Islamic Democracy: Not a Possiblity but a Reality

Islamic Democracy: Not a Possiblity but a Reality
by salman farsi

Are all the democracies of the world identical? Do they all follow the same model? Is there such thing as one-size-fits-all democracy?  One does not need to be a political scientisto know that the answer to each of these three questions is a clear NO! Therefore, the compelling question should be: what makes countries as different from each other as the United States of America on one hand and the Republic of Venezuela on the other be regarded as democracies?

The common denominator of these countries governing models as well as those adopted in France. Germany, Italy (republics), Britain, Spain and Japan (monarchies) and Turkey (Isamic) can be found in the very meaning of the word democracy: popular government.

And talking about Turkey and its democracy, as precarious as it may be, we see how an Islamic country can implement a democratic model of governance and despite all the impedements evolves to the status of being considered for admission to the democratic families of the European Union. 

The next obvious question would be: If Turkey could make it, why not Iran? Are the Turks any less Mulsim than us Iranian? Certainly not! So what made it possible for Turkey to pull itself up the ladder of democratic evolution and we in Iran appear to be falling down this ladder. Back in June this year we were at the brink of a major breakthorugh. But where are we now and why?

The Turkish democracy owes its existence and continuation largely, and ironically, to one factor: The Turkish army. The army in Turkey has been a guarantor of the Turkish democracy.The army is there to ensure that no competing factions, be it nationalists, Islamists or Socialists undermine the tenets of the Turkish democracy. Could we hope that the Islamic Revolutioanry Guards Corps would one day soon follow the model of their Turkish counterparts? That day may not be too far away.


more from salman farsi

Synopsis vs. Inference

by alborz on

Mr. Salman Farsi,

While I appreciate the difficulty you are facing in responding to my request, I am hoping that this is simply because you have a loosely defined concept in mind.

While I can understand why you may be inclined to view my second request for clarification and a synopsis to be a "step-down", your response fails to be synopsis of the salient components of an Islamic Democracy and is no more than an inference with many critical gaps and contradictions.

Even if I were to accept your inference to the 1908 Constitution to mean that it is the template for an Islamic Democracy, I now wonder how you could have failed to make mention of this in the blog itself!! Those few modifications which you refer to may or may not be amongst the salient points, but since you make no mention of them, I will not press you for them.

Mr. Farsi, the question put to you is not intended to challenge you, but rather provide you with an opportunity to explain your assertion.   Let's put aside the preambles and not get distracted with the differences between Shiism and Sunnism and how conceptually you assert Shiism provides advantages vs. Sunnism.  Clearly the Moslem "majority" begs to differ with you on this point alone - but we won't go there.

Over a billion people have tasted the fruits of this tree with its three branches (Sunnism, Shiism, Sufism) and 72 twigs (ferghehs).  To now claim that the choicest fruit of this 1400 year old tree was the short lived and compromised 1908 Constitutional Revolution is somewhat disengenious.  Neither the drafters of Iran's 1908 constitution nor the Shiite clerics of the time or today would support your assertions in this regard and may even consider it as an insult, depending on their perspective.

One needs to completely ignore the realities of today's Moslem societies and their past history to correlate the flexibility that you assert in Shiism with the societies it influences and the restrictions you assert in Sunnism with its respective societies.  It is indeed a mixed bag.

It is my hope that you continue with your blogs and your bold assertions.   I certainly welcome you as a new respectful blogger to this site. 


salman farsi

Islamic democracy: an overview

by salman farsi on

Before I proceed with the question at hand, I would like to thank you all for visiting this page and leaving comments. Your interest in this topic, whether expressed in an civil manner or an abusive style is appreciated.

Messrs. Alborz and Ramin have asked me to come up with a synopsis of the main features of an Islamic state wherein the ruling system may be described as a "democracy." In a sense I am glad that these gentlemen have climb down from their initial demand which was a draft copy of the constitution of such a state - a task that I can't imagine even Thomas Jefferson would have been able to deliver in such a short time and single-handedly when he was asked to draft the Declaration of Independence!

In what I am going to outline below, please bear in mind that your tools of assessing the democratic nature of a Western democracy may not be applicable, and indeed they would give you the wrong result. Demoracy here is simply taken in its most basic defintion which means a popular government voted in on the basis of one man, one vote.

