text:
Freedom of movement

Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country, and to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works.

Such a right is provided in the constitutions of numerous states, and in documents reflecting norms of international law. For example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:
 * "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
 * "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Some people and organizations advocate an extension of the freedom of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between the countries as well as within the countries. The freedom of movement is restricted in a variety of ways by various governments and may even vary within the territory of a single country. Such restrictions are generally based on public health, order, or safety justifications and postulate that the right to these conditions preempts the notion of freedom of movement.

Common restrictions
Restrictions on international travel on people (immigration or emigration) are commonplace. Within countries, freedom of travel is often more limited for minors, and penal law can modify this right as it applies to persons charged with or convicted of crimes (for example, parole, probation, registration). In some countries, freedom of movement has historically been limited for women, and for members of disfavored racial and social groups. Circumstances, both legal and practical, may operate to limit this freedom. For example, a nation that is generally permissive with respect to travel may restrict that right during time of war.

Restrictions may include the following:

 * national and regional official minimum wage tariff barriers to labour-market entry (free movement or migration of workers);
 * official identity cards (internal passports, citizenship licenses) that must be carried and produced on demand;
 * obligations on persons to register changes of address or of partner with the state authorities;
 * protectionist local/regional barriers to housebuilding and therefore settlement in particular districts;
 * trespassing into another individual's property.
 * motor vehicle normative road and highway design, in which pedestrian and bicycle access is severely restricted or absent

Freedom of movement between private properties
In some jurisdictions, questions have arisen as to the extent to which a private owner of land can exclude certain persons from land which is used for public purposes, such as a shopping mall or a park. There is also a rule of law that a landowner whose property has no public access can be awarded an easement to cross private land if necessary to reach his own property. Conversely, public nuisance laws prevent alternate use of public streets designated for public transit from being used for block parties and playing basketball.

Parents or other legal guardians are typically able to restrict the movements of minor children under their care, and of other adults who have been legally deemed incompetent to govern their own movement. Employers may legally set some restrictions on the movements of employees, and terminate employment if those restrictions are breached.

Domestic restrictions
Governments may generally sharply restrict the freedom of movement of persons who have been convicted of crimes, most conspicuously in the context of imprisonment. Restrictions may also be placed on convicted criminals who are on probation or have been released on parole. Persons who have been charged with crimes and have been released on bail may also be prohibited from traveling. A material witness may also be denied the right to travel.

Though travelling to and from countries is generally permitted (with some limitations), most governments restrict the length of time that temporary visitors may stay in the country. This can be dependent on country of citizenship and country travelled to among other factors. In some instances (such as those of refugees who are at risk of immediate bodily harm on return to their country or those seeking asylum), indefinite stay may be allowed on humanitarian grounds, but in most other cases, stay is generally limited. One notable exception to this is the free movement of people in the European Union, where citizens of any country in the EU and EFTA generally enjoy indefinite stay in other EU/EFTA countries.

Furthermore, restrictions on the right to relocate or live in certain areas of a country have been imposed in several countries, most prominently China.

In a child custody dispute, a court may place restrictions on the movement of a minor child, thereby restricting the ability of the parents of that child to travel with their child.

Entrance restrictions in certain countries

The Visa Restrictions Index ranks countries based on the number of other countries its citizens are free to enter without visa. Most countries in the world require visas or some other form of entrance permit for non-citizens to enter their territory. Those who enter countries in defiance of regulations requiring such documentation are often subject to imprisonment or deportation.

Exit restrictions in certain countries
Most countries require that their citizens leave the country on a valid passport, travel document issued by an international organization or, in some cases, identification document. Conditions of issuance and the governments' authority to deny issuance of a passport vary from country to country.

Under certain circumstances, countries may issue travel documents (such as laissez-passer) to aliens, that is, to persons other than their own citizens.

Having a passport issued does not guarantee the right to exit the country. A person may be prohibited to exit a country on a number of reasons, such as being under investigation as a suspect, serving a criminal sentence, being a debtor in default, or posing a threat to national security. This applies to aliens as well.

In some countries prohibition to leave may take the form of revocation of a previously issued passport. For example, the United States of America may revoke passports at will.

Some countries, such as the former Soviet Union, further required that their citizens, and sometimes foreign travelers, obtain an exit visa to be allowed to leave the country.

