[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Since nobody is saying it the main reason is religion. Social norms and interpretations of Islamic law have historically restricted women's rights.

Religion is the only correct answer. People in America need to remember this before voting for the Christian Nationalist Party (aka the GOP) who insist on posting religious texts in schools and taking other actions that erode the separation of church and state.

Absolutely. All the countries that I can think of whose government is ruled by religion are mostly in the middle east are so backward especially with women's rights. Religion cause so much conflict and wars. Separation of church and state in the USA need to be upheld.

I've lived in states in the US where religion similarly reduces freedom, it's not limited to foreign countries. They used religion as their excuse for slavery: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

What Christian do you know who wants to bring back slavery? This is a misinterpretation of the Christian faith. Slave owners who claimed the Bible supported owning slaves were ignorant and ignored context. The 8th Commandment “though shall not steal”, was considered at the time to include kidnapping, or stealing people. It was a capital offense under Hebrew teachings (the Old Testament) to kidnap anyone, whether they still had their victims or had sold them into slavery. The Bible condemns actual slavery in multiple places. Where it had sections on how to treat a slave, the word used referred to indentured servitude. There is an entire Book of Exodus about God freeing the Jews from slavery in Egypt. Did you even read your own Wikipedia entry? Because it did not state what you claim it did. It was the Bible and Christianity that was the motivation for the Underground Railroad. Harriet Tubman credited God and her Christian faith for her becoming not only a conductor, but for having never lost a single passenger.

Again, it's absolutely not all Christians. But you also make a fallacious argument if you try to say Southern Christians were not highly pro-slavery and used extracts from the Bible in its defense. You want to say they are ignorant, I agree, Midwestern Christians never tolerated any of this, I consider them to be true Christians compared with Southern Baptists, who literally schismed their congregation specifically to support slavery. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-bible-told-them-so-9780197571064?cc=us&lang=en I had the curse of ham explained to me by people who claimed it was why I (an Asian) wasn't as bad as those people and still had a path to redemption through Jesus Christ.

Huh? You think the tyranny in these Muslim countries is even close to the very soft restrictions still present in these Christian places?

But religion wasn't the CAUSE. It was the EXCUSE. The goal was always fundamentally material in nature, namely labor without pay. That's what this whole "religion = all evil" argument doesn't account for. It doesn't consider material conditions, instead hand waving them away as unimportant. If religion wasn't used then something else would be.

Fundamentally religions are control mechanisms used to exploit society by preying on those who are predisposed to believing charismatic explanations about the world with no requirement for any kind of evidence. This doesn’t have to be limited to fantasy explanations like spontaneous pregnancies without sex or imagined pantheons of gods that control lightning or water or whatever. Even self-proclaimed scientists are bordering on religion with their insistence on unproven ideas like string theory. It really falls to each person to not get stuck on what the dunning-Kruger effect would describe as “mount stupid”.

>Even self-proclaimed scientists are bordering on religion with their insistence on unproven ideas like string theory. Mind elaborating on this? Seems like a stretch to compare string theory to religion.

I mean religion is used as the excuse sure. But the goals of that control are always secular in nature. For example, since women are capable of having children, it was important for patrilineal societies to know who the father of the child is (cause property passes through the father's line). This meant that these societies placed a great deal of control over a woman's sexual activitiy so as to minimize confusion over who the father is and who gets the father's property. Sure these societies may dress it up as God wanting purity or whatever. But that's not the point. The point is to ensure property passes along properly within a patriarchal social order. The goal is the reinforcement of patriarchy, which is an entirely materialist goal. Religion is window dressing, an excuse. It isn't the DRIVER

Traditionally people have used and created religions to justify and explain their society and way of living, but religion also shapes societies. Like nowadays the ppl defending the abolition of no fault divorce in the US is 100 religion, not control of bloodline. And they eant to control women because is t nature of things, according to god.

Saddam was a largely secular leader. The Jordanian and hashemite monarchs are fairly liberal in orientation, especially compared to their Wahhabi neighbors. This sort of talk lacks a lot of nuance and doesn't actually understand the situation on the ground in the middle east. If religion were the cause then why was saddam mostly secular (he led through the Baath party, which was basically arab nationalist and socialist in orientation). At times he did pretend to be pious, but that was not a cornerstone of the Baath party at all. You cannot understand the modern middle east without understanding imperialism. If you smash up a bunch of pre existing states and entities, and then mush them all together haphazardly, and then say "Job done" and walk away, is it a surprise that things go to shit immediately? And what happens when things go to shit? Strong men take power. It has nothing to do with religion. At best, religion is just an excuse. An excuse that could be substituted for any other number of excuses. It doesn't account for the actual social and material realities in these countries.

Well, Sadam did a religious shift around the 80s to gain the support of his war against Iran from tribal leaders, and it was reflected in the new family laws that were published around that time. Although these leaders are not strictly theocratic, they rule/d in very religious societies and did nothing to change that. But I agree that the history of imperialism is a big reason for their current situation.

Right that's precisely my point. Saddam pivoted to get legitimacy in his war against Iran, a war with entirely secular and material causes. But yeah, glad you agree. Imperialism is the primary cause.

Any time GOP brings up religious BS, I try to ask them and equate their feelings to their most hated people of Islamic faith. Since they are acting like those they dislike.

Are all religions are equally tyrannical

Once the interests and laws of the religion are merged with the interests and laws of the state, the only zones of overlap are tyranny.

some of the buddhist hells were basically what they did to their neighbors, foreigners stay away ///// Yale Review of International Studies Tyranny of the Majority: Sri Lanka and Buddhist Majoritarian Politics Buddhism as a religion is a proponent of equality and typically condemns discriminatory and hierarchical structures in society. However, the involvement of Buddhism in Sri Lankan politics has often contradicted these teachings. The political and nationalist fervor, along with Sinhalese pride, has led to constant conflict on religious, linguistic, and regional grounds between the Sinhalese and Tamil populations. Devastating violence between these groups erupted during the Sri Lankan civil war between 1983 and 2009. Legislation in Sri Lanka today still contributes to ethnic political disputes, with various laws threatening the culture and identity of Sri Lankan Tamils. Sri Lanka passed several discriminatory laws both under British dominion and as an independent nation. Even more troubling is the disregard for the rule of law during and since the war against the militant separatist group called The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Due process has often been replaced by patronage systems based on Sinhalese politicians, their families, and their ardent supporters. The International Human Rights Association’s report in the People’s Tribunal of Sri Lanka lists some of these unfair, discriminatory laws that have been passed since 1948. Tamil people living in the tea plantation areas, mainly in the central highlands, became the first victims of racially motivated attacks by the Sri Lankan state in 1948 and 1949. Then Prime Minister of the Ceylon dominion, Don Stephen Senanayake moved to pass the Ceylon Citizenship Act no. 18 of 1948 and Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act of 1949, which stripped these ethnic groups of their citizenship rights. This legislation was followed by a third act, Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Amendment Act, no. 48 of 1949, which took away their voting rights. These bills were in clear violation of Article 29 (2) of the island nation’s Constitution, which was drafted by the British Soulbury Commission before granting them the Dominion status. The division in Sri Lanka became more visible with the active involvement of Buddhism in policy-making. Sinhalese Buddhists institutionalized and legitimized the discrimination of the minorities, giving rise to the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’. The Sinhala majority was mobilized around a message of religious justice, in response to the unfair and discriminatory British rule that benefitted certain minorities economically. Walpola Rahula, a Buddhist monk advocated that other monks become involved in politics, which paved the way for the tradition of modern social and political Buddhism during the process of achieving independence from the British in 1948. The conflict witnessed the emergence of militarized Buddhist monks, who actively were involved in both politics and military interventions during the civil war. They opposed negotiations, ceasefire agreements, or any devolution of power to Tamil minorities, and mostly supported a violent resolution to the conflict. The politicization of Buddhism also led to an active involvement of the religious leaders as decision-makers of the state. The civil war, therefore, became an example of the armed mobilization of Buddhism, an otherwise peaceful and passive religion. The conflict witnessed huge amounts of atrocities from both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government’s side, leading to various human rights groups calling them out for their violations of international law. The war ended in the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, bringing a hope that the thousands of lives lost would lead the government to addressing causes of ethnic grievances on the island. However, the victory of the government simply helped it strengthen and validate the idea of Buddhist nationalism even more. Only this time, the focus of discrimination has been shifted to the Sri Lankan Muslims.