In my last comment I provided you with a link to a book that defines and discusses the bases of such a state. Its author, the late Dr Mehdi Haeri-Yazdi, a prominent theologian and a professor Islamic Philosophy, was highly respected by the senior clergy of his time and his views, though, controvertial were deemed as progressive and forward looking. He was a staunch supporter of Dr Mossadegh and had famously confronted Ayatollah Kashani in a bid to shore up support for the troubled Prime Minster. 

Shortly after the fall of the Shah and before the constitution of the Islamic Republic was being drafted, Dr Haeri pays Ayatollah Khomeini a visit in his residence in Qum. He urges the leader of the Islamic revolution to adop the Constitution of 1908 as the main body of the new Islamic constitution with a number minor amendments added. Khomeini apparently accepts Haeri's advice but as we all know, the outcome was quite different from what Haeri had in mind.  

I hope by now this story has given you some idea about the shape a future democratic Islamic constitution. In other words, the basis of such a constitution is not much different from the constitution of 1908. That constitution was written under the supervision of a body of clergy and therefore was not in conflict with the Quranic texts or the tradition of the Prophet. And this is a unique and very significant difference between the political philosophy of the Shiite sect as opposed to that of the Sunni sect. In Sunnism the emphasis is on compliance with Quran and the Sunnah (Prophet's tradition) whereas in Shiism, the emphasis is on avoidance of conflict with the Quranic texts and Prophet's instructions. This is why the Shiite approach is forward looking while the Sunni approach is looking backward.

In a typical Islamic constitution envisaged by the scholarly works as described earlier, the monarch is replaced by a body of the senior clergy whose function is purely of advisory and consultative nature. They can also be the grand arbiter in resolving conflicts (something like the US Supreme Court). Its members are elected in the same way that the the religious leadership in Shiite Islam is determined: by popular inclination. under such a system the administrative, judicial and executive sectors can function in the same way as they did under the constitution of 1908 and the judicary can overturn the religious rulings as long as they are not in direct conflict with Sharia. The principle of no compulsion in Islam is upheld.

Remember the advantage of a Shiite approach is in its avoidance of having a conflict with the Quranic rules and not  necessarily in compliance with them.

I am sure there are many questions that reamin unanswered and I cannot claim to know all the answers but I am certain that such a system is plausible and would be able to function in accordance with many of the conventional requirements of a modern democracy.

Red Wine


by Red Wine on

خاک مملکت را توبره توبره بردند به روس، عرب، چینی‌ ، انگلیسی و آمریکایی‌ فروختند و هنوز در این گمان هستیم که اسلام با دموکراسی سازگاری دارد یا خیر ! مذهب شده نان و آب برای این خلق ره گم کرده !!!

در عجبم که این خلق در فردا روزی چطور میخواهند به روی ایرانی نگاه کنند... وا مصیبتا که نفرین هفت دولت و هفت ملت به دنبالتان است که این چنین مرز و بومتان را فروختید و خرج عرب و دیگر خارجی‌ کردید.



A synopsis please!

by ramintork on

As Alborz has correctly requested, can we have a synopsis please.

Instead of playing 20 questions, when one proposes a concept and simply decides to let say add Islamic as a prefix to Democracy, and leave it to others to guess what it means one should come up with a synopsis.

OK, we kind of guess what you have in mind, my guess is it is the Islamic Democracy that Ayatollah Montazeri had in mind before it was corrupted. The problem with that kind of democracy is that without safe guards it crumples. Think of democracy as a four dimentional concept, the fourth being time, a democracy is a democracy if it can survive as a democracy and to avoid a democracy becoming a tyranny, it has to be secular. Even then it is not 100% secure as many tyrannies have started off on a democratic platform so democracy requires the right culture and pillars to safe guard corruption.

You can have an Islamic democracy party that comes to power in such a system when it has the votes, but when in power it has to abide by secular principles.

I don't think Iranian people would want to settle for anything less, the Green movement might have started from your perspective but it has moved on and judging by the slogans people are not settling for less, they want to have a secular democracy, not an Islamic mishmash that crumbles.

We don't want to be like Africa, or Arab countries where a President stays for life and hands over power to his son, we don't want to be like Malasia where they discriminate against their chinese population and all Government student grants are in the hand of ethnic Malais. We don't want to be like Pakistan where when a leader is in power, it kills the opposition or gets killed. We don't want to be like Afghanistan where a foreign power comes in and pretends to setup democracy then the elections become corrupt, the local war lords still run the country, the Mullas still have their private prisions and put innocent individuals who would not give their 10 year old daughter to them in that prision.