Currently, some countries require that foreign citizens have valid visas upon leaving the country if they needed one to enter. For example, a person who overstayed a visa in Czech Republic may need to obtain an exit visa. In Russia, the inconvenience goes even further as the legislation there does not formally recognize residency permits as valid visas; thus, foreign citizens lawfully residing in Russia need to obtain "exit-entry" visas in order to do a trip abroad. This, in particular, affects foreign students, whose original entry visas expire by the time they return home.

Citizens of the People's Republic of China who are residents of the mainland are required to apply for exit and entry endorsements in order to enter the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau (and SAR residents require a Home Return Permit to visit the mainland). Since 2016, residents of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region have been required to deposit their passports with the police. Each trip abroad must be approved by the government, which is more difficult for members of the Uyghur ethnic group.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar require all resident foreigners, but not citizens, to obtain an exit visa before leaving the country.

Europe
When Augustus established the Roman Empire in 27 BC, he assumed monarchical powers over the new Roman province of Egypt and was able to prohibit senators from traveling there without his permission. However, Augustus would also allow more liberty to travel at times. During a famine in 6 AD, he attempted to relieve strain on the food supply by granting senators the liberty to leave Rome and to travel to wherever they wished.

In England, in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of the Magna Carta:

 * It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

In the Holy Roman Empire, a measure instituted by Joseph II in 1781 permitted serfs freedom of movement.

The serfs of the Russian Empire were not given their personal freedom until Alexander II's Edict of Emancipation of 1861. At the time, most of the inhabitants of Russia, not only the serfs but also townsmen and merchants, did not have freedom of movement and were confined to their places of residence.

United Nations Declaration
After the end of hostilities in World War II, the United Nations was established on October 24, 1945. The new international organization recognized the importance of freedom of movement through documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, reads,
 * Universal Declaration of Human Rights - eng - ks.ogg(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
 * (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporates this right into treaty law:

 * (1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
 * (2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
 * (3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
 * (4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

The ICCPR entered into force for the initial ratifying states on 23 March 1976, and for additional states following their ratification. In 1999, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which is charged with interpreting the treaty, issued its guidelines for Article 12 of the ICCPR in its "General Comment No. 27: Freedom of Movement".

While the treaty sets out the freedom of movement in broad and absolute terms, part four of Article 12 of the ICCPR admits that these freedoms may be restricted for a variety of reasons in the public interest. This clause is often cited to justify a wide variety of movement restrictions by almost every country that is party to it.

COVID-19
During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on freedom of movement were implemented by many of the world's governments.

European Union
Within the European Union, residents are guaranteed the right to freely move within the EU's internal borders by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004. Union residents are given the right to enter any member state for up to three months with a valid passport or national identity card, and over three months with evidence of "sufficient resources... not to become a burden on the social assistance system". If the citizen does not have a travel document, the member state must afford them every facility in obtaining the documents. Under no circumstances can an entry or exit visa be required. There are some security limitations and public policy restrictions on extended stays by EU residents. For instance, a member state may require that persons register their presence in the country "within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time". In general, however, the burden of notification and justification lies with the state. EU citizens also earn a right to permanent residence in member states they have maintained an uninterrupted five-year period of legal residence. This residency cannot be subject to any conditions, and is lost only by two successive years absence from the host nation. Family members of EU residents, in general, also acquire the same freedom of travel rights as the resident they accompany, though they may be subject to a short-stay visa requirement. Furthermore, no EU citizen may be declared permanently persona non grata within the European Union, or permanently excluded from entry by any member state.

Workers
Freedom of movement for workers is a policy chapter of the acquis communautaire of the European Union. It is part of the free movement of persons and one of the four economic freedoms: free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. Article 45 TFEU (ex 39 and 48) states that:

 * 1) Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
 * 2) Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
 * 3) It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
 * (a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
 * (b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
 * (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
 * (d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
 * 1) The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Schengen Area
A different arrangement amongst 29 European countries, covers some but not all European Union member states together with some non-member states. The arrangement allows visa-free travel between the countries in this area, in general without border controls. A foreign national who holds a visa issued by any of these countries can travel freely within the area.

Nordic Passport Union
The Nordic Passport Union allows citizens of the Nordic countries – Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland – to travel and reside in another Nordic country without any travel documentation (e.g. a passport or national identity card) or a residence permit. Since 25 March 2001, all five states are also in the Schengen Area.