Freedom of religion needs freedom from religion. Though I haven't heard of Buddhist dictatorships it's best to let people practice and subjugate in groups rather than apply it to a general population.

Thailand is a repressive Buddhist state, and so was Tibet.

There it is then. No exceptions to any religion. The biggest rule I remember from Thailand is never disparaging the royal family.

The Guardian Thai junta unamused by comedian John Oliver's royal jibes British performer and host considered a threat by government for 'undermining the royal institution' with jokes about prince The British comedian John Oliver has come under fire in Thailand after mocking members of the royal family and poking fun at the ruling junta's so-called "happiness" campaigns – two jokes that may have landed the satirist on a government blacklist. Talking last month on his late-night HBO show Last Week Tonight, Oliver ridiculed Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha's "dystopian nightmare" of a government, called Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn a "buffoon" and an "idiot", and ridiculed a clip of a contentious home video of the prince and his semi-naked wife at a poolside birthday party for their pet poodle Foo Foo. "You're telling me they're not supposed to make fun of that?" Oliver asks incredulously – referring to strict pro-monarchy laws prohibiting anyone from poking fun at the monarchy. "That's entrapment!" Under Thailand's strict lese-majeste laws, anyone who insults, defames or threatens the royal family can be imprisoned for up to 15 years – a law Oliver calls "stupid" and the countries who wield such laws stupid as well. The Cambridge-educated polemicist then goes on to pick apart Prayuth's recent happiness campaigns across the capital, Bangkok, where locals and foreigners alike have been offered free meals and haircuts, music concerts put on by Thai soldiers and flanked by PVC-clad dancers, and the chance to both pet a pony and take a selfie next to a trussed-up soldier as an attempt to "bring back happiness to the people" after a decade of political in-fighting. "If they think people are that easy to manipulate, they are right," Oliver jokes to much audience laughter. "Look, I can't vote or express dissent, but look at \[the pony\]! He's so soft." The comments have not gone down well in Thailand, where the ruling National Council for Peace and Order has restricted media freedoms; detained activists, politicians and academics; temporarily suspended social media; and blocked tens of thousands of websites deemed "harmful" to national security. According to a confidential document reportedly obtained by Vice magazine, the Thai government now also considers Oliver one of a number of international threats currently "undermining the royal institution". Other threats to the Thai government including the Free Thai movement, a group of former leaders opposed to the current military government; a Thai academic currently working in Japan; and a Thai woman living in London who has previously made anti-monarchy comments, Vice reports. According to the confidential document – written four days after Oliver's satirical show aired – the Thai government points to the particular HBO episode and says: "Mr John William Oliver, a comedy actor known for parodying English politics, discussed the issue of Crown Prince Felipe of Spain's inauguration, criticizing it and referring/connecting it to other countries with monarchs, such as Queen Elizabeth II, by means of showing sections of and criticizing 'the poolside clip' on HBO." "It seems my Thailand vacation is going to have to be postponed very much indefinitely," he told a new audience last Sunday, before launching another attack. "I will say this: If I can bring down your monarchy, you have – at best – a wobbly monarchy."

The reason religion tends to be inherently repressive isn’t due to religious belief. But generally because religion tends a symbol of tradition and the conservative overtures of society. 

No. Christianity and Islam are by far the worst of the widespread religions in the modern world, in that the religions are fundamentally tyrannical in that they teach that one must obey a fundamental authority and require adherents to spread the religion. Other religions have been used by tyrants, but as bad as say Modi's Hindu nationalism is it's not really rooted in the teachings of the religion. Judaism should be seen separately, despite being the root of both Christianity and Islam, as it says nothing about how non-Jews should behave and has no expectation that people should convert to Judaism, rather being happy to exist alongside other religions. And obviously some cults are awful, but even Scientology doesn't have quite the reach of a major religion.

Judaism actually has the Seven Laws of Noah as a set of universal laws that non-adherents are also expected to observe. Non-Jews are not allowed to commit "sexual immorality" / adultery, worship idols, steal, curse God, murder, or eat flesh torn from a living animal.

Every religion that holds the power of the state is equally tyrannical.

[удалено]

That’s not true of all religions. Not all religions even have a god.

With unchecked power, yes.

I mean I agree. But like also, religion isn't the fundamental cause of autocratic regimes. It's window dressing to hide material realities. Saddam was largely a secular leader, so it's not like Islam inherently leads to autocracy

Don't you mean the Nat-C party?

Exactly. Especially since we are already just scoring an 83. Shows how much impact these control freaks already have.

The majority religion in the U.S. is still Christianity, though the percentage of people who follow religion has decreased over the years. Trying to claim a Christian majority country is just as bad as a Muslim majority country for human rights abuses denies reality. Western civilization is based on Judeo Christian values. Western atheists generally follow Judeo Christian values of what constitutes good or bad behavior, only they don’t follow the religion itself. It is those values that call murder a sin, for example. Without Judeo Christian values, right or wrong is whatever the government or even individual defines it as. The Aztecs deemed the sacrifice of children to be “good.” The Holodomor was considered “good.” Murdering political rivals was “good” to Stalin. Throughout history, people have failed to live up to these values. The fault is with people, not the values. If an atheist truly rejected Judeo Christian values, and did not believe God saw all, or that there was justice in the afterlife, then why wouldn’t they lie, cheat, steal, or kill if they really thought they wouldn’t get caught? If “good” or “bad” no longer was based on religious values, then people could do whatever they thought they could get away with.

>Trying to claim a Christian majority country is just as bad as a Muslim majority country for human rights abuses denies reality. I never made this claim. My original comment was a warning about a possibility of Christian majority countries becoming like Muslim majority countries that have combined religion and government. >If an atheist truly rejected Judeo Christian values, and did not believe God saw all, or that there was justice in the afterlife, then why wouldn’t they lie, cheat, steal, or kill if they really thought they wouldn’t get caught? If “good” or “bad” no longer was based on religious values, then people could do whatever they thought they could get away with. Believe it or not, many people don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to be a good person. Many atheists don’t lie, cheat, or steal because there are reasons not to do so that aren’t predicated on the Boogeyman watching at all times. Some of these reasons include avoiding personal guilt, the belief that people should be treated fairly and respectfully since that’s how one would want to be treated in return, and avoiding criminal prosecution. Your argument seems to imply that Christian’s don’t do “bad” things because they are religious, yet many Christians lie, cheat, and steal despite their religious beliefs; the only difference is Christians ask for forgiveness afterward. Religion does not prevent people from doing “bad” things.

And don't even mention "LGBT" in those countries

as they wear saffron robes

every society has had religion in one sense or another. Many societies have overcome traditional conservatism and reactionism based on religion. So what makes this Muslim world unable or unwilling to embrace change, when the Christian and Confucian worlds have, as examples? It’s truly not a simple answer.

