Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Quelle:Maa/Feldman 2003

< Quelle:Maa

31.374Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]

Autor     Noah Feldman
Titel    After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy
Verlag    Farrar, Straus & Giroux
Jahr    2003
Anmerkung    Exzerpt des Manuskripts war im WWW verfügbar seit 30.9.2002 (vgl. http://drsoroush.com/en/gods-rule-and-the-peoples-rule/). Fragmente wurden gemäß dieser Version angelegt.
ISBN    978-0374529338 (Paperback)
URL    http://books.google.de/books?id=U7I-tsNKOF8C

Literaturverz.   

nein
Fußnoten    nein
Fragmente    4


Fragmente der Quelle:
[1.] Maa/Fragment 014 09 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 06:22:35 Graf Isolan
Feldman 2003, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, Maa, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 14, Zeilen: 9-28
Quelle: Feldman 2003
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
The appeal of this view for someone who wants Islam and democratic theory to cohere is that the community has tremendous discretion in interpreting Islam and enacting laws that embody its spirit. Democratic decision-making can extend to every area of life and of law. One limitation of this theory, though, is that it is apparently the Muslim community alone that is entrusted with the task of interpreting and applying God’s word. That is all well and good for Muslims, but it excludes non-Muslims. If self-rule consists of figuring out what God wants within the framework of Islam, then non-Muslims will not be full-fledged participants. The answer that minorities in any democracy are excluded when they do not share the fundamental values of the majority may be unsatisfying to someone who thinks that equality is a touchstone of democracy. But perhaps non-Muslims could be permitted to participate in the democratic discussion of God’s will, even if they are not full members of the community.

The essences of Islam and democracy can be seen as compatible because both are flexible mobile ideas. If democracy was restricted to requiring an absolute sovereignty of the people, it would lack the ability to appeal to people and to cultures that do not place humans at the centre of the universe. But democracy has flourished even where humanism was not the dominant mode of thinking. Modern Western democracy grew up among pious Christians, many of them staunch Calvinists who emphasized man’s sinful and fallen nature, and [themselves grappled with the relationship between democracy and divine sovereignty.]

The appeal of this view for someone who wants Islam and democratic theory to cohere is that the community has tremendous discretion in interpreting Islam and enacting laws that embody its spirit. Democratic decisionmaking can extend to every area of life and of law. One limitation of this theory, though, is that it is apparently the Muslim community alone that is entrusted with the task of interpreting and applying God’s word. That is all well and good for Muslims, but it excludes non-Muslims. If self-rule consists of figuring out what God wants within the framework of Islam, then non-Muslims will not be full-fledged participants. The answer that minorities in any democracy are excluded when they do not share the fundamental values of the majority may be unsatisfying to someone who thinks that equality is a touchstone of democracy. But perhaps non-Muslims could be permitted to participate in the democratic discussion of God’s will, even if they are not full members of the community.

The essences of Islam and democracy can be seen as compatible because both are flexible mobile ideas. If democracy were restricted to requiring the absolute sovereignty of the people, it would lack the ability to appeal to people and to cultures that do not place humans at the center of the universe. But democracy has flourished even where humanism was not the dominant mode of thinking. Modern Western democracy grew up among pious Christians, many of them staunch Calvinists who emphasized man’s sinful and fallen nature, and themselves grappled with the relationship between democracy and divine sovereignty.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Agrippina1

[2.] Maa/Fragment 015 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-16 13:28:54 WiseWoman
Feldman 2003, Fragment, Gesichtet, Maa, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung

Typus
Verschleierung
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 15, Zeilen: 1-24, 27-31
Quelle: Feldman 2003
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
[Modern Western democracy grew up among pious Christians, many of them staunch Calvinists who emphasized man’s sinful and fallen nature, and] themselves grappled with the relationship between democracy and divine sovereignty.

