Better Elected Islamists than Dictators




  • While I detest the idea of sharia law, I hate the idea of autocracy more. If a free, fair, and universally inclusive election brings an Islamist into power, then the population will simply have to deal with their choice and it isn't the right of any foreign power to intervene.

    If you allow intervention when an Islamist is elected abroad, you cannot be surprised when the rest of the world intervenes in the USA when our crazy religious right elects Evangelical lunatics into political office.

  • I don't understand the question. Islamists are just a kind of dictators. Better fruit or apples? Is the intent of the question to imply that Islamists aren't dictators as the premise to throw off the whole debate?

  • Religion claims to be run by a celestial unelected unchangeable DICTATOR.
    Religion has TAUGHT HUMANITY to accept the concept of celestial DICTATORS.
    So I think the wording of the debate topic makes no sense.

    Better Elected Islamic Celestial Dictatorship (under a dictator god, obviously)….
    ….Than Dictators.

    How does the wording of the debate topic make ANY sense at all…..????????

    If there is ANY institute that supports the CONCEPT of dictatorship, it is…..RELIGION.

    Voting for RELIGION is voting for the MOTHER of ALL DICTATORSHIPS.
    You are voting for ….THEOCRATIC FACISM……. (one country under the dictatorship of a god).

  • What do people think of this idea?

    Video: “Muslims Are Taking Over The World at an ALARMING Rate – MUSLIM IMMIGRATION”
    Here is how we should solve the Islam problem.  (and the problem of any other religion which commands the violation of what I will call the “agreed upon rules”.)
    Islam should be treated like a dangerous contagious virus and Muslims should be treated like people who have contracted a dangerous contagious virus.  (Google “violent verses in the Quran” and see the first link to the site “thereligionofpeace” to see that belief in the Quran is a disease.)  The following are the steps we should take to destroy Islam.
    Steps in Non-islamic countries:
    1.  All Non-islamic countries should explain the following steps to their citizens and why they are taking them.
    2.  All Non-islamic countries should agree on certain rules which are inconsistent with Islam, such as the UN universal declaration of human rights.
    3.  All Non-islamic countries should inform Muslims that their religion commands the violation of the agreed upon rules uniting Non-islamic countries, and is therefore unacceptable.  The governments should also provide Muslims with information showing that Islam is false and harmful, and then give the Muslims some amount of time, maybe a couple months, to leave the cult they are in.  They would hopefully become atheists or deists, but a switch to any religion that does not command the violation of the agreed upon rules would be an improvement.
    4.  At the end of the conversion period, the Non-islamic countries should deport anyone who still believes Islam to an Islamic country, and continue to do so indefinitely to deal with citizens who convert to Islam.
    5.  Create a law which makes it illegal to practice any religion which is based on a book commanding the violation of the agreed upon rules.
    6.  Create a law requiring all immigrants to pledge to value and maintain the agreed upon rules, and to never attempt to institute laws violating them, or promote religions that command their violation.
    7.  To ensure that no Muslims enter the country pretending to not be Muslims, require every immigrant to do the following:
    a) Recite the following:  “I am not a Muslim.  Many of the teachings of Islam are false.  Muhammad was not a prophet.  The god described in the Quran does not exist.  I will not base my life on the Quran or Hadith.”
    b)  Hug a dog and a pig
    c)  Drink alcohol
    d)  Gamble on a coin flip
    e)  Damage a Quran
    8.  Continually educate the population of the Non-islamic world about how we know that Islam is false and harmful.  Teach the population to view Muslims as people with a brain virus, who need to be helped to be cured of a disease to enter healthy society.
    9.  Create a pact among all Non-islamic countries to provide military support to one another in case of Muslim military advancement.
    Steps in Islamic countries:
    1.  Invite all Non-muslims to come to the Non-islamic world.
    2.  Do as much as possible to inform those in Islamic countries that Islam is false and harmful, and that they can come to the superior Non-islamic world if they reject it.
                If Islamic countries try to censor this message from the Non-islamic world, one thing the Non-islamic world could do is this: Develop a technology that would allow you to display a large screen in the sky (think Hunger Games screen) – maybe with some kind of satellite projection system, or a network of blimps.  Display these screens over Islamic countries and play educational videos about science, history, atheism, and Non-islamic culture, with subtitles for the language of the country.  People who would have never questioned Islam or considered atheism, or maybe don't have an internet connection would have free access to this information exposing the false and harmful religion they have been indoctrinated with.  All they would have to do is look at the sky.
    3.  As Non-islamic conversion efforts succeed in Islamic countries, and large numbers want to leave and enter the Non-islamic world, the Non-Islamic world should expand onto more land.  As people in Islamic countries convert out of Islam, the Non-islamic countries should help them to create their own Non-islamic country out of the land that used to be an Islamic country.
    So the whole process would look like this:  Move people infected with Islam out of the parts of the world where the infection has not taken hold in most of the population.  Then cure Muslims in the areas where the infection has a strong hold.  As more are cured, expand the healthy zone to accommodate the new Non-muslims.  As even more are cured, expand the healthy zone even further, until the disease is completely destroyed.

  • How stupid they r? They dont even know what islam is! They dint even know what is khelafot or how a kholifa ruled over his some history of islam not for debate but for your general knowladge you islamphobic maniacs

  • In a way those who support elected Islamists are the same that will ruin western democracies by being "tolerant" of the Islamist illiberal, oppressive, violent ideals 

    Sharia law is already tolerated in England for example,
    if we fight it now it will be by democratic peaceful, free speech driven means, the more we ignore the threat the closer we are to a violent war where we will be again forced to defend free speech, equal rights, and other western values which we now take for granted

  • eh, not the most interesting debate (and not just because Daniel Pipes is there… :x) it seems like the question was "Is an Islamic dictatorship worse than other types of dictatorships" rather than anything about democracy… :/

  • those arguing for the motion were not actually arguing for the motion as it is worded. They are arguing for the hope that the democratic process would eventually produce something better than the Islamists. This is well meaning and worthy dream but right now it's not happening and it is simply not the wording so in that it is disingenuous. Obviously the Islamists are not better and in some cases worse and they are ignoring that, subtly changing the direction of the argument to push the liberal agenda. Do they even realize they're doing that or are they being deliberately deceitful?  That makes me think they are either very naive in their hopes or secretly support the Islamists. When we saw Arab spring, as much as I sympathized with young Egyptians wanting reform, it became obvious that it was backed and orchestrated by the Moslem Brotherhood and it became increasingly unclear WHAT those young people wanted or even if they knew themselves.

  • The central question of this debate seems to be "Which type of government will foster liberal, secular, modern people better, elected Islamists or non-Islamist dictators?".  The answer seems to be the non-Islamist dictators.  For one, they are not by definition committed to an ideology that is expressly non-liberal, while the Islamists are.  The best argument on the side arguing for elected Islamists is that democracy will somehow foster liberalism by giving it a party which must compete in a fair democratic system.  The problem with this argument is that Islamists will not allow for a fair democratic system once they take power.

  • I dont think that the west don't understand how it is to have a muslim majority in a country, dictatorship serve the powerful nations much more than democracy, that why dictators are welcomed, because they are much easier to deal with, unlike democratic leaders whom must have a process before making decisions, so i think that democracy won't be an option for along time, because every time you give freedom for the people in muslim countries you will get islamic politicians, and that kind of politicians is not good for business

  • You know I have to be honest, if I saw this 20 years ago I would have sided with the elected Islamists, once I read the Quran the less I agree.  If the officials can get their head out of the Quran and into reality which includes not shutting down or killing voices of: other religions, female equality, apostates; elected democracies would be better than dictatorship.  This debate is a waste time because I think Islam equals dictatorship.

  • Better we get the hell out of the Middle East and let the people in those countries elect their own political leaders.  Its time for the US government to reflect the interests of the American people, not a foreign power (Israel).

  • I really don't understand how this is one of the best debates. It is one of the worst that i have seen so far. They kept splitting hairs and not being honest about their intentions or positions.

  • I have a strange feeling that the guy on the far left has had sexual harassment allegations from female coworkers at his jobs. In front of a million people he's like, "Gotta tell you. Thank God the women in Egypt weren't veiled. Because…they were hot. Total babes." And "I like the idea of a woman in red. Step up." Imagine what he's like in an office. "Nice legs toots. Wear skirts more often baby cakes. We may as well have fun while we're on-assignment in Qatar, doll face. Love that rack."

  • The debate should be framed SELF DETERMINATION – should Middle Eastern countries have the same right every other nation has to decide the kind of government it wants?

  • juhdi is a criminal in thought, you cannot have that guy in power at all. this moron said that islamists hijacked the elections. there is not proof, morsi was clearly elected and then the criminal armed forces turned it over to sisi. clear cut. juhdi is a LIAR; same thing happened in turkey, same thing happened in west bank, hamas win over moderates

  • I'd like to point out that a significant portion of the middle east has had non-ideological dictators in power for decades and the state of the populations in each of those countries is in despair. To say that the status quo is better than democracy and self determination is a contradiction to our own values as Americans.

  • The single factor in every Islam integrated country is this : GDP is funneled to a religion. Find any nation, for the most part, that funnels GDP, tax-free, straight into religions and you will find poverty, social deterioration and despair.
    How can people fight BOTH state and church when they are taking all of the money?
    Fighting one or the other is a daunting thought, but to fight both simultaneously is impossible.
    Why are Islamic, and even Catholic (and any other) nations, for example, in a malaise?
    Funnelling GDP into religion. It doubles the authoritarian mechanism and that doubling needs double, or more, money to exist.
    Until the secularisation tax systems, as a starting point, occur, the MEN, and not women , who rule religion will rule the government.
    This is not a new, hidden nor even surprising truth.
    Leaders, not followers, but leaders have used this truth to their advantage for thousands of years.
    It wasn't until the internet and the cell phone that humanity had a shot at removing religion, to gain equality and freedom both sexes.
    If politicians are elected, decreed by god, installed, magicked or chosen by drawing straws, nothing will change for the populace as long as GDP is funneled into religion.
    If you live in a quasi-theocracy, you suffer so those in castles will have every comfort, as if a formal theocracy existed.

  • Well the hopefulness about how Islamist leaders would better keep jihadists under control did not hold up too well. Look what's happened with Iran. Not to mention ISIS – Lybia, Syria, Turkey. Islamists are dictators for life after 1-2 years "in office." Now look at Indonesia. That's the kicker, that's their dream come true back in 2012. 5 years later the governor of Jakarta an Islamist moderate, was jailed for blasphemy and more totalitarian levels of Islam are pushing through.

  • As I write this it's the 7th of January 2018. There are protests in Iran, hopefully they will end well. But Turkey has been getting worse and worse in the time between this debate and now.

Leave a Reply