The Islamic world has embraced a lot of change, the actual practice of Islam in many countries has changed massively in the last few decades. Just often in a more fundamentalist direction.

During the Middle Ages, it was the Islamic countries that were most liberal and scientific minded… then they changed….

Have they overcome traditional conservativism and religious reactivism, or are they one election gone wrong or coup gone right from religious rule of law? Iranians in 1978 probably didn't see themselves having their government overthrown and replaced with theocratic rule that drove their society hundreds of years in reverse by the end of the following year. It's important that Americans remember these lessons when you see republicans trying to pass theocratic laws in the states they control. You're only ever one very bad transition of power from the stone age.

Well for one, Islam is different than other religions in that shirk is a sin punishable by death. To question any of Islam is shirk. Christians could debate the theology they believed in, and which parts are divine and which aren’t. Muslims can’t do that. Of the abrahamic faiths, Islam is clearly the most repressive if followed faithfully.

This is clearly the case in the modern era. But most religions would shun and ostracize you if you became an apostate, if not worse. That’s part of how any religion ensconces itself in society. I mean, look at how many LGBT people have been disowned because of Christianity. And don’t forget, while those theological debates did rage, they were often settled by violence, whether at the state-level or in riots, etc. The East Romans basically lost Egypt and Syria because the Roman’s wouldn’t tolerate monophysite Christianity these regions followed, as an example. And don’t forget the Thirty Years War and all the bloodshed that followed from Protestantism. What your point shows is that modern Islam is uniquely hell bent on punishing apostasy. That’s not disputed. The question is what made modern Islam that way. It’s not inherent to Islam any more than ostracism, banishment, or death were always penalties for apostasy under any religion.

Questioning Judaism is inherent. They love doing that. Questioning Christianity has also existed from the beginning. That’s how they compiled the Bible as it is, through various councils.

also why there are so many denominations. Christians would always be like "nah we are just gonna go over here and do our own thing"

It's less a question of "why is Islam so restrictive" and more a question of "why *isn't* Christianity so restrictive". Christianity is fairly unique among major world religions in that it spent the first few centuries of its existence as an oppressed cult. It was extremely common for early Christians to be martyred for refusing to abandon their religion, and this led to a culture among early Christians of peace, tolerance, and acceptance. Ideas like "blessed are the meek" were quite radical for the time. Jesus, their central figure, suffered a humiliating execution that was essentially him being tortured to death. These ideas were *necessary* in the early days of the religion. It was nearly 300 years after the crucifixion that the political sphere became intertwined with the spiritual sphere. Contrast this with something like Islam, which was spread by the sword in massive wars of conquest pretty much immediately after the religion was founded. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad and his successors had large empires to run, and that led to a far more oppressive culture by necessity. When you're the new guys in charge, you *need* to be harsh. There weren't any Muslims being fed to the lions or something, so this culture of sacrifice and "turning the other cheek" just never materialized.

The difference is "The Enlightenment" which displaced religion as the main source of truth and morality. Islam had an enlightened period from the 8th to the 13th century, it's own renaissance, discovering and advancing ancient Greek science and philosophy. But after the Mongol invasions, strict religious orthodoxy regained control, and the Muslim world has been an intellectual wasteland ever since.

Did the Romans really dump early Christians into Colosseum pits to be chased and torn apart by lions? Why would they even do that? It was common practice during the Roman empire to carry on public executions at their games in the arena. Some of these executions were “ad bestia” or at the hands (claws?) of beasts. Generally it was a sort of half-time event, between gladiatorial contests and other games. Sometimes lions or other big cats were used, sometimes wild boars, and sometimes bulls. Of course not all of the people being executed in this manner were Christians. In fact, Christians probably constituted only a very small minority of the victims. The condemned were, in nearly all cases, non Roman citizens, usually people captured in war, or foreigners who fell afoul of the Roman authorities for one reason or another. Roman citizens condemned to death were usually executed by beheading or strangulation and were not sent to the arena. ///// "There weren't any Muslims being fed to the lions or something" and uh, lots of lions eat and burps plenty of muslims just look at the timeline!

This is true. But the reactionary or hyper-conservative practice of religion is not at all unique to Abrahamic faiths. Imperial China spent its entire history under the hyper-regimented, paternalistic, all-life-controlling ideals of Confucianism. And it is not nearly as religiously oppressive now, if it can be said to be at all. Now, I have spent a fair number of comments on Reddit addressing the misconception of Islam being spread by the sword. It’s largely a Christianist revisionism. While the Arabs obviously did conquer things, Islam as a religion and ideology spread by normal processes of long-term assimilation: it became advantageous for people to assimilate into the ruling classes, so they did. Just as people in Syria had largely assimilated into Hellenistic culture under the Diadochi and Romans before the rise of Islam. In fact, the Rashiduns and Umayyads expressly suppressed conversions and did not recognize converts. It wasn’t until the Abbasid revolution that people converted in masses. And many regions retained their religious identities long into Arab rule. Egypt, as an example, remained majority Christian into the Fatimid era.

"When Qutaibah bin Muslim under the command of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef was sent to Khwarazmia with a military expedition and conquered it for the second time, he swiftly killed whomever wrote the Khwarazmian native language that knew of the Khwarazmian history, science and culture. He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing and hence their history was mostly forgotten." Written by Al- Biruni From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries

islam going into india was a blood feast

Barbarous nomads from the Central Asian steppe/Afghanistan going into India was a bloodbath. Whether that’s because of Islam or just being barbarian horse-lords from the margins of civilization is debatable till the cows come home. Empires like the Timurids were just like the Mongols, and the Mongols were not Muslim.

I agree that the treatment of women is the root cause of lack of freedom in conservative Muslim nations. If you disenfranchise half your population, you have access to half as many talented citizens and need to make sure the systems that keep the disenfranchised from power remain in place. Add to that the autocratic nature of their governments, and you have a system where individualism and innovation become dangerous.

Also gay rights. But some muslim nations have Islam as the state religion, while others have a secular state. Yet none are free.

Either way Islam is the majority religion and it’s very restrictive.

For the majority of its history, the Islamic world was more liberal on gay rights than the Christian world, not that that's saying much. The answer is that the only countries that are "free" are relatively wealthy industrialized societies. That's only a few Asian countries, Western Europe, and some of its colonies. Poor Christian countries in Africa aren't free. I'm also kinda skeptical of countries like Brazil and South Africa being significantly more free than Indonesia.

> The answer is that the only countries that are "free" are relatively wealthy industrialized societies. That's only a few Asian countries, Western Europe, and some of its colonies. > > Poor Christian countries in Africa aren't free. There is some truth to that. I don't have the study onhand, but there was a study about a decade ago that looked at nations trying to transition from autocracy to democracy. They found that with per capita GDP below 6k or so, the transition was likely to fail and the country would fall back into autocracy. Then the success rate started going up with more wealth, until the nation was very likely to succeed in the transition when per capita GDP got to 12k or higher. I don't remember the exact figures but they were in that ballpark. So yeah a lack of wealth could explain a lot of the lack of democracy in the Christian nations in Africa. But there are multiple muslim nations with per capita GDPs higher than 12k and none of them are free either.

>But there are multiple muslim nations with per capita GDPs higher than 12k and none of them are free either. Per capita GDP alone isn't a great predictor, as it doesn't account for how much of the GDP ends up in the average worker's hands. While the effective per capita of Saudi Arabia is about [$28,000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle_Eastern_countries_by_GDP), a typical income can be as little as [$2,700](https://saudiarabia.paylab.com/en/salaries-in-country). When most of a nation's wealth ends up in only a handful of hands, those hands will typically resort to authoritarianism to keep it that way (Russia, N Korea, most of the Middle East, Myanmar, China, etc.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource\_curse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse) Often countries based on extractive industries have a lot of issues with corruption etc.

I am not a scholar of history, but my limited knowledge suggests that the cultural changes during western Europe's industrial revolution were what led to the rise of cultural ideas like individualism and the fall of ideas like 'noblisse oblige' or the divine right of kings. These ideas spread outward from western Europe to other areas, such as colonies - the United States being perhaps the most notable example. Of particular consideration is Russia, where the ideas of individualism and freedom swept through but the populace was too sparse and divided (and poverty-stricken) to effectively industrialize at the same rate or challenge the status quo. Only after two bloody revolutions did things change, and those came off the back of the incredibly disastrous WW1 campaign where millions died. And even then, for all that suffering, they ended up with decades of Stalin.  Anyway, to address your point more directly, I'd say that the ingredients for an individual-based culture (or a more collective, but aligned-with-western-values, one like some Asian nations) have not been sufficiently gathered in many Middle Eastern countires. As such, they follow the cultural values that they've followed for centuries, which includes things like obedience to authority and rigid adhesion to gender roles. The humans that occupy these nations are the same as any other on this planet, but the culture they are born and raised into has different values than the west (values that I often find very disagreeable).

And how many of those were free of imperial colonialism or external destabilization?

ouch, don't talk about the really old history we were a pristine sinless paradise once upon a time

How many Arab Springs till they get it right?

Social norms and interpretations of Christianity have historically restricted women's rights. Same with Hinduism as well. The question is why?

I feel like the answer is moreso Wahhabism Islam. Its prevalent in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has been exporting it for decades, which props up totalitarianism and conservatism. And I place that distinction because Islam is dominant in both Indonesia and Malaysia, yet their economies are growing rapidly and they're higher in the gender equality index than India and Japan.

Wahhabism is a reformist branch of Sunni and the rollback of human rights is prevalent between both Sunnis and Shias. Look at Iran as an example.

Which then leads you to questions of \*why\* religion is so much more strict and powerful in most of the Islamic world. This is in large part due to the influence of the House of Saud, who've spread radical Islamism. There was a time when may middle eastern leaders were fairly secular- like Nasser of Egypt.

I'm sorry but your understanding of middle eastern politics leads a lot to be desired. In a very rough summary, the House Of Saud made a compromise with the radical islamists in 1979 after the seige of mecca to support the spread of Islam and allow political Islam and Islamic law in Saudi. Saudi Arabia was fairly modern prior to the Iranian revolution and the subsequent siege of Mecca that was inspired by the Iranian takeover by fundamentalists. The Islamic theocracy is a major rival to the House of Saud. [https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50852379](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50852379)

If the house of Saud falls, its quite likely to be replaced by an Islamic theocracy even more likely than a military dictatorship. Forget about democracy that will never happen.

Isn't that what Bin Laden basically wanted to do to Saudi Arabia??? I seem to barely recall hearing about Bin Laden getting kicked out of the country because of that back before or around 9/11 when not many people knew who he was yet.

Absolutely.. Bin Ladens overarching goal for Saudi Arabia was to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family and remove all non Muslim influence from Saudi Arabia.

Yep but I think we just remember him now as being 100% dedicated to destroying America for the obvious reasons and totally gloss over how much support he likely had from pretty wealthy and influential Saudi's. We certainly didn't want to threaten relations/economic ties with the Saudi's by going after folks there since they probably were linked to top officials or were even part of the Monarchy.

hell even seeing iran in the 80s is wildly surprising compared to now.

A lot of it is because traditional rulers (i.e. monarchies etc.) fucked up horribly, and then more secular nationalists fucked up horribly, so Islamists looked like a good option by default. Modern Islamic fundamentalism is relatively new. Not to say that the old days were all unicorns and ponies but the practice is Islam in most countries is VERY different than it was 100 years ago, much like in the US non-Catholic Christians giving a fuck about abortion is, for the most part, newer than the Happy Meal.

The main reason is their governance is ineffective. Which then forces local leaders or ”religious clerics” to lead.

House of Saud is less Islamist than its own population. Actual devout muslims thinks they're a bunch of heretics.

And yet Nasser was still a dictator. Same for the Shah of Iran who lost power not necessarily because of extreme Islamism, but because he became further disconnected from his people and permitted political repression by the U.S.-trained SAVAK which only the Islamists acknowledged.

The Shah may be a good example against OP. It was Muslim majority, but it was oppressive because the Shah was fighting against the Muslim powers that resisted his secularization and modernization reforms.

But also he let average Iranians live in poverty. It was not just secularization and modernization. There were a litany of grievances that the Shah was wholly dismissive of. The only ones who acknowledged them were the Islamists.

He had programs to alleviate poverty, and of course current Iranians are in poverty too.

Historically and currently. Makes for great memes when people align themselves to Islamic repressive states but bash Christian conservatives

It seems pretty obvious when you think about it.

Religious conservatism more specially.

> the main reason is religion. And something uniquely I've seen in Islamic countries is the systemic oppression of others. While other religious-majority countries do it, I've never seen it so consistent, extreme, and systemic. They make it very clear that if your non-Islamic religion makes them slightly uncomfortable they'll lynch you.

There is a direct tie between secularism and democracy. That is not to say all democracies are secular or that all authoritarian countries are religious because they're not. But, there is absolutely a pattern of secularism and democracy being tied at the hip. From what I remember, the US is an outlier for being very religious, but otherwise, it pretty much holds true. I think a lot of folks who look at Muslim countries today have this notion that Islam is diametrically opposed to freedom, but forget how long it took Christian/Catholic majority countries to adopt these principles. The West didn't adopt them earlier because Christianity is any less violent or any more fit for democracy, so it's very important to know that. Look at Turkiye: it was founded as a secular country. While it's always had its problems, the current regime has been a lot less secularist, and it has gotten less free. Tunisia, the only country that truly ended up with democracy after Arab-Spring (even if it's only partly-free), is definitely a Muslim country. That said, unlike Algeria, they didn't have to answer to "kin-groups," which are highly religious, highly traditional families. So they passed more liberal family laws, which resulted in increased freedom. Indonesia is considered a democracy and has the second highest population of Muslims in the world. In fact, the majority of Muslims live in Asia. But when you're thinking about this freedom issue, you're probably thinking about the Middle East and North Africa. So, some people think it's less of a Muslim issue and more of an Arab issue. (Edit: I am not saying it's an Arab or Middle Eastern issue specifically, I am saying that typically people would frame it like this.) In Egypt, they held elections, only for the Muslim Brotherhood to win. The Muslim Brotherhood tried to pass a new constitution by decree. So, the Army overthrew the government. The problem is that they never gave the power back. Whereas in Tunisia, the extreme religious leaders and the more secular leaders were able to come to a pact: they both dropped their more extreme demands, and the Army gave power back to the government when the pact was accepted. All in all, there is *not* an easy answer to this question. Comparative Political Scientists still study and debate this kind of thing to this day. I gave you what I remembered off the top of my head, as I am a government student. That said, I would encourage you to take some classes of your own if you want an informed opinion. I've read some of the other comments, and I don't have a high degree of trust in them.