Mercosur
The Mercosur alliance between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay includes a freedom of movement area between its member states and five other associate states. Citizens don't require a passport to travel through other Mercosur or associate countries. Freedom of movement also extends to certain associated countries (Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), citizens of which can also travel to their territories without the need of a passport.

Central America
The Central America-4 Border Control Agreement abolished in 2006 land border checks among El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The countries have adopted a harmonized external border and visitor policy.

Australia and New Zealand
The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand allow citizens of each country to move between, and work within, the two countries with few limitations. The arrangements also extend to holders of permanent resident and resident return visas of Australia.

United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands
The Common Travel Area arrangements allow citizens of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and other British nationals resident in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to travel freely in this area. The arrangements also extend to certain foreign nationals who hold visas issued by these countries.

Gulf Cooperation Council
Saudi, Omani, Kuwaiti, Bahraini, Qatari, Emirati - Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) citizens do not need a visa to enter each others countries and they also have the right to work in each GCC country. GCC citizens can use a GCC national identity card (rather than a passport) to travel between these states.

Union State of Russia and Belarus
Freedom of movement between Russia and Belarus for local citizens exists similar to that which exists for British and Irish citizens within the Common Travel Area.

United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau
Citizens of the FSM, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States may enter, reside, study and work in each respective country indefinitely without a visa.

The Caribbean
Citizens of certain countries in the Caribbean (Antigua and Barbuda, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) may enter, reside, study and work in each respective country indefinitely without a visa.

Burma/Myanmar
The military regime in Burma has been criticized for allegations of restrictions to freedom of movement. These include restrictions on movement by political dissidents, women, and migrant workers.

China (mainland)
In the mainland of the People's Republic of China, the hukou system of household registration makes internal migration difficult, especially for rural residents to move to urban areas. Many people move to places in which they do not have a local hukou, but local governments can restrict services like subsidized schooling, subsidized housing, and health insurance to those with local hukou. The system was used as far back as the Han dynasty for tax collection, and more recently in the People's Republic to control urbanization. The Hukou system has also led many municipal governments to disregard the welfare of migrant workers as measures of wellbeing and economic progress are based almost exclusively on conditions for those with a local hukou.

Also, Chinese citizens are allowed to go from the mainland to Hong Kong or Macau only for travel, but not for residence unless they obtain the "one-way permit" from Chinese authorities. Currently, the issuance of the "one-way permit" is limited to 150 per day.

The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy claimed in 2000 that people in Tibet had to promise not to criticize the Chinese Communist Party before receiving official permission to leave for India or Nepal. Additionally, it alleged that people of Han descent in Tibet have a far easier time acquiring the necessary permits to live in urban areas than ethnic Tibetans do.

Hong Kong and Macau
As a part of the one country, two systems policy proposed by Deng Xiaoping and accepted by the British and Portuguese governments, the special administrative regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau retained separate border control and immigration policies with mainland China. Chinese nationals had to gain permission from the government before travelling to Hong Kong or Macau, but this requirement was officially abolished for each SAR after its respective handover. Since then, restrictions imposed by the SAR governments have been the limiting factor on travel.

Under Basic Law of Hong Kong article 31, "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of movement within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and freedom of immigration to other countries and regions. They shall have freedom to travel and to enter or leave the Region. Unless restrained by law, holders of valid travel documents shall be free to leave the Region without special authorization."

India

 * Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India though reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interest of the general public, for example, restrictions may be imposed on movement and travelling, so as to control epidemics.
 * Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, which is subject to reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of the general public, or for protection of the scheduled tribes because certain safeguards, as are envisaged here, seem justified to protect indigenous and tribal peoples from exploitation and coercion.

Israel
Israeli Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which has quasi-constitutional status, declares that "there shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise"; that "all persons are free to leave Israel"; and that "every Israeli national has the right of entry into Israel from abroad". In practice, stay of exit orders are liberally issued by Israel courts, including on non-custodial fathers who are not in arrears in child support. In March 2012 a corruption scandal led to the arrest of two officials for allegedly having taken bribes to circumvent court ordered "no exit" travel abroad bans. Freedoms of movement in Israel are not similarly protected and a source of much controversy in the Palestinian West Bank and, to a lesser extent, Gaza Strip.

Japan
The Constitution provides for the freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, immigration, and repatriation, and the Government generally respects them in practice. Citizens have the right to travel freely both within the country and abroad, to change their place of residence, to emigrate, and to repatriate voluntarily. Citizenship may be forfeited by naturalization in a foreign country or by failure of persons born with dual nationality to elect citizenship at the required age. The law does not permit forced exile, and it is not used.

