[southernmissouri2007]

Since most Muslims are peaceful and moderate why does this moderate Muslim website say this ? It says that if people in the Muslim world could choose their leaders they would most likely choose radical Islamists. My next question is this like saying during World War 2 all Germans were bad because most Germans voted for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis they were brainwashed and that is all they knew the only way of life they knew ? Im not saying all Muslims are bad and I am not saying that Islam is bad I think most Muslims are good I can't say that Islam is bad across the board.

Our Positions

Democracy is rule by the people; a system of free choice where rulers are elected and held accountable by their constituents. The element of free choice of leaders is an explosive topic right now in the Middle East & North Africa. If fair and free elections were held tomorrow, the majority of Arab countries would probably elect totalitarian leaders with an intolerant pro-Islamist agenda. The election of extremists would spell death to democracy. We must first expel Islamic extremists and terrorists from Arab and Muslim societies before democracy sweeps the region.

http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/democracy.php

[hip hop bunny hop]

Since most Muslims are peaceful and moderate why does this moderate Muslim website say this ?

Not to break out the dictionary, but peaceful and moderate are relative terms. Yeah, most Muslims are moderate & peaceful compared to Al Qaeda. However, when compared to the norms of the West, the average Muslim is extremely misogynistic, homophobic, and generally suggests corporal punishment and the death penalty for such a wide range of actions and behaviors they would be considered violent and radical in the context of the West.

Take, say, the Government of Afghanistan. It does not advocate war with the West or Jihad. It allows women to vote and even has a law mandating women make up X% of the National Assembly. That being stated, it is an Islamic state wherein apostasy is punishable by death, the president and vice president must be muslims, and all laws must be compatible with Islamic law.

Understand?

[DinodudeEpic]

Well, I'm a Muslim and I'm more religiously liberal then even the Christians in the USA.

I hate on the death penalty
I respect people's decisions if they no longer believe in my religion
I advocate rights for LGBT
I think abortion should be allowed and the government should provide clean and safe clinics.
I also accept all the scientific theories.
Government and religion should never be put together
Shariah law was made long after the Koran, and thus is merely a reflection of middle age Arab traditions

Not to be preachy, but I definitely am not 'radical' compared to western Christians. (Radical means to change, not just to be extremist. It would better to say religiously conservative or reactionary.)

[Modernjan]

What hip hop bunny said.

Also, Hitler only got a plurality (about one third), not a majority. In Muslim countries the Islamic parties are organized the best, the least corrupt and the least divided, making them the safest bet for anyone (well, men mostly) who isn't into politics.

[Rich]

Well, I'm a Muslim and I'm more religiously liberal then even the Christians in the USA.

I hate on the death penalty
I respect people's decisions if they no longer believe in my religion
I advocate rights for LGBT
I think abortion should be allowed and the government should provide clean and safe clinics.
I also accept all the scientific theories.
Government and religion should never be put together
Shariah law was made long after the Koran, and thus is merely a reflection of middle age Arab traditions

Not to be preachy, but I definitely am not 'radical' compared to western Christians. (Radical means to change, not just to be extremist. It would better to say religiously conservative or reactionary.)

Personally I quite like the terms orthodox and reformed, as long as we clear that terrorist murdering savages like John Calvin were definitely not reformed. Christianity was reformed (to a substantial degree) by the enlightenment not by the reformation.

[SpaciousBox]

Democracy is always preferable to other systems, however it also comes with the ability to make mistakes. Lets do a little thinking for a moment: what is worse? the assumed power of a dictator who speaks for his person, or the election of that dictator in a system where law binds him from speaking for them. The policy may end up being the same, but the system in which its run allows for cultural influence and criticism. If you look at the last Iranian "elections", the opposition movement were strong, but most importantly very moderate. Moderate people we can deal with. Hip-hop may indeed be correct that much of "moderate" Islam isn't that moderate by our standards, but we can effect change through them, which we cannot do through other systems. Islam is a religion that has been oppressed and not allowed to grow - a bit like southern Christianity in America - its very much stuck in a dark age based era. If allowed that chance for natural growth it will change, because the people who support it have already shown they are changing.

From here I would point to the recent Arab Spring. The values that are being shown there are "western" values, or at least the values we claim to value and promote. Its also worth noting that many of the elected authorities are - although Islamic - still reasonably moderate in their own right. This is always preferable to extremists calling for the death of every non Muslim. So yes, we do support Democracy for Arab nations, even if it would lead to the election of very similar people. Because at the end of the day, a proper implementation of democracy brings freedom, and freedom allows for social and cultural progress, which wouldn't happen under other regimes at all.

[hip hop bunny hop]

Well, I'm a Muslim and I'm more religiously liberal then even the Christians in the USA.

That's anecdotal; I wasn't denying the existence of Liberal Muslims, rather just pointing out that regimes which are moderate within the Islamic context would (generally) be considered extreme within the context of Western democracy.

Islam is a religion that has been oppressed and not allowed to grow - a bit like southern Christianity in America - its very much stuck in a dark age based era. If allowed that chance for natural growth it will change, because the people who support it have already shown they are changing.

Well, the pot shot at the Southern USA aside, I must disagree; it would seem the continued growth of Islamist thinking in Turkey refutes this notion that democracy leads to freedom leads to "progress". If this were true, it'd seem likely that Turkey would trend in the opposite direction.

Policy wise I feel it'd be best to just leave the Islamic world alone; what sort of Government they have is none of our business so long as they don't attack us. It is in their own self interest to have pragmatic governance; whether this is reached through a benevolent dictatorship like in Qatar or quasi-democracies like Afghanistan shouldn't concern us. If the masses over there realize this, great, but I'm not holding my breath.