A synopsis please!

by alborz on

I appreciate the reference you have provided, but I was hoping that you would provide the salient characteristics of an Islamic Democracy.  By focusing on what you consider to be the misconceptions, you can take the lead in clarifying your views.

I hope that you find this request worthy of a response.



Me, me, me, me, me, me...

by ThePope on

You asked:" How many of you can honestly say you are well versed in Islam and particularly in the Shiite sect? "
Me; Seyed-e Armani ! What do you want to know?   ;-)

BTW, About Roozbeh the traitor (al salmaan), you say: "he was a high priest of the Zoroasterian faith who having been
disappointed and disgusted by the injustices and class discriminations
of his faith..."!!!!!!!!!!!!  -Ajab!!    

1st-He was not a 'priest'(!)!!  
2nd-He was disappointed about his new religion Christianity (He had converted to Christianity before he became mohammad's follower...).
3rd-There's no doubt that he is the biggest traitor in Iran's history. (there's no diff between him or masood rajavi, a traitor is a traitor, PERIOD)

f*#! the islamic republic, its rulers and its $upporters.


Salman the Persian: Who was

by vildemose on

Salman the Persian: Who was he? was he delusional and bitter too?


mostafa ghanbari

Not a reality but a joke!

by mostafa ghanbari on


Islamic democracy is just a joke!


Salman Faris: Would you

by vildemose on

Salman Faris: Would you please explain shiite Islam and Shiite Islam concoction of  democracy  for your readers? Is Sunni Islam incompatible with democracy? Is Sunni Islam less democratic than Shiite Islam, and why?

salman farsi

Your misunderstanding of Shiite Islam is the problem

by salman farsi on

You seem to be quite knowledgeable on Western democracy and its various shades and colors.  How many of you can honestly say you are well versed in Islam and particularly in the Shiite sect? From what I have gathered so far those of you who berate me have very little understanding of the tenets of Islam and its Shiite sect - and this is where the problem lies.

I share the opinion and beliefs of a sizeable body of Islamic Intellectuals (who by the way are supporters of the Green Movement under the leadership of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Kha tami and Karroubi).  I am not going to apologize for my convictions just to sound appealing to you gentlemen.


You and I seem to have the same opinion of the Nazis rise to power. So let us settle on this.

Bijan A M

I am sorry that you feel the way you do about Islam but it must be blamed on your misunderstanding of this faith.


I suggest you consider this: what is the difference between equality and equivalence? There is no such thing as absolute equality but there is such a things as relative equality also known as equivalence. Islamic laws often deal in the concept of equivalents rather than equality.

Ramin Tork


You have partially understood what I am trying to say although you seem to be mocking me. The practice of torture, murder and rape are the consequences of a corrupt strain of Islamic belief, better known as fundamentalism.


Mr Alborz

I suggest for a much better and more articulately expressed details of the underlying principles of an Islamic State refer to the excellent book by the late Professor/Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri-Yazdi called Hekmat va Hokoomat. He was a professor of Islamic studies at both Oxford (UK) and Harvard (US) in the sevneties and eighties. This book has been banned in Iran. In this book Profesor Haeri (whose father was the Grand Ayatollah Haeri whom a student of his was one Ruhollah Khomeini, has argued that the theory of Velayate Faghih and the concept of a Republic are both in conflict with the tenets of Islamic philosophy and therefore must be rejected.



Mr. Salman Farsi...

by alborz on

...please please provide details of what you term as "Islamic Democracy".  Clearly the founders of IRI believe that they have a "Republic".  If you disagree, please be specific where they are mistaken and why. 

Also, you need not use any Moslem country as a template, as it is likely to turn the discussion about that country rather than what you have in mind.

In short, you are being asked to draft the founding principles of a constitution for an Islamic Democracy.

I for one, keenly await your response.




by ramintork on

So what you are saying is that if you take an Islamic majority and if they vote to overlook these two crucial principles i.e.

- All citizens are equal before the law

- All citizens have equal access to power

We can ignore these two because they do not apply to Eastern culture, or more specifically Islamic culture, and when people vote for Islam to stay in Government that as a majority that it is an Islamic democracy.

Well, what can I say, when the majority do not understand the principles of democracy, nor the consequences of such a choice then we get what we had fo 30 years i.e. the Islamic Republic and then within a matter of few month the democracy is replaced by theocratic dictatorship masquerading as a democracy and it starts to take away people's rights, property gets violated, women become second class citizens, ethnic minorites get discriminated. People are murdered, tortured, raped on the basis if religious law.

Yes, you are correct that would be what you would call an Islamic democracy!

When we say Islam and democracy are not compatible it isn't that people can not vote it in, it is that people can not vote it out because once it is in, it does not want to let go of it's power and violates the principles of democracy in order to stay on top and uses divine laws to kill, tortures etc. and in doing so also destroy Islam. Hence my point that Islam can only survive under a secular democracy and not as part of an Islamic so called democracy.

Does you paradigm shift involve calling black white, and the day a night?

Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq are Islamic democracies!

What a joyful bundle of templates for humanity and a future Iran. Hooray!



I don't care for this kind of Democracy!

by kharmagas on

Mr. Farsi says: "In an Islamic democracies, while the rights if all minorities (even the
atheists) are maintained, they are not necessarily equal."

Mr. Farsi, personally at this juncture I believe the best option for Iran is presented by progressive greens, all or absolute majority of whom are  Muslims (people such as Dr. Sahimi).... however, your Islamic democracy I can't disagree with more.... when you explicitly say people under this system are not necessarily equal! 

Bijan A M

I just hope that

by Bijan A M on

.. in the recent movement in Iran, there are not many people with the same mindset and understanding of democracy as you Mr. Farsi. The very sad part of your blog is that you probably are an educated person but your understanding of democracy is so corrupted that makes you (and anyone who thinks like you) as probably the most dangerous elements of any democratic movement. The basic flaw in your understanding of democracy is your blurring the distinction between democratic principles (i.e. constitution) of a society with the personal beliefs and faith of the members of that society. A religious constitution can never be democratic, the words “Religious” and “Democratic” are contradiction in terms.

 A constitution is democratic when (amongst many other principles) it grants the members of its society equal rights (including what is well documented as basic human rights), regardless of their gender, religion, color of skin, etc….. voting is one of those rights.  Your careless reference to Turkey as an “Islamic” democracy, is either out of innocent ignorance and purely out of your religious bias (at best) or it is a malicious sophistry to indirectly promote IRI.

 I find your post extremely offending because in my opinion it insults the level of intelligence of the readership of this site. For you to compare Turkey’s democracy with any variation of IRI and using the IRI’s “Revolutionary Guard” in the same sentence as “members of Turkey’s armed forces”, is the ultimate act of treason and spitting to the face of every true Iranian who are risking their lives for real democracy.

 I apologize to the readers if the tone of my post is too emotional (I couldn’t help it).

ex programmer craig

salman farsi

by ex programmer craig on

Although you, rather crudely, simplify Hitler's rise to power by
reducing it to a choice between the less democratic communists and the
more democratic Nazis...

That's the choice they had. Why is it "crude" to say so? And I am in no way letting the Germans off the hook for having fallen so low that the most powerful factions within German society at that time were communists and fascists. Whose fault is that, if not the fault of the German people? In the late 1970s when Iranian society was veering towards equally repugnant options, they blamed the US and the west. The Germans blamed France and the Treaty of Versailles. Same old shit. Nobody ever wants to take the hit for their own behavior, right?

(this must be the first time one gives Nazis such
a credit)

That nazis were more democratic than bolsheviks? They were. If you've never seen people point that out before, you havn't been looking very hard. Even the rest of Western Europe preferred the Nazis to the Communists back then. are effctively proving my point. In 1933, Germans,
despite having in place the so called machanisms of controling power
(before Nazis took over)...

You seem to be almost completely ignorant of European history, to think that Germany had a long history of embracing democratic values by the time the 1920s rolled around. Germany was not an early adopter of democracy. Democracy came late there, and didn't take hold very well. Hence the tendency of germans to embrace non-democratic factions like communists and fascists. The Germans have always preferred authoritarian rule. They were famous for that. Germany didn't become fully democratic until after WWII, and even now people worry they are going to back-slide. Laws can be changed rapidly, but cultures evolve over time.