Kuwait
Kuwait refuses admission to holders of Israeli passports as part of its boycott against Israel. In 2015 Kuwait Airways cancelled its route between New York and London following a decision by the U.S. Department of Transportation that the airline had engaged in discrimination by refusing to sell tickets to Israeli citizens. Direct flights between the US and Kuwait are not affected by this decision as Israeli citizens are not allowed to enter Kuwait.

North Korea
Travel to North Korea is tightly controlled. The standard route to and from North Korea is by plane or train via Beijing. Transport directly to and from South Korea was possible on a limited scale from 2003 until 2008, when a road was opened (bus tours, no private cars). Freedom of Movement within North Korea is also limited, as citizens are not allowed to move around freely inside their country.

Syria
Syrian citizens are prohibited from exiting the country without special visas issued by government authorities.

The Syrian Constitution states "Every citizen has the right to liberty of movement within the territory of the State unless prohibited therefrom under the terms of a court order or public health and safety regulations.". In its mandated report on human rights to the United Nations, Syria has argued that because of this constitutional protection: "in Syria, no laws or measures restrict the liberty of movement or choice of residence of citizens". Legislative Decree No. 29 of 1970 regulates the right of foreigners to enter, reside in and leave the territory of Syria, and is the controlling document regarding the issuance of passports, visas, and diplomatic travel status. The document specifically states "The latter provision is intended merely to ensure that our country is not the final destination of stateless persons."

However, Syria has been criticized by groups, including Amnesty International for restrictions to freedom of movement. In August 2005, Amnesty International released an "appeal case", citing several freedom of movement restrictions including exit restriction without explanation, refusal to issue passports to political dissidents, detention, restriction from entering certain structures, denial of travel documents, and denial of nationality. The United Nations Human Rights Committee issues regular reports on human rights in Syria, including freedom of movement.

There are certain restrictions on movement placed on Women, for example Syrian law now allows males to place restrictions on certain female relatives. Women over the age of 18 are entitled to travel outside of Syria, however a woman's husband may file a request for his wife to be banned from leaving the country. From July 2013, in certain villages in Syria (such as Raqqa and Deir el-Zour), ISIS no longer allow women to appear in public alone, they must be accompanied by a male relative/guardian known as a mahram. People who tried to leave ISIS territory were routinely tortured and executed.

Palestine
The restriction of the movement of Israelis and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority is one issue in the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the mid-1990s, with the implementation of the Oslo Accords and the division of the West Bank into three separate administrative divisions, Israeli freedom of movement was limited by law. Israel says that the regime of restrictions is necessary to protect Israelis both in Israel proper and in the West Bank.

Checkpoints exist throughout and at entrances and exits to the West Bank that limit the movement of non-Israelis on the basis of nationality, age, and sex among other criteria. While many such checkpoints are static, many are random, or move around frequently. Full closures of the West Bank to any entrance or exit are frequent, generally taking place on Jewish Holidays.

Residents of Gaza are only allowed to travel to the West Bank in exceptional humanitarian cases, particularly urgent medical cases, but not including marriage. It is possible to travel from the West Bank to Gaza only if the person pledges to permanently relocating to Gaza. Gazan residents are only admitted to Israel in exceptional humanitarian cases. Since 2008, they are not allowed to live or stay in Israel because of marriage with an Israeli. Israelis who want to visit their partner in Gaza need permits for a few months, and Israelis can visit their first‐degree relatives in Gaza only in exceptional humanitarian cases.

Africa
Freedom of movement laws and restrictions vary from country to country on the African continent, however several international agreements beyond those prescribed by the United Nations govern freedom of movement within the African continent. The African Charter on Human and People's Rights Article 12 outlines various forms of movement-related freedoms. It asserts: The ideals of the Charter are, in principle, supported by all signatory governments, though they are not rigorously followed. There have been attempts to have intellectuals recognized as having special freedom of movement rights, to protect their intellectual ideals as they cross national boundaries.
 * 1) Every individual shall have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a State provided he abides by the law.
 * 2) Every individual shall have the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country. This right may only be subject to restrictions, provided for by law for the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality.
 * 3) Every individual shall have the right, when persecuted, to seek and obtain asylum in other countries in accordance with laws of those countries and international conventions.
 * 4) A non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter, may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.
 * 5) The mass expulsion of non-nationals shall be prohibited. Mass expulsion shall be that which is aimed at national, racial, ethnic or religious groups.

