THE SHIA BASIS FOR DEMOCRACY

From Iraqi blogger Hammorabi:

Through out the history we read about revolutions at their induction, climax and decline. Almost all of these revolutions are based on mounting pressure by tyranny or a party in power. At the end a new state formed making certain correction yet not suitable for every one.

The revolution of Imam Hussein is the only one which will never end and will remain active and vivid at its climax against all tyrants and oppressors. Imam Hussein is a symbol for freedom and dignity not for one nation or religion or school but for all mankind at any time.

Imam Hussein is the son of the daughter of Prophet Mohammad (peace be up on them) and the son of Imam Ali (PBUH). More than 1400 years ago he refused to give allegiance to the tyrant of the time Yazid Bin Moawiyah who inherited power from his father by a decree before his death in Damascus. Yazid was dissipated, perverted, cruel tyrant. Right after proclamation of power he sent militant messengers to Madena and asked the most important peoples and chiefs of tribes to acknowledge his leadership as the Caliph or be killed. Almost all of them accepted but Imam Hussein. Some of them tried to convince Imam Hussein to do the same. Imam Hussein refused and he felt that giving such an allegiance from a person like his-good-self will be a very big mistake as it may pave a way for similar and even worse things in future. One has to know that Imam Hussein was the only son of a daughter of a Prophet on the face of the earth at the time...

They forced Imam Hussein to pull towards Kerbala about 60 KM south west of Kuffa. They prevented him and his children from water. They requested that he will submit his will completely to OBZ. Imam Hussein refused and asked them to leave him and his family to go somewhere else but they insisted not to leave him. On the day of 10th of Moharam there was an uneven battle between Imam Hussein and his few followers and Yazid's army which was ten of thousands. Imam Hussein and his followers were all killed and their tents burnt in the most horrific way especially for his children and women who were then taken as prisoners. Along the way towards Damascus the wicked army raised the heads of Imam Hussein, his sons, his brother, and his followers in front of the caravan of children and women. Along that way the children and women were therefore forced to see the heads of their beloved ones through out the way...

Imam Hussein blood will stay recording victory over all tyrants in the history of mankind. It is a revolution that will never end.

If there is anything one may learn from Imam Hussein, is his resolution and determination about the principles, dignity, and freedom from becoming handicapped by inferior limitations. It is the victory of the oppressed over the oppressors and the blood against the swords.

Imam Hussein will stay the candle or the light that shows the right way against going astray when darkness deeply-set.

Peace be up on you Imam Hussein and all those who killed with you on the 10th day of Moharam. May Allah included us with you on the Day of Judgment and be our intercessor at that day by Allah's will.

Resembles the Christian story a bit, no? Though with some important differences: (a) Imam Hussein is not an incarnation of God, (b) no body of teachings associated with Imam Hussein is not mentioned here (but there might be some that I haven't heard of), (c) there is no resurrection... and actually, I'm a bit puzzled as to what is meant by "the victory of the oppressed over the oppressors" in this case. The anti-tyrant rhetoric is impressive, though.

The Christian religion provides a good basis for a democratic society because of its emphasis on equality and its skepticism about coercion ("turn the other cheek"). The Hindu religion provides a good basis for a democratic society because of its ethos of nonviolence and tolerance. The Shia religion may be a good basis for democracy because of its animus against tyrants. If so, Shia democracies may have their own peculiar dynamics, just as India's democracy has distinct differences from that of America and other Christian countries, reflect the different religious-ethical foundations of their society.

Whether Judaism and secularism provide strong bases for democracy is less clear, because Israel and western Europe inherited their democracies from the Christian West: the Jews because they lived in the Christian West before founding Israel, the Europeans because they were the Christian West at the time that they democratized, and then lost their faith. (Of course many Israelis were Middle Eastern Jews before they went to Israel, but the European Jews were sufficient in number to determine the political character of the society.)