And another thing, what is all this "western values" shit? Are you aware of the fact that Europeans spent about 2000 years kicking the crap out of eachother? They were in a constant state of war even during the age of empires when they were busy trying to colonize the rest of the world. They didn't have any common ground, or any common values. They were the deadliest of enemies to eachother.

...were already aware of Hitler's racist and
anti-semitic ideas and yet they voted for him.

Yes. And whose fault is that? 

In other words they did
know that Hitler was not going to respect they traditional principles
of democracy but they could not care less.

Yep! They knew Hitler wanted to create a "Third Reich". Reich means "reign" in English. A third reign of German supremacy. That's what Hitler wanted, and that's what the German people wanted. They didn't want democracy, they wanted empire.

Hitler had already published
his Mein Kempf but even that did not deter the Germans from voting the
Nazis into the Reischtag.

Point? Germans didn't want democracy then, and they didn't get it. Instead, they willfully disposed of what little democracy they did have already. You accuse me of proving your points for you, but it seems more like you are proving mine.



islamic democracy?

by AtheistKurd on


see this... //

And for those that mentioned Turkey and it's " democracy forgot what Turkey has done to the Turks.. Turkish mentality is a very sick mentality...


Salman, Eslam and Democracy are...

by Ostaad on

perfectly compatible. That means a Mosalmaan can be demcoratic, live in a democratic society while functioning as a contributing citizen to nurture democracy.

But there is NO such thing as an "Islamic Democracy"! There are ONLY Islamic despotism, authoritarianism and tyranny. The examples abound in Iran, Arabia and many other societies in the world.

I hope I have been able to make the distinction clear.

salman farsi

A paradigm shift is needed to understand Islamic democracy

by salman farsi on


Although you, rather crudely, simplify Hitler's rise to power by reducing it to a choice between the less democratic communists and the more democratic Nazis (this must be the first time one gives Nazis such a credit) you are effectively proving my point. In 1933, Germans, despite having in place the so called mechanisms of controling power (before Nazis took over), were already aware of Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic ideas and yet they voted for him. In other words they did know that Hitler was not going to respect they traditional principles of democracy but they could not care less. Hitler had already published his Mein Kampf but even that did not deter the Germans from voting the Nazis into the Reischtag.

Ramin Tork,


You speak of such "principles" as if these are the principles of an exact science. Hardly so. Again I repeat, you are talking about Western style democracies and all its principles and I am talking about the Islamic democracies. (see the article written about a recent talk given by Dr Attallah Mohajerani)  You can see different shades of what may be defined as Islamic democracy in such countries as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq and Bangladesh.  

Islam is not a faith which can be separated from the state. Islam is the state. Right from the beginning the Prophet (pbuh) was involved in the local politics of the region, the tribal conflicts and their resolutions. In an Islamic democracies, while the rights if all minorities (even the atheists) are maintained, they are not necessarily equal. If a country is populated with practicing Muslims, they are the ones who have the right to elect the ruling government. I am sorry to disappoint you gentleman but Islamic democracy is not western democracy so all your philosophies and principle are rendered meaningless when it comes to measuring Islamic philosophy and its rules and definitions. It's like you are speaking Chinese and I am speaking Swahili You and I don't make sense to each other unless there is a shift in opinion.



by ramintork on

I am not Turkish, I'm Iranian, my knowledge of the subject is based on my interest in Democracy, and not because I happen to be Turkish! Actually I am an Iranian Gashghai. Lets keep this debate clean shall we!

One thing I learnt from my philosophy studies is at the end you have to pin down definitions:-

There are no universally accepted definitions of Democracy but there are two principles that any definiton of democracy includes:-

- All citizens are equal before the law

- All citizens have equal access to power

Now a nation can pretend to act by these principles, a nation as in your Hitler example might start from a platform of democracy but that does not follow that when it has broken the principles that it is still a democracy.

As earlier stated as Islamic Democracy is one where Sharia law Governs the laws but the Government is elected by the people but since Sharia laws discriminate against women and religious minorities or Muslims who do not wish to abide by such religious laws then it breaks the principles of Democracy.

Again there is a difference between An Islamic democracy which is a contradiction in terms and an Islamic nation which happens to be governed by the principles of secular democracy.

We are going round a loop here and it is simply because you are not accepting the contradiction of Sharia with those two mentioned principles.