South Africa
Under apartheid, freedom of movement for nonwhites was limited by pass laws beginning with the Natives (Urban Areas) Act 1923 requiring black men to have a pass with them to enter cities. After the National Party imposed apartheid in the 1950s, these laws were expanded to prohibit all non-whites from remaining in cities for longer than 72 hours. Beyond the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, the Constitution of South Africa also contains express freedoms of movement, in section 21 of Chapter 2. Freedom of movement is guaranteed to "everyone" in regard to leaving the country but is limited to citizens when entering it or staying in it. Citizens also have a right to a passport, critical to full exercise of the freedom of movement internationally.

France
Many countries mention freedom of movement in their constitutional texts, but France does not. Freedom of movement in France is ruled both by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Schengen Agreement of 1990, promoting freedom of movement and no more borders controls for European citizen on the European territory.

In theory, citizens in France are free to travel without any police control on the national territory. Although until the 1980s any person (either tourists or French citizens) had to fill up an information sheet then given to the police, writing on it its personal situation before booking a hotel room. This law does not exist anymore however.

Since the Schengen Agreement in 1990, freedom of movement slightly spread to 23 countries of the European Union (Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus are not members yet; Ireland maintains an opt-out), and to Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein as these countries own an associated status towards the EU. As European citizens, French people are free to go to one European country to another without restrictions.

France is one of the most welcomed countries in the world. Citizens are indeed able to travel to 186 destinations in the world, making France one of the most welcomed countries according to the Henley passport index.

Ireland
In Ireland, the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in November 1992 by referendum in order to ensure freedom of movement in the specific circumstance of a woman traveling abroad to receive an abortion. However, with the successful repeal of the Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution on 25 May 2018, which ensures the right to an abortion, this previous amendment is no longer necessary.

Italy
In Italy, freedom of movement is enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution, which states:

"Every citizen has the right to reside and travel freely in any part of the country, except for such general limitations as may be established by law for reasons of health or security. No restriction may be imposed for political reasons. Every citizen is free to leave the territory of the republic and return to it, notwithstanding any legal obligations."

Norway (Svalbard)
Uniquely, the Norwegian special territory of Svalbard is an entirely visa-free zone under the terms of the Svalbard Treaty.

Poland
Polish nationals holding dual citizenship are required to use Polish travel documents (a Polish passport or, within the European Union, a Polish National ID card (Dowód osobisty)) while travelling in the Schengen Area.

Poland requires all Polish citizens (including foreign citizens who are, who can be claimed to or are suspected to hold Polish citizenship) to enter and depart Poland using Polish travel documents.

Russia
Article 27 of The Russian Constitution states that "1.Every who legally stays in the territory of the Russian Federation shall have the right to free travel, choice of place of stay or residence. 2.Everyone may freely leave the Russian Federation. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to freely return to the Russian Federation."

Freedom of movement of Russian citizens around the country is legally limited in a number of situations, including the following:
 * In closed cities (mainly nuclear research centers). Special permits are necessary for both visiting and settling there.
 * In certain areas near Russia's international border.
 * In areas with declared state of emergency.
 * In the interests of justice (imprisonment, bailiff's order, arrest, undertaking not to leave during a criminal investigation etc.).
 * For citizens under military conscription.

Since the abandonment of propiska system in 1993, new legislation on registration of residence was passed. Unlike propiska, which was a permit to reside in a certain area, registration of residence as worded in the law is merely notification. According to the Russian legislation, there are two types of registration which a person may obtain simultaneously. Permanent registration is obligatory and gives the right for property ownership, temporary registration can be received for a period of time due to rental contract. However, administrative procedures developed "in implementation" of the registration law imposed some conditions on registration which effectively made it depend on the landlord's assent. Since landlords are often not willing to register tenants or guests in their properties due to tax payments, many internal migrants are prevented from performing their legal duty to register. Before 2004, it was common for police to fine those having failed to register within 3 working days at a place of stay. In 2004, the maximum permitted registration lag was raised to 90 days making prosecution infeasible, removing practical obstacles to free movement.

The Russian citizens' right to leave Russia may be legally suspended on a number of reasons including:
 * The case of obtaining access to classified documents while working for the state or the military, during the time when access is granted and up to 5 years afterwards. This limitation is commonly included as a provision in one's contract of employment.
 * Detention on being prosecuted as a defendant or suspicion of committing a crime.
 * Military conscription.