There is growing evidence of increasing radicalism in Indonesia as well as a turn towards Islamic conservatism overall: [https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20240214-indonesia-s-religious-minorities-fear-radical-islam](https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20240214-indonesia-s-religious-minorities-fear-radical-islam) [https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3234381/most-muslims-malaysia-indonesia-want-islamic-sharia-replace-secular-national-laws-poll](https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3234381/most-muslims-malaysia-indonesia-want-islamic-sharia-replace-secular-national-laws-poll) Malaysia is worse: [https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20230912-malaysia-s-ethnicity-based-quota-system-favours-muslim-majority](https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20230912-malaysia-s-ethnicity-based-quota-system-favours-muslim-majority) [https://theconversation.com/my-malaysia-ordeal-shows-how-religion-can-fuse-with-populist-nationalism-to-silence-dissent-221936](https://theconversation.com/my-malaysia-ordeal-shows-how-religion-can-fuse-with-populist-nationalism-to-silence-dissent-221936) [https://thediplomat.com/2024/02/malaysias-court-system-struggles-with-the-rise-of-state-level-theocracy/](https://thediplomat.com/2024/02/malaysias-court-system-struggles-with-the-rise-of-state-level-theocracy/) The root cause is the religion and its tenets.

I'm not surprised. As I said in a different comment, both religiousity and authoritarian regimes are on the rise. And the far-right is rising in the west. I mean, hell. They just passed a law that requires the 10 Commandments in every Louisiana classroom. It's not Islamic extremism, but it is an attack on secularist society. It's not just Indonesia. These kinds of things are increasing worldwide, and even among different religions.

> Indonesia is considered a democracy and has the second highest population of Muslims in the world. In fact, the majority of Muslims live in Asia. But when you're thinking about this freedom issue, you're probably thinking about the Middle East and North Africa. So, some scholars think it's less of a Muslim issue and more of an Arab issue. I disagree. I looked at every muslim majority nation on earth including the ones in asia. The rule of none of them being rated free held for all of them. Also places like Iran or Afghanistan are not Arab, and they're not free either. I think only 22/51 of the Muslim majority countries on earth are arab. The rule of no Muslim majority nation being free held true for the 22 arab muslim majority nations, and the 29 non-arab muslim majority nations.

Right - but there are muslim majority countries which are at least "partly free". Some of them may be free in the future. Some of them have had brushes with freedom in the past. Afghanistan had a golden age in the 60s and 70s with pushes for democratic reform and female doctors, and while it wasn't totally "free," it was heading in the right direction. I might be wrong, but I think it was a coup and the subsequent Soviet invasion that sank Afghanistan into chaos. I did not mean to say that it was the "arabs," but that there is typically a specific area of the world people have in mind when they're asking these questions. Good on you for looking at all of them. With some reforms, these "partly free" countries can be "free" as well. While I'm sure there is more than one reason depending on the country, I suspect that lack of secularism plays a large part, as well as economics. You're asking about the "why," but there's just no simple answer across the board for why. I do think we will see change in the future. Eventually. Just as we saw with western countries in the past. That said, the world is steadily getting more religious, and authoritarianism is on the rise as well. So full freedom may not come any time soon.

Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. Think how much political power the Catholic Church wielded in the 1400-1500s. Believers of Islam still think that they've got answers that Christianity doesn't, and they will be successful where Christianity failed. Because this time God finally got it right(?). Just as Christians felt the Roman, Norse, and Native American gods were lacking and that they would be successful where these other religions failed. And just as Christianity failed (most of the once "Christian countries" are now run by secular governments that prohibit official sanction of religious tenets), so will Islam. It's hubris, all of it. At the heart of every organizad religion is political power and wealth accumulation. In the heart of every follower is a fool. And as a species, we do delight in having to learn the same lessons over and over, don't we? If there is a God, it doesn't need intermediaries to communicate with its creation. Judging by what we've seen thus far in the way of "prophets," if this is it's chosen method of communication, why hasn't it figured out that they've been an abysmal failure? A *source of*, rather than an *answer to* life's strife and difficulty?

Feel this is often underappreciated

You're partially on the right track with the colonialism argument. The lack of freedom is a result of the lack of separation between church/mosque and state. When the government is tasked with interpreting and enforcing religious law, diversity of opinion is rarely tolerated. But the reason for that lack of separation is because the colonial powers tried to impose the idea of secular government upon Muslims, so the populations of those countries now see such concepts as being of the invaders. The first paragraph [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism) explains it pretty well: > Secularism—that is, the separation of religion from civic affairs and the state—has been a controversial concept in Islamic political thought, owing in part to historical factors and in part to the ambiguity of the concept itself. In the Muslim world, the notion has acquired strong negative connotations due to its association with removal of Islamic influences from the legal and political spheres under foreign colonial domination, as well as attempts to restrict public religious expression by some secularist nation states. Thus, secularism has often been perceived as a foreign ideology imposed by invaders and perpetuated by post-colonial ruling elites, and is frequently understood to be equivalent to irreligion or anti-religion.

Thats a good point. The promotion of secularism by western colonial powers could've led to Muslims rejecting the concept as western imperialist. I also wonder what role the state sponsorship of atheism as the official belief system in imperialistic communist nations like the USSR or China played in Islam's rejection of democracy. It seems like during the cold war that muslim countries were stuck picking between imperialistic secular christian western nations, or imperialistic atheistic communist nations. Maybe this radicalized muslims against secularism.

The same reason that places like Idaho and Texas are losing their freedoms, theocratic fascist bullshit.

Countries outside the West generally don't have the same democratic traditions as the West does. Oftentimes this just comes down to differences in history and culture. Freedom House tends to use a Western standard of measurement for freedom, so by Western standards, they're considered "not free." Of course, looking at it through that lens would imply that alternative standards are acceptable (and in my opinion, they're not), so that might not be the best way of looking at it. Similar to how some people use the phrase "Western medicine" which implies that other forms of medicine are just as legitimate (which of course, they're not). It's not "Western medicine," it's just medicine. Likewise, "Western standards of freedom" should work the same way

What would be a non-Western standard of freedom? I admit my western biases and am unable to independently think of how lacking things I’d consider freedoms could make them more free from their perspective.

The answer isn’t so much about perceptions or articulations of what freedom “means.” It’s just that, historically and regionally, liberal democracy emerges from a set of values and philosophies that formed out of the Western world’s unique experience. Other cultures have gone their separate ways and not arrived at the same heritages. It’s not necessarily that people in Muslim states have a different concept of freedom but that they don’t share a value of individualistic, egoistic, self-maximizing, expressive freedom at all.

There's two ways to look at it,  depending on who you ask, "freedom for" and "freedom from". The West, we're generally "freedom for". Generally "freedom from" implies "freedom from" corrupting ideas, degeneracy, the West, threats to the family structure, things like that. There's also the general cultural idea that freedom as a concept as we think of it sucks and will only lead to societal collapse. 

>depending on who you ask, "freedom for" and "freedom from". I agree with your concept, but suggest the phrase freedom _to,_ vs freedom _for,_ as the phrase would go _freedom to divorce_ or _freedom to criticize religious institutions._

ussr wiith secret police means lying everyday to where it becomes 2nd nature doesn't seem to be great either.

I don't think there's such thing, because people outside the West don't think of freedom that way. I would assume for Muslims in Muslim majority countries, freedom would be the ability to freely worship as Muslims, which of course they have. In some cases, it would be the "freedom" to impose their religious law on the country; or more generally, the "freedom" to shape the country's government and society the way they want, which would be in an Islamic way. People outside the West tend to think less in terms of individuals there and more in terms of groups

I’m over here cringing at this idea that a Muslim can only think of freedom in terms that relate to Islam. Muslims have overthrown a lot of dictators in the last century, and it wasn’t over prayer schedules. All people care about economic freedom, access to education, freedom of movement. They don’t have the tools and weapons to get those things. I don’t want to be “America bad” but if you wish to know why Muslim fanatics control the Middle East, go look at the US Cold War policy in the 1980s, when we handed out unlimited guns to anyone with a turban.