Even if you were correct and you were right in the way you defined democracy, which you are not who the hell wants that kind of democracy, certainly not the Iranian people! Do you honestly believe that after the long campaigns that women have conducted in Iran that they would be willing to stay as second class citizens just because in your world Islamic democacy fits the semantics of democracy, which I repeat it doesn't?

If you care about Islam, and are indeed an enlightened Muslim then you would care about putting your faith along side the dirty work ( Najis) everyday politics so that you would maintain its dignity. Iran will become a secular democracy one day, if people decide to remain Muslims and abide by Sharia that would be their personal choice and not dictated. I doubt after their expereince and expereinces to come they would want anything closely related to Islam.


ex programmer craig


by ex programmer craig on

Even Hitler's Nazi party was elected by the popular vote despite Nazi's
views were already in conflict with the western style democracies...

You need to study your history a little better. Germans were trending communist in the 1920s. Hitler led the violent street protests (and riots) against the communists. That is how Hitler and his brownshirts became popular and that is how they eventually got elected. They were first and foremost anti-communist. And of the two options Germans had at the time - communism and nazism - the nazis were more democratic. Which isn't saying much. 

ex programmer craig


by ex programmer craig on

...the ruling regime/government is elected or ushered in by the popular vote. That's all.

That's NOT all. You've been corrected several times by several people, and you still persist with this nonsense. In order for a country to have what is considered a democratic system of government, mechanisms must be in place to ensure that everyone has equal access to the mechanisms of power and equal protections from government abuses.

That's the absolute minimum.

Teh reason people keep bringing secularism up is that it's generally considered to be impossible to guarantee equal treatment when you have a theocratic system. Religious leaders don't view people as being equal... they weigh and measure people according to their own religious standards, and they don't feel that people with inusfficient religious credentials (according to them ) should be allowed positions of authority. And they *certainly* don't think non-believers should be allowed any input at all.

salman farsi

FYI: Saddam was secular & Nazis were democratically elected!

by salman farsi on

Starting with Mr Tork.


I suppose with such a name you should know a few things about Turkey! The point that you and your fellow antagonists are missing is this: you are all frozen in the western definitions of democracy and assume that all democracies should fit into the western mould. Sorry guys but different states may have their own definitions of democracy except that all of them have one thing in common: the ruling regime/government is elected or ushered in by the popular vote. That's all. Some so-called democratic institutions may or may not exist in different states but that does not make them any less popular than the systems in which there are westernized versions of  human rights in place. Even Hitler's Nazi party was elected by the popular vote despite Nazi's views were already in conflict with the western style democracies and certainly defying human rights. The example of Saddam is irrelevant and incorrect as Saddam was not and could not be a popular ruler (though he was a secular one) as he did not represent the Shiite majority of his country against whom he was waging a brutal campaign.  So the back bone of any demcratically elected regime remain to be a popular government elected on the basis of one man one vote. Turkey is an Islamic state in which there are still certain advantages given to the muslims as opposed to other faiths. Even in Britain that you seem to live the Church of England is the official church of the stare and in English schools the Bible must be read at the schools assmeblies. Also Muslim, Jjewsh ans Hindu marrigaes are not recognized unless officiated in a civil ceremony but not so if done in presence of a  Church of England priest - they are automatically recognized. 

Mr masoudA 

Before becoming abusive first read my reply to Ramin Tork regarding the definition of democracies and it caveats and contradictions. As for Salman Farsi, he was a high priest of the Zoroasterian faith who having been disappointed and disgusted by the injustices and class discriminations of his faith and the Sassanid court, embraced Islam as the faith of Justice and Equality. He may have been a traitor to the corrput Zoroasterian celergy who had disgraced the faith of Zororater. He was a hero of Islam.

ex programmer craig

salman farsi

by ex programmer craig on

You bring up some good points. Turkey is not a particulary good example of a democracy, but it certainly does qualify which is more than can be said about some other countries that style themselves as democracies!

I think the key as others have pointed out is secularism. And Turkey is a great example to offer when people claim Islam isn't comaptibile with a secular society.