According to the 62 article of the Russian Constitution, citizen of Russia may have the citizenship of a foreign State (dual citizenship), but that does not "free him from the obligations stipulated by the Russian citizenship". Russian citizens possessing foreign citizenship may not enter or leave Russia on foreign travel documents. Russian consular offices do not grant visas to foreign passport holders who are (or are suspected to be) Russian citizens.

Serbia
Everyone has the right to move and settle freely in the Republic of Serbia, to leave it, and to return to it.

Freedom of movement and residence and the right to leave the Republic of Serbia may be restricted by the law if this is necessary for the conduct of criminal proceedings, protection of public order and peace, prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, or defense of the Republic of Serbia.

Turkey
According to Article 23 of the Turkish Constitution, each individual in the Republic of Turkey has the right to travel from one place to another.

The freedom of a citizen to travel abroad may be restricted due to his / her citizenship duty or criminal investigation or prosecution.

Citizens can neither be deported nor denied entry into the country.

United Kingdom
Britons have long enjoyed a comparatively high level of freedom of movement. Apart from Magna Carta, the protection of rights and liberties in this field has tended to come from the common law rather than formal constitutional codes and conventions, and can be changed by Parliament without the protection of being entrenched in a constitution.

It has been proposed that a range of specific state restrictions on freedom of movement should be prohibited under a new or comprehensively amended Human Rights Act. The new basic legal prohibitions could include: road tolls and other curbs on freedom of travel and private vehicle ownership and use; personal identity cards (internal passports, citizenship licenses) that must be produced on demand for individuals to access public services and facilities; and legal requirements for citizens to register changes of address or partner with the state authorities.

Canada
The Constitution of Canada contains mobility rights expressly in section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights specified include the right of citizens to leave and enter the country and the right of both citizens and permanent residents to move within its boundaries. However, the subsections protect poorer regions' affirmative action programs that favour residents who have lived in the region for longer. Section 6 mobility rights are among the select rights that cannot be limited by the Charter's notwithstanding clause.

Canada's Social Union Framework Agreement, an agreement between governments made in 1999, affirms that "All governments believe that the freedom of movement of Canadians to pursue opportunities anywhere in Canada is an essential element of Canadian citizenship." In the Agreement, it is pledged that "Governments will ensure that no new barriers to mobility are created in new social policy initiatives."

United States
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).

Internationally, § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (currently codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1185), it is unlawful for a United States citizen to enter or exit the United States without a valid United States passport.

The State Department refused to issue passports to citizens who declined to swear that they were not Communists. This practice was ended following the 1958 Supreme Court Case Kent v. Dulles.

Australia
No federal Australian legislation guarantees freedom of movement within the Commonwealth of Australia. Various Australian laws restrict the right on various grounds. Until 1 July 2016, Norfolk Island had immigration controls separate from those of the remainder of Australia and a permit was required for Australian citizens or residents to enter. In August 2014 the Australian Commonwealth Government proposed regulating the rights of Australian citizens to travel to and from designated areas associated with terrorism.

Saint Martin
In the island of Saint Martin, divided between Sint Maarten (part of the Netherlands) and the Collectivity of Saint Martin (part of France), freedom of movement is allowed between both halves of the island as stated in the 1648 Treaty of Concordia. It is possible that this may have influenced the development of a common identity in the island, which has led to a proposed unification of it.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Freedom of movement


text: Talk:Ghost of a Dog

title: Talk:Ghost of a Dog


text:
Band of the 10th of December

The Band of the 10th of December was a secret Bonapartist society organized mainly from among lumpen proletariat, opportunists, and military leaders. The society helped progress Napoleon III's election as president of the Republic of France on December 10, 1848.

It is also known as "Society of December 10" and it is analyzed in great detail by Karl Marx in his essay The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.

title: Band of the 10th of December


text: User talk:69.105.54.67

title: User talk:69.105.54.67


text:
Talk:Islam and democracy

Lets cut it clear
Democracy = (the will of the people.) Islamic Law "Shari'ah" = (the will of the Almighty Allah and the rights of the people.)

