Originally Posted by greenslime1951
I have simply observed the actions of Islamic theocracies when they seize power, by revolution, coup, or democratic means.
Ok, this is a rather silly comment.
For starters, Turkey under the AKP is not a theocracy and doesn't remotely resemble one.
Second, what did you mean by an "Islamic theocracy" seizing power by "democratic means" or "coup"?
I've never heard of an Islamic theocracy seizing power by either democratic means or coup.
I'll even give a quick rundown of the Islamic theocracies in the world to show that.
- I don't see how you could say the Saudi family seized power through any of the three means you said. They steadily gained power in the 19th and early 20th Century and with the backing of the western powers who loved their oil combined their kingdoms into The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(so named for due to the royal family.
Ok, they seized power due to a revolution. I do feel compelled to note that while I'm probably the last person on the Dope who will ever be fans of the Mullahs, their government grants far more freedom to their populace than did most of the "secular" governments in the region, such as Egypt, Syria and Saddam's Iraq.
One of the mistakes westerners make is to foolishly assume that people would naturally see secular governments as somehow being freer, more modern, and more tolerant than "secular" governments when those from the Middle East who take a look at Assad's Syria, Hussein's Iraq, or Mubarak's Egypt and then take a look at Iran, which has elections for the Presidency, which has been won by people who the Ayatollahs disapproved of, think Iran's a better choice. In fact, the whole reason for the Green Revolution was because Iranians were used to electing their President, saw that as an essential right, and saw the right stripped away when the government clearly lied about the results.
- Now yes, General Bashir took power in a coup(a bloodless one but still a coup) and he made the country into a theocracy, but he didn't make it a theocracy until years later so I'm not sure how you could call that an example of a theocracy taking power via coup.
And yes, off the top of my head, those really are all the Islamic theocracies I can think of. I know some people would argue that Pakistan should be considered a theocracy because it's official title is "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" and it has Islam as the official position, but I'm a bit hesitant to put it in the same category as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The same with Afghanistan now that the Taliban has fallen, though I'm not a fan of Kharzai or his government.
I suppose one could also throw in a gulf emirate or two, but yes, I know this may be shocking to many, but out of the the 150+ Muslim countries in the world, you can probably count on one hand the number that are "theocracies". And no, that doesn't mean that there isn't some mixture of government and religion within many, the same as is true in all but a handful of western countries, but hardly enough to get them labeled theocracies.
I know people are terrified of the rise of "Islamic theocracies" in the Middle East, but in reality they're few and far between.
BTW, you earlier claimed that the Israeli government had repeatedly offered citizenship to the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as members of a combined state.
The Israelis have offered full Israeli citizenship in a combined state several times (there are over a million non-Israelis in Israel now), but the Palestinians have consistently rejected their offer, preferring instead to listen to the ravings of a guy who can't even be bothered to shave.
The Israelis have never once offered this, though they have offered citizenship to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Since you won't provide any cite for your claim I assume we can infer that you have conceded that your claim was wrong.
If not, it should be no problem for you to provide an instance of the Israelis doing this and you have ample motivation to do so because doing so would certainly make me look a bit foolish.
Most reasonable people would agree that you not providing evidence for your claim is ample evidence that your claim was wrong.