It's true that democracy just means "rule of the people" in a loose sense, but equality under the law and guaranteed freedoms for individuals are a very important part of any functional democracy. If people are subject to being oppressed they can't fully participate in a democratic system.




by masoudA on

One of your problems is you don't understand Democracy.   Democracy is NOT JUST one man one vote.    First a correct Foundation must be in place - before the rule of majority of votes can apply.   That foundation must grant all equal rights and it must have claus to protect the minorities.   For example - in a society where majority are Whites - there can't be any votes on havings all non-whites work for free.   ge it?  

BTW - Salman Farsi was the biggest traitor in Iran's history - but you knew that one did'nt you? 


You are confusing secular democracy with Islamic democracy

by ramintork on

Under the shelter of a secular decomcracy a country would peacefully protect cultural and religious beliefs.

Many western countries have their christian influence but are not named christian democracies, they are secular democracies because the majority does not enforce a cultural or religious rule over the minority, and religion is seperated from politics.

When a party which is called christian democrats comes to power they still have to abide by secular principles.

Turkey is similar, it is a secular democracy ( not a very perfect one shall we say!) ruling a nation of mainly Muslims. It is not an Islamic democracy and on one occasion when the elected Government tried to make it so, the military who are the guardians of secularism forced it to go back to secularism.

In a country like Turkey you can go wild boar hunting eat the flesh and still consider yourself a Muslim ( Turkish men traditionally do this and consider this as game meat ) because there is no one to stop your action based on religious beliefs , no directive from an annyoying sect called clergy as in Iran has the power to tell the citizens otherwise, only a Government and a Parliament that creates laws based on secular principles.

It isn't just a question of Islam, when you mix democracy with religion of any kind you are destroying democracy and as it happens Islam with its restrictive nature would create the worst of such deadly cocktails.

As soon as you allow Sharia law within a society you have killed off the principles of democracy like equality of men and women, and start discrimination between religious groups etc.

To summarize there is a difference between a secular democracy which happens to have a majority religious influence and one where religion is integrated within politics and law making.

Democracy is not just one man one vote, if it was Saddam Hussien's Iraq would had been the most democratic country in the world as he continously used to get back with 99.99% electoral vote!

salman farsi

Hi Fellows

by salman farsi on


For your information Sir, Islam is a large part of Turkish identity. And as for Ommati style, you are simply mistaken. You will come to know why sometime soon.


Democracy, in its basic meaning is : one man, one vote. It has nothing to do with human rights or equality of gender and so on. I know that such words may sound bizzare to you but Islamic democracy is not and need not be a Western democracy that you are used to as long as it has the majority support.

khaleh mosheh 

Remember 30 odd weeks ago you were yet another new username (or should I say a new reincarnation of an old username). Comparatively you are a new entry on this site - look around you there are people who have been here for years. So please keep your sacrcasm to yourself.   

khaleh mosheh

Yet another new username

by khaleh mosheh on

Salaman Farsi  Registered: 18 hrs 15 mins ago.

Sounds like another identity for Jaleho/Kharmagas/Booshveg/HollyUSA. 



by masoudA on

how can there be a democracy when one religion is favored over others ?   The foundation is faulty.    How can there be democracy when genders have different rights?   Those who try to paint Islam with a democratic tone are making the biggest dis-service to all man-kind.    What we know as Islam today - is not even what Mohammad preached.   Ghoraan which was devised by Omar (decades after Mohammad passed away)  is just a manual on how to raise an army of fighters - it was what the Khalifeh needed at the time to expand Arab territories. 


Day dreaming, Ommatie style

by SamSamIIII on


  ""The army in Turkey has been a guarantor of the Turkish democracy.The army is there to ensure that no competing factions, be it nationalists, Islamists or Socialists undermine the tenets of the Turkish democracy.""

hiih, Do you just make em up as you go or is there a theme? the correct form must read ; The army in Turkey has been a guarantor of the Turkish nationalist secular system.The army is there to ensure that no competing factions, be it Islamists or Socialists undermine the tenets of the Turkish identity.

""..Could we hope that the Islamic Revolutioanry Guards Corps would one day soon follow the model of their Turkish counterparts? That day may not be too far away""

No, Al Salman. Turkish Army consist of nationalist patriotic Turk officers and their role can not be copied by buncha tokhmeh Arab/Iran hater chaffieh wearing pasdars who suck on Pan-Ommah pipe daily and at best are an ommatie occupation army.

Nice try though ;) , raasti inn salmooni farsikh kieh , nemishnasamash..arayeshgareh?



Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan // //