Then your idea of democracy is false, it only allows the inclusion of Muslims

You still after numerous times of asking refuse to give your opposition to a Turkish democratic state, why is that?

As for our Jewish widow , I asked you for a independent account as you assumed a bias view on my report.

So it is unnatural for an old man to bed a nine year old, you admit it?

Just look up amnesty thats what I referred you to.

Why should millions of slaves be taken from Africa by muslims over six centuries if they had been convinced of its illegality.

Even in the british Isles slaves were taken to Islam, hundreds of coastal villages raped and plundered for their human cargo, back to north Africa.

Well, if you have not realized yet, islam contradicts some fundamental values of Enlightenment

which produced Modernity (the islamic world had only a marginal contribution to this by the way, islam certainly doesn't work).

The only way in which islam can be made compatible with democracy is to renounce sharia for good (the political part of islam should be dropped entirely,

islam should become a personal religion as are all other major religions).

I wanted to know what average muslims think of sharia and I got the answer I expected:

You said nothing, sharia itself does: it is in total contradiction with elementary human rights.

Happily we still have a standard of Rationality and it points ruthlessly towards my conclusion: sharia is incompatible with the modern world

Sharia is sharia,

Are you sure?

A real democracy require, among others, the total separation between the state and religion;

in a real democracy all people are equal before the law (not only muslims, males and so on)

and the will of the people can even lead to important changes in the laws themselves.

In islam we have double standards (non muslims have basically no rights,

atheists have to be killed if they refuse to convert,

females have less rights etc)

and a group of laws which are considered 'frozen', valid forever (imposed by religion via a group of islamic scholars who cannot be challenged in any way)

I've already told you islam is not capable to assure the same rights for minorities (even in relatively liberal countries),

islam is essentially undemocratic.

Finally whilst the Western type of democracy gave us modernity (of which you like to profit) the islamic world gave us the 'islamic paradises'

Islam didn't work in the past

and all evidence points that it is utterly unlikely that it will do so in the future (it leads also to a much narrower intellectual horizon, scientific quest is in danger, severely limited by the islamic 'turbans of the mind').

You have not bothered to read a word from what I posted here before

Do you happen to have some reasons for this? He merely says islam is peace,

islam is egalitarian,

islam is democratic,

islam is...but with no real justification.

Unfortunately for him the qur'an is not infinitely elastic in interpretation, no mental gymnastics can wipe out the dark parts of islam.

The only solution is a non-trivial reformation; and apologies for the dark past of islam: muslims brain-shawed somehow themselves and believe that their religion was white as snow: the peak of delusion.

Islam has been democratic from the start.

?

That is not much of an answer to the question whether Sharia is compatible with a modern democratic state. In fact, it seems to be evading an answer.

Very few Muslim countries implement what I consider outdated shariah anyway. Most Muslim counties are secular. That in itself in encouraging, as it shows Muslims are not entirely convinced that what we're told is shariah is actually correct. Like most problems, the answer is education.

Egypt? How is Egypt moderate when it is ruled by a despot? Egypt's tyrant is supported by the USA and has kept power through corruption and violence.

Note that I said many Muslims believe shariah is frozen, not all. Many Muslims are progressive and seek to make Islamic law a dynamic process. My objection to the Turkish model is that it is an extreme form of secularism forced down the throats of the people. Religious expression in the public sphere is met with suspicion, characterised by the uproar caused by the wife of the Prime Minister wearing a hijab in public. Sufism is banned and forced underground. Turkey is more like France and less like the UK. That attitude originates from the extremism of Kemal Ataturk, who had deep enmity of Ottoman culture; resulting in ridiculous laws such as banning the Fez hat, and changing the script of Turkish from Perso-Arabic to Latin under the guise of progress and modernity. This will never be a model embraced by Muslims over the world.

Muslims want their governance to have an Islamic flavour. Islam is humanistic, with tenets like freedom of speech, religion and equal rights for all citizens. That is authentic Islamic culture, which many Muslims are trying to re-capture from the formalism and Wahabi type scholarship that has spread across the world.

I WOULD LIKE TO PERSONALLY APOLOGIZE TO THIS FORUM FOR THIS INDIVIDUALS INEXCUSABLE IDEOLOGY AND THE CONTEMPT AND DISRESPECT IT HAS CAUSED ME TO EXPRESS.

THIS TYPE OF FORUM FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE DESERVES BETTER THAN THIS MORON.

I dont understand your objections and your opinions, they appear to clash. Do you want a secular state or an Islamic state in Turkey. Many in Turkey, do fear the return of an Islamic constitution, they know once allowed it's impossible to return to secular. They see in similar countries, non Islamic parties are banned from participating because of sharia demands , Islamic democracy, not western style democracy.

As for Sufism or Wahhabi's, that's a Muslim problem not a secular problem. The hatred shown to Wahhabi's is not from western perspective its the muslims themselves that oppose its teachings.

I'm arguing that these shariah demands come from a misunderstanding of what shariah is. Shariah is a problem solving system, not a frozen set of laws. So the 'demands' are not real. Islamic democracy is not like secular democracy, but many of the values are the same.

And the banning of Sufis is a secular problem, because it is banned by Turkey under the guise of secularism. Muslims themselves do not advocate the banning of any Muslim movement from a religious standpoint.

But you don't admit that under sharia democracy, none muslims are not allowed places of government or to hold office.

I'll admit this if you admit that you haven't read anything I've said.

What are you on about? you ignore my pertinent questions and repeat your claims without clarification. Remember, I know that what you consider as democratic, bares no relationship to the western concept, you are being deceptive. You are not entering debate you are making unsubstantiated claims. I have read your posts again and again and nothing you have said answers my questions.

But you don't admit that under sharia democracy, none muslims are not allowed places of government or to hold office.

Muslims want their governance to have an Islamic flavour. Islam is humanistic, with tenets like freedom of speech, religion and equal rights for all citizens.

For many the sharia is held as sancrosanct and its is inflexible in its allowance.

That is authentic Islamic culture, which many Muslims are trying to re-capture from the formalism and Wahabi type scholarship that has spread across the world.

How could a non Muslim have any confidence that any Islamic council in the future is not going to be controlled by those who hold the extremes of sharia, valid.

Shariah is a problem solving system, not a frozen set of laws.

It is ideal for certain muslims but not for all that may live under its control.

The Egyptian government are also acting in an extreme manner purely because of the fundamentalist threat. Just see what happens to a non Muslim trying to give his wife a kiss on the cheek in public. For me its bizarre that men can kiss each other in public, as a welcome, but a man is prohibited from kissing his wife when they depart or meet. Its these silly laws that frighten the hell out of non muslims and that goes for non muslims in Turkey. Your freedom would restrict non muslims freedoms, cant you see that?

This was answered by:

This was answered by:

This was answered by:

This doesn't require an answer, as no system is ideal for everyone.

The Egyptian 'government' is not a government. I've already told you it is a dictatorship, in power from corruption and violence, purely because it is a key US ally. Shariah would treat Muslims and non-Muslims as equals. So if you wanted to kiss another man in public, you would be free to do so. But true shariah would also acknowledge differences in culture between different people, and would not pass such a silly law or prohibit such affection in public (provided you don't start making out with your wife inappropriately...)

The point is, you're arguing against what you currently see as shariah. Fine, I won't argue with you. I'm saying that this isn't what shariah is supposed to be and there are many Muslims who are trying to educate the masses in this. But until this becomes widespread, non-Muslims won't be convinced.

So you admit you dont want democracy as we in west see democracy and you also oppose democracy in turkey for the same reasons. You dont want a secular society, you want it ruled by sharia and you are not convinced it can be moderated. Is that a fare comment?

I admit that secular democracy is not what Muslim countries would ideally want. I oppose Turkish democracy for this reason. I would like to see shariah govern Muslim lands and am fully convinced it can be moderated. That is a fair comment.