Big difference guys, if you think about it nicely Democracy is a Distorted Copy of Shari'ah Law, this is a fact when we go and have a look through our history books. Shari'ah Law is as free and fare as it can be, Law is Law it has it's freedoms and it's limits. If we compare the two systems Shari'ah is a complete system of law and therefore does not need or have any adjustment or ammendments to be made to it where as with the democratic system it constantly changes and every democratic country changes it to suit their own liking what is law in one place is not law in another. Shari'ah Law never changes so when we talk about Islamic Democracy we are talking about Shari'ah Law the official Muslim Law. Do better research guys seriously some of you don't make sense. Islaam is an investigative religion it is only based on logical evidence, if you study religion and politics and start to view things more openly without a closed mind you actually find historical gold. Thanks for your views there are some good points made here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.106 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Democracy is a distorted copy of sharia law? That is a joke right?  Democracy predates sharia by more than a millenium. I don't know to which history book you are referring, but it certainly isn't a history book with actual history in it.    Sharia is as "free and fare[sic] as it can be? I guess that is true if you work from the belief that Islam is intolerant and backward, which it clearly is. If you accept the fact that Islam will never treat women, homosexuals, non-Muslims, essentially anyone who is not a heterosexual Muslim man,  any better than second class citizens, then yes, I suppose sharia is as "fare" as it could be. And if you labor under the assumption that sharia will always proscribe the free practice of non-Muslim religions, and will continue to call for the execution of apostates and the taxing and subjugation of non-Muslims, then yes I suppose it will always be as "free" as it is now as well.  Islam is only based on logical evidence?  The phrase logical evidence doesn't belong in a sentence describing any religion, and that is doubly true of Islam. And calls for openness are pretty hilarious coming from an adherent of the most intolerant ideology of the past 14 centuries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@74.141.154.75 can you actually have a deeper understanding of how the Sharia law works, please? It isn't as simple as you think it is. GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of this article, and what to be discussed
As I look at this article, it seems that it's very unclear what the issue to be discussed/described is. When we talk about the relationship between Islam and democracy, there are two separate questions being conflated (thus the confusion and argument about the page).

The first question is a matter of doctrine/philosophy. Is Islam compatible with the tenets of liberal democracy? It's not as though there's a definitive, timeless answer to this question. The issue seems to be to define the positions/stances of the various interested parties--different Islamic movements, major theologians and religious leaders, Western writers in the Orientalist tradition, Western writers in other traditions.

The second question is an empirical one. Is there a correlation between Islamic beliefs and support (or rejection) of democratic values? A relationship between Islamic piety and a particular vision of good government? Or, on the aggregate level, is there a causal relationship between a country having a large historically Muslim population and its achieved level of democracy? There is a very active academic research agenda on these questions in political science and sociology using a wide range of data.

These issues must be dealt with separately. Philosophical/Theological claims don't tell us anything at all about the second set of questions--only data collected through observation can. I'll try to find time to come in and do this myself, but I think the current organization of the article puts all the weight on the first set of questions, and makes it seem like there is an obvious, indisputable link between the assertions of religious or government officials and political outcomes, which may be (but isn't necessarily) true. 66.191.124.53 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)h

I agree with these points. I've added a table which deals with the second question (correlation of democracy/islamic beliefs), and also shows which states are Islamic states, state religion or neither. I think this also helps to juxtapose western ideas of democracy with non-western ideas, and clarify Islamic republic v Islamic state v majority muslim state. I've linked to this from List of Muslim majority countries, Islam and secularism, and democracy in the middle east. Halon8 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Idea
Interesting idea, but too one sided, and as said on the deletion page, an essay. The article could explore Islamo-democratic regimes such as Turkey, but doesn't really do so.

p.s. I have tried editing this article into something respectable. The user Livajo (?) pointed out a copyright violation. I have appended a list of Islamic democracies.

Before you even read the discussion here at Wiki you must read the link I've provided first
http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/democracy-vs-our-religion/

Al-Faarooq the current head and Rep of the UMN challenges the Democratic System VS Shariah and wants to take the matter up in a court of law on the Intl Level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.106 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

VFD discussion
This article was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is available at Votes for deletion/Islamic Democracy

Possible copyright problem in history
Below text moved from Copyright problems listing from December 12:

 * Islamic Democracy from . [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 23:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rewritten in place, still on survived VFD --rbrwr± 23:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Friction between western democracies and Islam
I've removed this section twice now. I don't think it's relevant to this article, given the clear definition on its scope with which it starts. I think the discussion is worth an article, but it needs to be created and linked from elsewhere, not from this page. --G Rutter 14:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Why? (roll) I think it is perfectly relevant, which is why I included it. Otherwise it's going to have some godawful long title like "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_between_western_democracies_and_Islam_in_a_political_context" ! If it was elsewhere, it would probably end up becoming something quite different, and a target for both redneck American fundamentalists and middle eastern Islamic fundamentalists at the same time... Come to think of it, why did you cut that part out, but leave the piece about the former Soviet Union in?