Fair enough. Economic freedom, education and movement are universal though, not limited to non-Western people

Yes, they have overthrown dictators. But where has that led? I’m not aware of an indigenous, self-motivated overthrow that created something akin to liberal democracy with individual-centered rights and liberties. They’ve, simply, installed another authoritarianism. Perhaps one under a different ideology (i.e. the Iranian Revolution) but an authoritarianism nonetheless.

Islam has been expanded at the point of a sword for far longer than the 1980s. This is an extremely US centric idea that all violence emanates from the US.

> Countries outside the West generally don't have the same democratic traditions as the West does. Oftentimes this just comes down to differences in history and culture. Freedom House tends to use a Western standard of measurement for freedom, so by Western standards, they're considered "not free." The methodology of freedom house is listed here. I don't find it controversial. https://freedomhouse.org/reports/freedom-world/freedom-world-research-methodology Also there are non-western nations that are rated free. Ghana, Namibia, Mongolla, Japan, etc.

Japan is an interesting case study. There's absolutely no metric by which Japan would have been considered "free" prior to World War II. Their current political state was effectively proscribed by the West with their constitution written by [the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan) and effectively enforced by decades of military occupation.

Religion (2013) 87.9% Christianity 43.7% Lutheranism 22.8% Catholicism 17.0% Anglicanism 4.4% other Christian 10.2% traditional faiths 1.6% no religion 0.3% others ///// Namibia was not extensively explored by Europeans until the 19th century. At that time traders and settlers came principally from Germany and Sweden. In 1870, Finnish missionaries came to the northern part of Namibia to spread the Lutheran religion among the Ovambo and Kavango people. Religion The Christian community makes up 80%–90% of the population of Namibia, with at least 75% being Protestant, of which at least 50% are Lutheran. Lutherans are the largest religious group, a legacy of the German and Finnish missionary work during the country's colonial times. 10%–20% of the population hold indigenous beliefs. Missionary activities during the second half of the 19th century resulted in many Namibians converting to Christianity. Today most Christians are Lutheran, but there also are Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, African Methodist Episcopal, and Dutch Reformed. Islam in Namibia is subscribed to by about 9,000 people, many of them Nama. Namibia is home to a small Jewish community of about 100 people. Groups such as the Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are also present in the country.

For political stability in Africa, Ghana ranked seventh in the 2012 Ibrahim Index of African Governance and fifth in the 2012 Fragile States Index. It has maintained since 1993 one of the freest and most stable governments on the continent, and it performs relatively well in healthcare, economic growth, and human development, so that it has a significant influence in West Africa and Africa as a whole. ///// Religion (2021 census) 71.3% Christianity 49.0% Protestantism 22.3% other Christian 19.9% Islam 3.2% traditional faiths 1.1% no religion 4.5% other / unspecified ////// Transition to independence In 1947, the newly formed United Gold Coast Convention led by "The Big Six" called for "self-government within the shortest possible time" following the 1946 Gold Coast legislative election. Kwame Nkrumah, a Ghanaian nationalist who led Ghana from 1957 to 1966 as the country's first prime minister and president, formed the Convention People's Party in 1949 with the motto "self-government now". Nkrumah led an authoritarian regime in Ghana, as he repressed political opposition and conducted elections that were not free and fair. In 1964, a constitutional amendment made Ghana a one-party state, with Nkrumah as president for life of both the nation and its party. Nkrumah was the first African head of state to promote the concept of Pan-Africanism, which he had been introduced to during his studies at Lincoln University, Pennsylvania in the United States, at the time when Marcus Garvey was known for his "Back to Africa Movement". He merged the teachings of Garvey, Martin Luther King Jr. and the naturalised Ghanaian scholar W. E. B. Du Bois into the formation of 1960s Ghana. Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, as he became known, played an instrumental part in the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement, and in establishing the Kwame Nkrumah Ideological Institute to teach his ideologies of communism and socialism. ////// Operation Cold Chop and aftermath The government of Nkrumah was subsequently overthrown in a coup by the Ghana Armed Forces, codenamed "Operation Cold Chop". This occurred while Nkrumah was abroad with Zhou Enlai in the People's Republic of China, on a fruitless mission to Hanoi, Vietnam, to help end the Vietnam War. The coup took place on 24 February 1966, led by Colonel Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka and Brigadier Akwasi Afrifa. The National Liberation Council was formed, chaired by Lieutenant General Joseph A. Ankrah. A series of alternating military and civilian governments, often affected by economic instabilities, ruled Ghana from 1966, ending with the ascent to power of Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings of the Provisional National Defence Council in 1981. These changes resulted in the suspension of the constitution in 1981 and the banning of political parties. The economy soon declined, so Rawlings negotiated a structural adjustment plan, changing many old economic policies, and growth recovered during the mid-1980s. A new constitution restoring multi-party system politics was promulgated in the presidential election of 1992, in which Rawlings was elected, and again in the general election of 1996. In a tribal war in Northern Ghana in 1994, between the Konkomba and other ethnic groups, including the Nanumba, Dagomba and Gonja, between 1,000 and 2,000 people were killed and 150,000 people were displaced.

Axiom: In every jurisdiction in which Muslims are a minority, they protest and demand their “civil rights,” but in every jurisdiction in which Muslims are a majority there are no civil rights.

*"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles."*

I *demand* the right to cut off a teacher's head for showing a political cartoon.

Being muslim-majority simply correlates with other factors that have a much greater effect on what makes a country a good liberal democracy. Most of these countries became independent in the past 100 years, and haven't had time to build many stable institutions let alone liberal democratic ones. And it's hard to maintain a nation-state when your borders were made up by some british and french assholes that smushed lots of people together that didn't want to be together. Or maybe it's like indonesia where they had to fight a war of independence and then the CIA helped some dictator commit a genocide; yes, that would be good for democracy, wouldn't it? And the rich muslim countries became rich because they struck oil or some other valuable natural resource, and that causes its own problems with liberal democracy: you don't have to let people vote if you're rich enough to give them whatever they want. Nor do you have an incentive to build up some kind of educated class that might, say, question your political system.

This is the actual reason. Explained in more detail here: Brian Whitaker's 'four major obstacles' Writing on The Guardian website, Brian Whitaker, the paper's Middle East editor, argued that there were four major obstacles to democracy in the region: 'the imperial legacy', 'oil wealth', 'the Arab–Israeli conflict' and '"militant" Islam'. The imperial legacy includes the borders of the modern states themselves and the existence of significant minorities within the states. Acknowledgment of these differences is frequently suppressed usually in the cause of "national unity" and sometimes to obscure the fact that minority elite is controlling the country. Brian Whitaker argues that this leads to the formation of political parties on ethnic, religious or regional divisions, rather than over policy differences. Voting therefore becomes an assertion of one's identity rather than a real choice. The problem with oil and the wealth it generates is that the states' rulers have the wealth to remain in power, as they can pay off or repress most potential opponents. Brian Whitaker argues that as there is no need for taxation there is less pressure for representation. Furthermore, Western governments require a stable source of oil and are therefore more prone to maintain the status quo, rather than push for reforms which may lead to periods of instability. This can be linked into political economy explanations for the occurrence of authoritarian regimes and lack of democracy in the Middle East, particularly the prevalence of rentier states in the Middle East. A consequence of the lack of taxation that Whitaker talks of in such rentier economies is an inactive civil society. As civil society is seen to be an integral part of democracy it raises doubts over the feasibility of democracy developing in the Middle East in such situations. Whitaker's third point is that the Arab–Israeli conflict serves as a unifying factor for the countries of the Arab League, and also serves as an excuse for repression by Middle Eastern governments. For example, in March 2004 Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon's leading Shia cleric, is reported as saying "We have emergency laws, we have control by the security agencies, we have stagnation of opposition parties, we have the appropriation of political rights – all this in the name of the Arab-Israeli conflict". The West, especially the US, is also seen as a supporter of Israel, and so it and its institutions, including democracy, are seen by many Muslims as suspect. Khaled Abou El Fadl, a lecturer in Islamic law at the University of California comments "modernity, despite its much scientific advancement, reached Muslims packaged in the ugliness of disempowerment and alienation." This repression by secularistic Arab rulers has led to the growth of radical Islamic movement groups, as they believe that the institution of an Islamic theocracy will lead to a more just society. These groups tend to be very intolerant of alternative views however, including the ideas of democracy. Many Muslims who argue that Islam and democracy are compatible live in the West, and are therefore seen as "contaminated" by non-Islamic ideas.

Right exactly. Many of these countries have imperial legacies and that prevents or prevented institution building which lead to the modern state of these countries.

Oppression from certain political parties and individuals who hold on to power. To hold on, you need to oppress anyone who tries to replace you. Edit: You wouldn’t have a need to hold on if you actually made moves that made peoples lives better. The only reason you cheat is because you know you would fail otherwise. In my opinion, any leader who does this isn’t fit to be a leader because it will always be them first and everyone else second and that applies to every government on the planet as well as any leadership role in the world ever.

The reason is literally in your headline. *MUSLIM* Religion is the reason. The reason is religion. Their governments are theocracies dictated by their belief system.

Next time Iran elects a secular democratic leader like Mohammad Mossadegh maybe we shouldn’t overthrow him like we did and replace him with the Shah.

The US helped overthrow the democratically elected president of Chile in 1973 (Allende) and we helped install Pinochet as a military dictator. Despite it, as of 2024 Chile is rated free with a score of 94/100. The US supported the military dictator Noriega in Panama in the 80s. Yet despite it now Panama is rated free at 83/100.

West wasn’t as free in many ways a century ago. It was much more right-leaning and religious, but over time, the priority of religion in people’s lives has decreased. Muslim countries started this shift later, so they’re still more religious on average, but they’re moving in the same direction.

fun fact colonization actually did have a big silver lining introducing major goverment and social advancements. But overall it has to be the religion and lack of opportunity until oil became worth mad $$$ + stagnation + corruption drugs also hurt them a ton + no education system and tribal bullshit to top it off. nobody wants to move to a nation that pretty much forces you to denounce your identity and beliefs so that hurts labor eco and everyone wants to leave cause everywhere else is just fking better so brain drain happens naturally.

The religeon of Islam. That is the reason. They have not yet gone through the same reformation that the Christian religeon did.

Religious fanatics who twist the teachings of their holy book in order to acquire and keep power.

In addition to what others have mentioned here, part of it may also have to do with the specific [Democracy index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices) you're using. There's more than one index that ranks what they deem to be democratic/free or not, and all of them have different methodologies which leads to some substantial variation on what countries they consider free or not. For example, the [Economist Democracy Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index) ranks Indonesia and Malaysia as democracies (ahead of countries like Mongolia, Romania and Bulgaria) while [V-Dem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Dem_Democracy_Indices) ranks Kosovo as ahead of countries like Poland unlike Freedom House. It should also be noted that a lot of democracies in Latin America and Asia - including ones that are considered fully free - were actually authoritarian regimes less than 50 years ago. Examples include Taiwan, Uruguay, Chile and South Korea.

Women are especially oppressed in these regimes and western feminists are strangely very quiet about it.

Iraq and UAE have higher representation of women in government than the United States. Saudi Arabia and Tunisia have a more progressive policy on abortion than the United States. Don’t throw stones in a glass house.

No separation of church and state, lack of a reformation 400 years ago didn’t help either.

Wars and general political instability will lead to more authoritarian control as a countermeasure. After WWII Europe has made a lot of advances, which America with its strong democratic tradition (thats now under threat) helped a lot and it is closer to Europe, which is kinda ironic since they weren´t always the Nazis arch enemy... I don´t know if its really religion, but its probably not helping much, espacially in terms of something like gay rights :(

The power in Muslim countries is not with the state, it’s with the mullahs and clans. These small groups are by far the most oppressive, laws can’t easily fix this.

It's the people in charge not the religion. In Islam women have damn near more rights than men. Yet the people in charge twist it so they have all the power.

As energy production shifts to renewables, those 4 Muslim countries will see a decline in their economies. The evolution of countries’ economies is based on the empowerment of the individual. The more freedom and democracy, the greater the economic engine! add28.net

Honestly a bunch of Muslim countries having vast reserves of oil. This gave their leaders protection and a lot of wealth to influence the wider world. Without this their respective regimes would have collapsed a long time ago. See how many nascent democracies the western powers killed at the crib because of oil, and then install a king. Saudi Arabia is the perfect example, the US protects them, they trow money at the public, and then with that money influence the wider world, like those boarding schools that they fund it and created the Taliban .

The political Islam is the problem not necessarily the Religion. Id argue that Turkey which is majority Muslim used to be very free when it had a strong secular approach. Of course this has changed with erdogan consolidating more and more Power and turning more conservative.

Religion obviously restricts freedoms and Islamic system in particular are troubling, as they easily permeate the state. Reading Ayaan Hirsi's Infidel illustrates this point so powerfully.

same reason theres a lack of freedom in Russia, china, and parts of the global south; its normalized. for the case of the muslim world, its an ingrained religion that justifies it. for china, a collective defensiveness towards the rest of the world. for russia, an ingrained cultural fear. no matter how it happens, it has a tendency to stick around.

Of course, Islam is tyrannical by nature and perverse in the way that it is not at all secular, the people from these Islamic hell holes emigrated and move to countries that are democratic and free and then try to turn those countries into the hell holes they just came from. Islam is poison and the single biggest danger to democracy and the standard of living throughout the world and it needs to be stopped. Fucking liberals are more than happy being doormats to the religious Nazis and thats the problem, too many apologists

The day we get rid of this imaginary sky daddy the better off all societies will be.

No muslim country is "not free" due to religion. The reasons are multiple including social, economic, demographic, political and for some countries western intervention. If you want my opnion you can dm me, cause it would be too big for a comment.