Most Americans today probably believe that God, not man, is the measure of all things. It is doubtful whether the majority of Indians place humans at the centre of the universe, yet democracy thrives in India. The idea of the rule of the people has been flexible enough to place either the people or God or nature as supreme power of a society. On any of these views, the people still govern themselves within the area delineated by their capacities and right Islam has demonstrated a comparable degree of flexibility in its essence. The acknowledgement that God is sovereign turns out to mean different things to different people. It has encompassed the idea of free will for some people, while others have thought that a sovereign God must leave nothing to chance or choice. Rationalist Muslim philosophers thought that God was sovereign in the sense that he was the First Mover.

If the essences of Islam and democracy can be compatible, what about the practical institutional arrangements required by each? In particular, Islam, on most views, requires that the state does not exist in an entirely separate sphere from religion. But can a state that embraces religion be democratic? Britain has no separation of church and state. The Queen is Defender of the faith and head of the Church of England. Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords, and anyone who wants to change the Book of Common Prayer must go through Parliament to do it. Yet Britain is the cradle of modern democracy.

To take another Western European example, in the German state of Bavaria, schools’ classrooms display a crucifix. [...] Nevertheless, no one seems to think that this makes modern Germany into something other than a democracy.

On the other hand, some people object vociferously to the suggestion that it might be possible to have democracy - especially liberal democracy - without a strict separation of Church and State. They argue that to be just to everyone, [democracy cannot impose one vision of the good life.]

Modern Western democracy grew up among pious Christians, many of them staunch Calvinists who emphasized man’s sinful and fallen nature, and themselves grappled with the relationship between democracy and divine sovereignty. Most Americans today probably believe that God, not man, is the measure of all things. It is doubtful whether the majority of Indians place humans at the center of the universe, yet democracy thrives in India. The idea of the rule of the people has been flexible enough to mean that the people or God or nature or nothing is sovereign. On any of these views, the people still govern themselves within the area delineated by their capacities and rights.

Islam has demonstrated a comparable degree of flexibility in its essence. Acknowledging that God is sovereign turns out to mean different things to different people. It has encompassed the idea of free will for some people, while others have thought that a sovereign God must leave nothing to chance or choice. Rationalist Muslim philosophers thought that God was sovereign in the sense that he was the First Mover. [...]

If the essences of Islam and democracy can be compatible, what about the practical institutional arrangements required by each? In particular, Islam, on most views, requires that the state not exist in an entirely separate sphere from religion. Can a state that embraces religion be democratic? Britain has no separation of church and state. The Queen is Defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England. Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords, and anyone who wants to change the Book of Common Prayer must go through Parliament to do it. Yet Britain is the cradle of modern democracy. To take another Western European example, in the German state of Bavaria, the schools are Catholic religious ones, and every classroom boasts a crucifix. No one seems to think that this makes modern Germany into something other than a democracy.

On the other hand, some people object vociferously to the suggestion that it might be possible to have democracy – especially liberal democracy – without separation of church and state. They argue that to be just to everyone, democracy cannot impose one vision of the good life.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), WiseWoman

[3.] Maa/Fragment 016 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-16 13:35:07 WiseWoman
Feldman 2003, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, Maa, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 16, Zeilen: 1-5, 8-28
Quelle: Feldman 2003
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
[They argue that to be just to everyone,] democracy cannot impose one vision of the good life. Liberal democracy requires government to remain neutral about what values matter most, and to leave that decision up to the individual. If religion and the state do not remain separate; the state will inevitably impose or at least encourage the version of the good life preferred by the official religion. [...]

It is necessary for a democracy worthy of the name to respect the individual’s right to worship as he chooses, and to provide religious liberty for all its inhabitants. But individual religious liberty does not necessarily mean that the government doesn't embrace, endorse, support or fund one religion in particular. The government can support one particular view of the good life. It can give money to synagogues or ashrams or mosques or all of the above. But so long as the government does not force anyone to adopt religious beliefs that he or she rejects, or perform religious actions that are anathema, it has not violated the basic right to religious liberty. Separation of church and state may be very helpful to maintaining religious liberty, as in the United States, but it is not always necessary to it.

