Posts: 2587
-
Karma: 1,352
To say that both Indian and Muslim societies have division is a basic observation, and does not mean that because Indians were successful, that Muslim’s can be too.
The difference is, Indian's willingly engage and accept their form of division. The caste system, though has its enemies, is a broadly accepted element of Indian society. Where as in Muslim society, the people factionalized themselves, made up their own doctrines, and then proceed to intimidate, and engage in conflict of varying degrees with opposing groups.
It is a fallacy however, to say that all Muslim people belong to a faction, matter of fact, I would be hesitant to say that a majority does. All in all, I don't think the factions that do exist would be willing to cooperate with each other in a cohesive democracy. Essentially I think the numbers of Muslim groups against: democracy, the US, and ulterior control of their country, are too large a contingency, blockading the survival of an Americanized democracy.
Additionally, the temperament of Muslim society is often borderline, I think that if you tried to shepherd (ie install democracy) all the people under one government those who didn't agree with it would not only be inflamed themselves, but have the ability to turn the non-partial angst of others into a turbulent clot.
All the same, there are those within Muslim society who themselves are factionalized but for the purpose of installing democracy. But that even further attributes to my point, there are such huge differences in perceptions for what is best for the Muslim world that a single solution is not only improbable, but fringing on impossibility.
-AndrewP
----------------------
Per solitudinem ardere in remedium formidinis dictitabat.
'It is often said that the best remedy for fear is to burn alone.'