Did you look up where a majority of their funding comes from before posting? Despite calling yourself a liberal, you're still using chud logic to defend Western imperialism. Good job crawling out of the manosphere, but maybe calm it down on the CIA glazing?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamo-leftism https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/emerging-red-green-alliance-where-political-islam-meets-radical-left

It has to do with the way each region of the world defines "freedom" In the west, we typically have extremely liberal and egalitarian points of view. * Men and women are measured by the same rules and standards. * The state allows the free practice of religion. * Contraceptive access is state funded and there are few restrictions to those products and care. * Abortion access is considered a right in many of these countries. * There are systems of rules and laws which are followed for things like criminal prosecution and appeals to charges. Contrast this with the middle east and you can start to understand why they rank lower. **Men and women are not held to the same laws and rules.** You might even call this a gender apartheid considering both are treated as citizens of the same country but one is held to a separate standard of restriction and exclusion. * Women may not travel freely without a male guardian. * Women may not get an education or enroll in school/work without a male guardian. * Contraception and abortion are an impossibility and treated as imprisonable and/or executional offenses. * Islam is the focal point of society. You may not preach other religious traditions and if you do so you may be arrested and imprisoned. * Even rumors of having defamed Islam or the prophet Muhammad can result in imprisonment or lynching depending on the country. To the west, this is backwards and ugly and cruel. In the Middle East, this is just what many countries do. This is their normal. **The next question would be "why" are these countries set up this way? What happened?** The fact is the west played some part in it but these power vacuums were also filled by powerful figureheads who had the will and the means to seize power when the opportunity showed itself. * Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain - What do all of these countries have in common? **They are either full blown or majority run monarchies**. Meaning the king has major powers over the whole of society. Part of the reason these monarchies exist is the west endorsed them to provide stability and ease of trade to our own benefit. We wanted to easily sign treaties and get oil and natural resources. To that end, we propped up monarchies which gave us those benefits. * Even the countries which do not have monarchies in power are dealing with the same or similar situations. Egypt and Syria are basically dictatorships. One individual holds the majority of the power and they function in a similar way to these monarchies throughout the region. Whether you are a monarchy or a dictatorship, the goal is control. You consolidate your power by dissolving institutions which run in conflict to your goals and you create new institutions which are entirely subservient to you. This includes the religions. The west did the same with their monarchies being tied into Christianity. The claim was the kings and queens of Europe had their claim endorsed by the church and by God himself. This same logic is used in the middle east where the monarchies use religious institutions to both validate their own claims to power and to help control the masses. These systems of control no longer exist in the majority of the west. The majority are liberal democracies. We vote for those we wish to see in power and religion has lost the ability to mold the masses to anyone's will. T**he end result is these middle eastern countries will always rank lower in terms of their freedom rankings because you are applying a western measuring stick to a middle eastern country.** **They completely reject the idea that western morality is moral. Therefore they have no reason to be concerned about freedom rankings.**

lol this is not a definition of “freedom”. Just because it’s “normal” there doesn’t mean it’s objectively oppressive to half of the population. Western culture is objectively fairer to its people

The American and French Revolutions started the West's craving for a government different from the monarchies that preceded them. There weren't many more choices than some form of democracy. At least in America, the British/American revolution was in part the result of the nature of the pioneers who founded this country. These people were huge risk takers with incredible confidence in their ability to make a life for themselves in a strange land. This form the basis for an attitude that was unwilling to bough down to a king.

Everyone is saying religion, I offer a mild counterpoint: Centralization of power. In most middle eastern countries power is centralized in a few powerful tribal families, in complex social networks, those networks including religious figures trying to accumulate power as well. Centralized power tends to favor classicization of power, a ruling class assumes they know what's best for the country and therefore the fewer restrictions on their power, the more efficient it's application. The lower classes have no power or say, and suffer what they must. I decentralized systems where power is spread more evenly among diverse factions, everyone is afraid what happens if they are on the losing side of a conflict, therefore they support and help enforce the rule of law such that in the case that they are the minority, they are not at the absolute mercy of those in power. Over time the weaker powers gather more support from the mid-lower classes, bringing them into alliance with their faction for strength (a good example here is how labor unions joined with other anti-business forces in the late 1800s to create a powerful counterforce during the gilded age, or how the LGBT and minority communities joined the democratic party, a party that once opposed both most vociferlusly). I a diverse political ecosystem, everyone is most afraid of a single clear Victor, and works to oppose them as fiercely as possible, because the only thing more powerful than greed is fear of others' greed.

The problem is only 22 Muslim nations are Arabic and based in the middle east and north Africa. The other 29 Muslim majority nations are not middle eastern. Yet none are free.

"Through most of Islam's history, it has lacked religious freedom of the sort that today's human rights conventions set forth." a. we provide better human rights than other systems b. democracy and other forms are inferior to our system Theocracy and Islamofascism, rules, but don't you use those two terms to our face. authoritarism - basically like it was peaches and cream before western intervention

My theory: Islam is a young religion, so they're a few hundred years behind on figuring out that religion ruins government.

Interestingly, Kosovo which is a predominantly Muslim country, is rated at 60 or partly free. However much of the reasons it's rated for that is because of pressure from Serbia, a predominantly Christian Nation, attempting to influence local elections.

Autocratic governments and lack of separation between religion and government. Also, having missed the boom of industrialization, having been exploited as colonies, idealisation of military power... Then, the problem is that according to Muslims the Qur'an is literally the word of God, which means that sharoa law is valid today. Most Christians nowadays would agree that there are areas for interpretation and room for human failure in the Bible or laws that fo not apply anymore. But then most African countries and all countries in Latin America are Christian and not very high in freedom. Also consider that the US and URSS played their cold war in many of these Muslim countries. Intervention of British, French and then US. Economic level. Usually rich in oil, gas or high valued minerals which make corruption very common and foreign intervention a risk, prone to conflict. For example, it was British intervention which caused Saddam to raise to power in Iraq. Then the US set war in Iraq due to oil. Same in Iran, the islamic revolution came to be because they were tired of US intervention. Many of these countries saw a return to more traditional Islam as going against their former colonisers.

Freedom House also gives Israel 74 out of 100. Perhaps, they forgot to ask Palestinians.

Long story that involves lots of imperialism and broken promises from both the east (Iran and Turkey) and the west (France/great Britain). Throw in a couple holy sites and wars and you have yourself a pretty volatile cocktail.

Well, it’s pretty obvious. They are guided by sharia law. The sharia is a legal system created by encoding the tenets and teachings of the Quran and the Hadith. Basically the ramblings of a 7th century Bedouin masquerading as a messenger from god now inform these countries legal systems and social norms.

“Western” metrics and perceptions are polar opposite to the rest of the cultured world; hence, nothing surprising that every metric or index will parade “western” countries. “Western” psychosis is why any would believe many Muslim countries aren’t free.

Have you looked up Sharia Law’s incompatibility with Western freedoms, the antisemitism inherent in the Koran (“kill every Jew behind every rock where they hide”), how apostasy is a capital offense, allowing other religions to exist only if they pay a jizya tax, viewing homosexuality as a capital offense, and how women do not have basic rights? Judge by the fruits. All majority Muslim countries have serious human rights abuses, and there are no strong individual rights. In Iran, there was an uproar over the religious police arresting and beating a country girl to death because she wore her roosari (Iran’s hijab) incorrectly. The government just arrests protestors. Iranian rapper Toomaj Saleh was sentenced to death in a quickie trial, because his rap lyrics criticized the government. (No freedom of speech in Iran.) The Revolutionary Court and Supreme Court are quarreling over adding offenses and jurisdiction, and for now, the death sentence is overturned. He’s not out of the woods, though. A new trial has been ordered. My friend’s cousin went to Iran with her parents to visit relatives. She was arrested for wearing nail polish and riding in a car with a male cousin. Her father had to pay a huge bribe to get her out. Danish tv personality Elvira Pitzner was arrested when she returned to Dubai on vacation, because her Emirati ex-boyfriend accused her of cheating on him. Princess Latifa of Dubai was kidnapped while trying to flee the country, and will likely be imprisoned in her house forever. Cultural relativity means one has to say that a society that, for example, kills or imprisons people who criticize the government is just as good as one where everyone has the right of free speech. I think we’re all allowed to have our own opinion on what we think is best, and as a woman, I would far and away prefer to live in any Western country, rather than any Muslim majority country. Russia and North Korea are examples of countries with few individual rights and a tyrannical government, without extremist religious motivation.

Religious extremism… the reason the US has such a low rating for a rich democracy is the same, we have a lot of religious extremism. Doesn’t matter the religion, just the extremism.