Talk:Islamist democracy

message: Iranian Revolutionary Guard Official in Tehran University Lecture (Part I): Islam Has Nothing in Common with Democracy--Patchouli 13:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy & Islam

message: *Khatami?  http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=401
--Patchouli 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Khatami

message: Here is a specific list of Khomeini's execution orders of noteworthy people.
*Ali Dashti
*Sadegh Ghotbzadeh
*Amir Abbas Hoveyda
*Hassan Pakravan
*General Nader Jahanbani
Many thousands of others were also executed for religious or political reasons.  
In his memoirs, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, who was himself pivotal in founding the Islamic Republic, gives gruesome details of Khomeini's 1988 Massacre of Iranian Prisoners after the Iran-Iraq War.  Khomeini's fatwa reads:Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran'  The Daily Telegraph
"It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution." — Christina Lamb, Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran', The Daily Telegraph, 2 April 2001
I think religion has priority over ethics.--Patchouli 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics?????!!!!!!!!!

message: [http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2003/August/Khomeini/ Democracy? I meant theocracy
The most truthful individual ]
Come on!--Patchouli 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "democratic systems" ...are liable to the most flagrant abuse and diverse interpretation[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/eleanorrooseveltdeclarationhumanrights.htm] 

message: This article is a betrayal against all those activists and everyday people who have been tortured, lost their lives, been persecuted, lied to, etc.--Patchouli 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Iran student riots, July 1999]] 

message: *Zahra Kazemi
*Atefeh Rajabi
*
*Evin prison
Human rights?  Come on!--Patchouli 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran]] 