With respect to equal political participation, there is no principled reason in Islam to suggest that anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, man or woman, regardless of race or any other characteristic, should not be permitted to participate equally in collective decision-making. Some Muslims might argue for special participatory status for Muslims or for men. But aside from Kuwait, where the legislature refused to enact the Prince (emir’s) decree granting women the vote, women have the vote in every Muslim country where there are elections. That includes Iran, with its Islamism constitution; Arab states like Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco; and now even Bahrain, a Gulf monarchy with traditional ways not unlike Saudi Arabia.

They argue that to be just to everyone, democracy cannot impose one vision of the good life. Liberal democracy requires government to remain neutral about what values matter most, and to leave that decision up to the individual. If religion and the state do not remain separate, the state will inevitably impose or at least encourage the version of the good life preferred by the official religion.

It is necessary for a democracy worthy of the name to respect the individual’s right to worship as she chooses, and to provide religious liberty for all its inhabitants. But individual religious liberty does not necessarily mean that the government doesn’t embrace, endorse, support, or fund one religion in particular. The government can support one particular view of the good life. It can give money to synagogues or ashrams or mosques or all of the above. But so long as the government does not force anyone to adopt religious beliefs that he or she rejects, or perform religious actions that are anathema, it has not violated the basic right to religious liberty. Separation of church and state may be very helpful to maintaining religious liberty, as in the United States, but it is not always necessary to it.

[...]

With respect to equal political participation, there is no principled reason in Islam to suggest that anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, man or woman, regardless of race or any other characteristic, should not be permitted to participate equally in collective decision-making. Some Muslims might argue for special participatory status for Muslims or for men. But aside from Kuwait, where the legislature refused to enact the emir’s decree granting women the vote, women have the vote in every Muslim country where there are elections. That includes Iran, with its Islamist constitution; Arab states like Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco; and now even Bahrain, a Gulf monarchy with traditional ways not unlike Saudi Arabia.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), WiseWoman

[4.] Maa/Fragment 017 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 20:43:42 WiseWoman
Feldman 2003, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, Maa, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 17, Zeilen: 1-13
Quelle: Feldman 2003
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
As for Muslim women leaders, Benazir Bhutto was twice elected Prime Minister of Pakistan; Tansu Ciller served as Prime Minister of Turkey; in Bangladesh the current Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia, and the past Prime Minister, now leader of the opposition, Sheikh Hasina Waged, are women; and Indonesia has a woman president in Megawati Sukarnoputri. These women have mixed records both in terms of effectiveness and honesty, but they have been neither better nor worse than male leaders in their countries, and the fact they were elected should dispel the stereotypes that unmitigated sexism prevails everywhere in the Muslim world. There is, admittedly, a saying attributed to the Prophet, according to which a nation that makes a woman its ruler will not succeed; and some Muslims have argued that this bars women from serving as heads of state. But this interpretation is not widespread, and has not stopped Muslim women from being elected. As for Muslim women leaders, Benazir Bhutto was elected Prime Minister of Pakistan (twice); Tansu Ciller served as Prime Minister of Turkey; in Bangladesh both the current Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia, and the past Prime Minister, now leader of the opposition, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, are women; and Indonesia has a woman president in Megawati Sukarnoputri. These women have mixed records both in terms of effectiveness and honesty, but they have been neither better nor worse than male leaders in their countries, and the fact they were elected should dispel the stereotypes that unmitigated sexism prevails everywhere in the Muslim world. There is, admittedly, a saying attributed to the Prophet, according to which a nation that makes a woman its ruler will not succeed; and some Muslims have argued that this bars women from serving as heads of state. But this interpretation is not widespread, and has not stopped Muslim women from being elected.
Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Agrippina1

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki