lol.)

I don't know if I'd call that a democracy.

no, that is not democracy, that is secularism.

democracy is freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of religion, etc... turkey is not fully democratic because it has limited alot of the freedoms, like freedom of speech.

that is why the EU and the USA are still some what critical of turkey on the democracy issue.

The mind of a true scholar. Simplifying an arguement with broad generalizations. I guess Turkey is full of automatons with no religion then.

[/quote]

is it not true that turkey became secular by fighting islam? wasnt ataturk the one who blamed islam for turkey's defeat and vowed to westernise?

the majority of turks are very religious muslims, that is true, but the foundations of turkey were built with an anti islamic attitude.

christians werent even allowed to build churches in turkey until 2003! you call that freedom of religion?

and the dress codes imposed on people in government buildings and universities are discriminatory against muslims, and you are trying to tell me that turkey is a full democracy?

you are so disillusioned.

yes turkey is better than a lot of the other muslim countries when it comes to democracy, and much much better when it comes to secularism, but you have to admit that turkey is not the best example.

Of course freedom of speech is allowed you ninny. Otherwise, Turkey wouldn't have the serious news and 'trash-gossip' magazines galore that it does. Protests in Turkey are more abundant then I have seen in the US. The people always demonstrate their rights. The main constraint is that police do not abuse their jobs and that the protestors do not act contrary to the law.

Turkey became secular by implementing the Swiss, Italian and French codes of law into their constitution. The National Congress votes on them and amends them as needed.

Ataturk was against foreign dominance and religious laws affecting the government. He expanded on rights of farmers, women, villagers, and created state subsidies. These are a few among many of the things he had done.

Churches have not been given a fair shake by certain governmental municipalities. That is true. The Churches already in use have not been affected. They still welcome practicing whorshippers. Whether the limited numbers has to do with limited followers of a certain faith or blackballing by various local agencies is a viable line of reasoning which could be debated.

I may be disillusioned and biased but I have alot more knowledge of the country then you do. I don't hoot from the hip. I have experince with what I am talking about.

Is Turkey done progressing as a nation? Of course not. Does it have its share of disgruntled citizens? For sure. Does this mean that it lacks a democracy and that it is against religous people or institutions? No.

This is a huge overstatement. Turkey's problems with religious people aren't anywhere near as bad as its problems with other groups such as Kurds.

Malaysia is less democratic than Turkey is.

turkey does not have full freedom of speech and you know that.  what about "insulting turkish dignity law"?

you call that freedom of speech? there are many topics that are not allowed in turkey.

There is a law in the US state that I live in that goes back to the 1800's. In essence one should not use profanity in public and especially in front of children. It is archaeic and old fahioned yet some poor soul was actually successfully prosecuted because of it and was fined.

There are laws in Turkey that protect the republic and some areas are not allowed without consequences. Each country has that right. I would like to see reporting in certain provinces of Turkey less restricted and open to public scrutiny. Thhis and other issues need progress. So yes, Turkey still has a way to go.

If the Turkish Parliament's decision not to allow the US to invade Iraq through Turkey wasn't an issue of democracy, I don't know what is.

The Turkish government gave in to public pressure, which only means that public opinion in Turkey does matter.  Whereas in the US and the UK, thousands had taken part in anti-war demonstrations, but their respective "elected" governments have nevertheless gone to war, ignoring the peoples' protests.

I prefer the Turkish example of democracy.

It's not that simple. Turkish government was not willing to allow US to invade Iraq though Turkey, just it couldn't directly reject the request, and used democtracy as a tool, as the government was aware well the result will comply with the government dicision.

Anyway, Is Turkish government willing to held a national vote towards the Turban policy? I'm pretty sure about the result.

Would France do it?

Turkey, as i have said before, is a semi democracy.

it has many democratic aspects, but it also has its dictatorial aspects.

for example, the military in turkey has more say in the government than the president! the last coup was in 1996.  turkey is half democracy, half military state.

the military has a lot of say, and a lot of times it forces its own opinions on the democratically elected government.  and turks have even told me that the people in turkey believe what ever the military tells them.

France's case is totally different from that of Turkey's. Muslims there are minorities, democtratically French government can approve any harmful policies towards Muslims. So what should these people do? Simply fighting for their right (Surely in peaceful way)! Can you say they are anti-democratic? NO!

i don't think democracy is the perfect system, but at least it meets with the needs of the majoriey. I believe some policies are democtractically achieved at the sake of the minority benifits, in this case there should be some complementary systems.

I can say a policy which doesn't meet the needs of the majority as non-democratic. Can't I?

Islam and democracy are only compatible in a Secular State. I stronly believe that religion should be separete from the state. My definition of an Islamic State is that the majority of its citizens are moslems ruled and protected by a constitution that guarantees every individual freedom of speech,religion ,press and protection of property.In other words a democratic secular state ruled on the principles of separation of powers and governed by law and order.

we need more muslims like you.

And How do you pray while your mind is corrupted!

with all respect , we don't need muslims like you.

Turkey has a long way to be considered a proper democracy.It has many problems with it's minorities,which are not represented in the Turkish parliament and in fact the only language permitted in Turkish TV ,a few years ago , was Turkish.It contuasly persecutes the Patriarchate of Constantinople,illegally capturing it's properties while allowing the Grey Wolves to blaspheme the Patriarch.It's a State "a la Turka" ,meaning that there was no chance of those assholes to reach the Patriarch in a very close distance,which happened 3 times this year, and damn him and his religion ,if the State was not secretly in favor of it.On the other hand ,the white cages for political prisoners are still there and the Army has a very strong presence.Actually ,there are many suspicions of Turkish Generals who were involved in smuggling drugs through the Army during the operations against PKK.

The whole situation saw some changes in the last years,because of it's will to enter EU.If it was not the EU,i doubt if there would be any.

Of course I don't go to pray at the same time I drink alcohol...

But it is between God and me, neither the state, nor any other person, has right to get involved into that.

And What we are discussing here is not "how much" a Muslim you are, but your point of view 

what were Reza shah's plans for future Iran?

Islam is a religion.

Muslims are the followers of the religion.

Democracy is a style of governance.

If we look at this objectively, Islam teaches equal rights, freedom of speach, the importance of technology, knowledge and being advanced aswell as science etc etc

Its interesting as most of what Islam preache's doesn't contradict with Democracy, I mean the Welfare State, benefit's to the poor and needy, shelter to the homeless, good healthcare are actually key aspects.

I don't understand where alot of these extremely backwards people are comming from in their weird interpretations, they ignore all this and turn it into a power crazed oppressive form of governing.

If we look at history alot of the Muslim world has actually gone backwards, the governance of prior Islamic State's could infact be considered a Democracy or Semi-Democracy today.

A big misunderstanding is the notion that AtaTurk outlawed Islam and was oppressive to Muslims.

He was responsible for translating the Qur'an to Turkish so that the Turkish population could actually read and understand their religion.   He distributed Qur'an's and religous material for free.

Its actually quite amazing, his views on Islam was that it benefited society and he wanted what was actually writting to be taught.

This is the side of AtaTurk which unfortunately has not been told, it could act as a role-model in the Muslim world.

The backwards clerics who attempted to use the religion were banned and their power stripped, they rebelled and many were defeated and left Turkey and invented these stories that he was oppressing Muslims etc

He actually to my knowledge allowed the average folk to understand their religion, started up University Faculties for people to study Islam in a proper environment making sure what was taught was actually what Islam teaches etc

Well this is what a few Turks have told me, maybe somebody who understands TUrkish could translate some of the below for us it would be very interesting to know because if as is commongly thought AtaTurk actually wan't oppressive against Muslims his reforms should be studied deeply again.

http://www.bilimarastirmavakfi.org/izinde/ata3.html - http://www.bilimarastirmavakfi.org/izinde/ata3.html

p.s I have visited Turkey, I saw woman with traditional headscarves walking around freely, even headscarved and non-headscarved woman holding hands talking as friends which I found sweet and impressive as it seems the average society is quite tolerant and doesn't mind?