message: This page is in bad need of a cleanup. Currently it reads like someone's essay, not an encyclopedia article. Much of the article seems to take the form of a debate, which should not be what we write here. Also many statements are make while attributed to 'Legalists' or 'Secularists' as though these were some organised and well-defined bodies.
#We need to write from a neutral point of view
#We need to attribute statements
#we need to cite our sources 
DJ Clayworth 19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I tried to put this article up for deletion a few weeks ago, but I'm a little inexperienced with editing, so I did it wrong. Could someone who knows what they're doing put it up for deletion again? This article seems hopelessly propagandist. It should not be recreated without specific quotes from Iranian or other scholars defining religious democracy. Makerowner 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Religious democrcay is a term heavily in use in Iran and many thinkers are working on it. It is notable and differs from "Islamic democracy" which some believers of main stream Islam are interested in, which mainly refers to western type democratic counties of Muslim people like Turkey.Sina Kardar 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Religious democracy" is a subject of research initiated in Iranian schools of philosophy. Ofcource most books and articles (if not all of it) are written by Iranians. The term is a translation from Persian. It originated from Persian sufism and Rumi's philosophy. It has nothing to do with the current Islamic republic in Iran and has nothing to do with Ayatollah Khomeini. Sina Kardar 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait! It is not like that. First of all historically the big part (if not all) of Islamic philosophy has been made in Iran. Second, the word religion is used instead of Islam because religion means core of Abrahamic religions (minimal Islam). Third, Just like modern music that emerged in the west. When you read an article on music it is naturally western POV.  Fourth, I am sure if a particula philosophy subject was hot in United states, you would not complain why all references are to US philosophers. Why do you think a country like Iran can not be an origin for a concept and have a huge community of critics and experts on a subject? Sina Kardar 22:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My complaint is not that the article focusses on Iran (which is of course natural), but that it is exclusively based on Iran. The article on the presidential system of government will probably have a lot of emphasis on the United States, but it will also talk about the many other countries that have it. My other complaint is that the article only mentions Islam in relation to democracy. Many Western democracies were founded on Christian principles and operated under them for decades, why not discuss some of the events, problems, debates, etc. of those countries? Other countries have tried to integrate Islam and democracy (Malaysia, Pakistan), yet the article barely mentions them. Also to say that the article is based on the Abrahamic religions in general, rather than Islam in particular is naive. There are no Christian religious democracies (unless you count the Vatican, which is basically just the head office for the Catholic Church) and no Jewish religious democracies. Only Islam (specifically in Iran) claims to have religious democracies, so there is no justification for using the broader term. It would be like having an article on "St. Patricks's Day in Abrahamic Religions". The title is at best inaccurate, and at worst misleading, in that it makes the concept discussed seem broader and better-accepted than it is. While I understand that Iran can be "the origin for a concept and have a huge community of critics and experts", it must also be noted that personal freedoms in Iran are limited, and viewpoints unfavourable to the government are difficult to promote. The community of critics and experts will not be able to debate freely and publish their conclusions in the same way that they would in other countries. The biggest flaw of the article is the style and lack of sources: it reads like an essay. The author is obviously trying to convince readers of the merit of this system. I have no opinion on it (and I would like to point out that the people arguing back and forth about the human rights records of liberal and religious democracies are being immature. The article on the theory of religious democracy and the validity of said theory have little to do with this). However, the encyclopedia is meant to show the different viewpoints on a subject from a neutral point of view; the reality is that most political scholars outside Iran do not consider it a democracy, religious or otherwise. Makerowner 04:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesterday I had to catch a bus and I was in a hurry. So I did not explain properly. I think here is the source of misunderstanding:
*1. "Religiouy democracy" is a term invented by Abdolkarim Soroush. It is purely a theoretical subject and has nothing to do with the Islamic Republic of Iran or Islam. Soroush himself is among the most aggressive opponents of Islamic Republic. His philosophy is influenced by Rumi and Karl Popper. I guessed the reason why he used the word "religious" is because in Rumi philosophy, the emphasis is on very core of all religions and throwing out the details. I just understood that I was wrong (I am not an expert ofcourse). He used the term "religious democracy" in contrast to "secular democracy". He discussed the term at a very general level with no emphasis on a particular religion. He got prestigious Erasmus prize for his works and also he was chosen as one the most influencial figures of the year by times magazine. Soroush has expertise on Islam and Christianity and philosophy of Science. He is named Martin Luther of Islam by western thinkers.
*2. I am not defending the way the article was written. I did not write it and I am not an expert. All I am saying is that the subject is important and is based on 150 years of works by Iranian philosophers. I am not sure even this is the best title for that. Maybe "Religious democracy (Iranian philosophy)" is a better subject ? 
*3. About freedom of expression in Iran, I have to say that I have experienced it and I understand it very well. Most of these philosophers were imprisoned or are now in exile in Europe. However the debate continues openly despite the high price. I admit that they are really brave. Please note that their works are too technical to be accessible to normal audience. So the regime is not as sensitive to these discussions as to a direct criticism of the leader in a newspaper. 
*4. Another point is that: these guys think concepts like secularism, democracy, .. are historical concept and can only be seen in western historical context. They believe they need to redefine everything from the scratch.
*5. I agree that there is a term "Islamic democracy" and many muslims are talking about it. That is different from our topic. Islamic democracy is simply establishment of "western democracy in muslim countries". That's all. It means secularism and democracy as defined in western history. So there is no new philosophy there. 
*6. Even Islam in Iran is not the same as mainstream Islam. Mainstream muslims do not see Iranian muslims as proper muslims. The first target of mainstream Islamic fundamentalism was not the west. It was Iranians. Al-Qaeda did its first operation in 1989 (1988?) and killed thousands of Iranians in Mecca. Ofcourse from western point of view that does not matter. What matters is September 11. The term "Islamic" is confusing. The term Shia is also confusing as people like soroush do not see themselves as Shia either.
*7. The article put too much emphasis on Islam which is irrelevant to the topic.
*8. Finally, I have to emphasize that I am not defending the article in its current form. I just wanted to comment on the issue. There are many criticisms on the subject by Iranians and non Iranians and many articles in English in western journals. On the other side it is a bit confusing if we do not introduce the whole philosophy in wikipedia and instead having one article on one term. 
This is my opinion. I am not a fan of Soroush. I just tried to describe what I saw. I think it is better that the author of the article and perhaps others comment on the issue. I leave the discussion as I made enough comments. Thanks alot.Sina Kardar 10:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for clarifying your statements. I see now that I have oversimplified the subject. I think something more along the lines of "philosophy of Soroush" and clearly separating it from the government of Iran's policies and philosophies. I am no where near an expert on the subject, not even well-informed; I just thought that the article was unclear and unencyclopedic and tried to help clean it up. You seem to have a good perspective on the topic and I would like to help you in making the article better reflect your eight points. I particularly like #4. I have looked at African and Native American democracies in some detail, and they have similar concepts of rejecting Western definitions and terms and using more traditionally-based models. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the theory of religious democracy as you describe it seems somewhat parallel to Japan's process of modernization without Westernization during the 20th century. Sorry if I caused any offense, and thank you for your contribution. Makerowner 05:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as worldwide view goes, the term "religious democracy" is used in considerably wider context elsewhere, so if this article is to be specifically about the Iranian philosophical concept, that should be noted somewhere near the beginning.  In particular, Christian Democracy is often referred to as a form of "religious democracy". In an even different sense, the word "religious democracy" can also mean democratically organizing religious groups, e.g. by electing church leaders, such as the methods proposed by the Radical Reformationist churches, as opposed to hierarchical organization of "non-democratic" churches like the Roman Catholic one.  It's also used in countries like the United States to refer to religious political groups like the Christian Coalition; for example, in the title of this book. --Delirium 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion