Honor killing: 2 teens killed by tribal council . Method was electrocution

[Islam Imamate]

But is that really conducive to a democratic environment if said people in question never had a history of democratic rule and have firmly entrenched religious beliefs that hampers democracy? Wouldn't it also cause unequal distribution of democracy across the country, cause fragmentation, and then local tribal wars over what is the right way to do things?

First off, I don't quite find this argument of "lack of history of democracy" to be too convincing. Every country doesn't have a history of democracy until they democratize. You're putting the cart before the horse. Tribal structures are usually more quasi-democratic than large, centralized ones because the power differential between the leader and his people is smaller. The chief has to have some informal sort of legitimacy or else he's not the chief, he can't airstrike his opposition because he doesn't have an air force nor any sort of extensive security apparatus.

Second, I think the impediment Islam presents to democracy is exaggerated. Sure liberal democracy might not sprout up tomorrow but if you actually go to the texts concepts like consultation and consensus(admittedly this is often consensus of scholars and not people generally) are there so the idea that decision making should be in some sense responsive to the community has been there from the beginning. This same argument was made against Catholics given the durability of fascism in Spain and Portugal and the military dictatorships in South America but then guess what, they democratized without converting to Protestantism.

As far as unequal distribution of democracy, I suppose that might happen but I don't see the problem. If one village council is shit, well its at least easier to run from that than from a Baathist intelligence apparatus.

Of course there could still be inter-tribal conflicts. For those cases it would be helpful to set up a national arbitration structure to deal with issues between localities but that's easier said than done I suppose.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Social trust is the only wealth any nation has, to lose it by forced centralization is a tragedy.

I see it as one of the core problems of many parts of the developing world, especially in the Muslim world.

The problem is you can't just undo decades of forced centralization at this point either. Too many people and groups have stakes in the centralized system for it to go away quietly.

 

[Gunny]

Huh?

Curious why you would highlight the word centralization but not conquest? In the abstract, if a certain group conquers an entire region then, by definition, they have increased centralization of power in that region. Those terms were used as two sides of the same coin.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Curious why you would highlight the word centralization but not conquest? In the abstract, if a certain group conquers an entire region then, by definition, they have increased centralization of power in that region. Those terms were used as two sides of the same coin.

Historically Islamic empires decentralize after conquest. Happened to the two greatest ones, the Ottomans and Abbasids. They conquered a shit load but part of the strategy of conquest is absorbing some of the defeated groups into the administrative structure. Then over time the distance from the capital allows them to slowly wrest control from the imperial center with provincial governors and local leaders coming to dominate the landscape.

The Arabs on the eve of WW2 weren't mostly agitating for independence, they were asking for a return to decentralization. And in Aceh the insurgency was diffused by giving the province some autonomy. Most of the time backwater Muslim regions wants to be able to run their day to day lives with as little interference from bureaucrats hailing from distant capitals.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Seems more like dowry deaths than honor killing. I'm actually surprised they killed the boy.

They're slowly moving towards gender equality. Baby steps.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Lol @ being married at 15 & 17

Makes total sense in a system where sex before marriage either completely disqualifies you from marriage or results in a death sentence.

Who wants to be celibate until their mid-to-late 20's?

 

[Gunny]

Historically Islamic empires decentralize after conquest. Happened to the two greatest ones, the Ottomans and Abbasids. They conquered a shit load but part of the strategy of conquest is absorbing some of the defeated groups into the administrative structure. Then over time the distance from the capital allows them to slowly wrest control from the imperial center with provincial governors and local leaders coming to dominate the landscape.

The Arabs on the eve of WW2 weren't mostly agitating for independence, they were asking for a return to decentralization. And in Aceh the insurgency was diffused by giving the province some autonomy. Most of the time backwater Muslim regions wants to be able to run their day to day lives with as little interference from bureaucrats hailing from distant capitals.

I would say that what you're articulating is the natural life cycle of ALL empires but they certainly don't include their own eventual demise as part of the plan. I'm also not saying that anyone is just itching to be conquered by a neighboring power. I'm suggesting that tribes like the one in the OP who electrocute children for eloping are never going to be the types to embrace a 'live and let live' ethic with their neighbors. That kind of behavior is inseparable from the dominance/submission mentality that will fuel perpetual cross-border conflicts. I wouldn't think anyone would disagree with that.

 

[Bloodworth]

Keep that mentality out of your country

 

[Islam Imamate]

I would say that what you're articulating is the natural life cycle of ALL empires but they certainly don't include their own eventual demise as part of the plan. I'm also not saying that anyone is just itching to be conquered by a neighboring power. I'm suggesting that tribes like the one in the OP who electrocute children for eloping are never going to be the types to embrace a 'live and let live' ethic with their neighbors. That kind of behavior is inseparable from the dominance/submission mentality that will fuel perpetual cross-border conflicts. I wouldn't think anyone would disagree with that.

I don't think that's the case at all. Again, I'm not saying that there won't be inter-tribal conflicts but this sort of nastiness is just tribal justice at work, it has nothing to do with one's propensity to attack another tribe. Its like saying having the death penalty means a country is more likely to be invade another country. Maybe you can find a correlation but I don't think the two are connected.

 

[Denter]

I see it as one of the core problems of many parts of the developing world, especially in the Muslim world.

The problem is you can't just undo decades of forced centralization at this point either. Too many people and groups have stakes in the centralized system for it to go away quietly.

Polite way of saying enormously corrupt money laundering kleptocracy.

 

[KnightTemplar]

its only Pakistan that does this.

#NotAllMuslims

most Muslims just want to live a nice happy life, love everyone and want everyone to integrate peacefully.

Aghanistan does it too.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Aghanistan does it too.

im just giving an example of how they downplay it.

weird mentality... don't these lefturds know that muslims are not their ally and would never defend them?