 * I left the Soviet section in as it's a start to discussing the democratization (or not) of predominately Muslim countries in central Asia. Your section is on Muslims living in the West and they're treated by those countries, which is outside the scope of this article. How about "Islam and Western democracies" or something like that? You could link to it from the Democracy article for at start. Actually, there's probably two articles there- one on the French ban (there's a one sentence mention in the Democracy article) and one on the relations between Islam and the West - the Shabina Begum case in the UK would make an interesting discussion. Let me know when you create them and I'll try and help. --G Rutter 18:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that this section should be restored. Islam and Western Democracies have had a long interaction, and this has affected Islamic perception of democracy. European imperialism in North Africa, and current American occupation and involvement in large sections of the middle east also affects this. Turkey's possible future into the EU, is also involvement with western democracies, and will dictate the fate of a large region. MacRusgail 16:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkey
"The Turkish government supports mosques, and requires religious instruction for all students. " By reading this and the previous sentence I get the impression that Turkey has always supported religious education which is incorrect. Religious education was injected into Turkish education by the 1980 military junta.

The more I look at this article the clearer it becomes that this article is beyond recovery and should be deleted. It is fundamentally flawed. What is Islamic Democracy? First paragraph talks about types of democracies. But following the same rule one can arrive at a definitions like Christian Democracy, Buddhist Democracy. But I have not seen a section with these names.

Germany
Hi, I put back Germany as a democratic country with a significant Muslim minority. I think it depends what you call "significant" of course, but according to Wikipedia's article, "Approximately 3.7 million Muslims (mostly of Turkish descent) live in Germany." Germany has a population of "82,531,700" according to the same article. They're certainly one of the more visible minorities there. There's not many of them in rural areas, but Berlin has a large Muslim population I think. See what you think...

- R. Bell
 * personally I think it's a significant minority, but you only need one example of a European country. Kappa 08:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The French and German governments seem to have taken very different approaches towards Muslims, and Muslim immigrants. France has clamped down on the burqa, but Germany seems to be much more open.

Why isn't Iran in the list of countries for Islamic democracies?
Just an interesting question that I had, for whoever that wants to answer it. Why isn't the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran considered a democracy according to your list??? Is it because your definition of democracy differs from what the Islamic republic offers? If yes I would love to know what aspects of it conflict with democracy in your opinion, since there are elections, a parliament, a popularly elected president, and ...

M.T

 * I've now added Iran to the list- you could have added it yourself you know. I didn't write the list, so I don't know why Iran wasn't included, but it could have been a mistake. Of course the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts do wield undemocratic influence over the electoral process, etc but given the other countries on the list I don't think that Iran should necessarily be excluded. --G Rutter 09:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iran is not a democracy, due to the supreme ruler. This would make it more of a semi-presidential Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snkla2 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst Iran is not a "western democracy" it does have free and fair elections most of the time. The Supreme Ruler acts as a chief jurist, and in any case is appointed by the parlaiment --Tutan89 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Algeria
Given the change in the political scene in Algeria, the country needs to be added to the list. The influence of the military is still playing a role somehow but the last presidential elections in April 2004 was witnessed to be fair by international monitors. Morever, the president Bouteflika (in his second term winning 85% of the electoral vote) has promised to solve the problem in the Berber region of Kabayle as well as to free women from restrictive family codes (following somehow the example of Morocco) and introducing the second version of the so-called “true national reconciliation” from the civil war.

Any comments? Svest 14:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. I think that "democratic" is a relative term, and is not absolute or constant. In addition, some regions of a state can be more democratic than others. Put it in, if you haven't already. MacRusgail 16:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

New edits
I congratulate the work of Guy Montag for monitoring the article! W/O that effort we'd end up with almost "500" countries in the list, including Jupiter and probably Israel itself. Cheers -- Svest 00:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Morocco (North Africa) (98.7%)
Should it be mentioned that Morocco is an occupying force in Western Sahara? That isn't particularly democratic. - FrancisTyers 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic democracy? Turkey?

POV
Farhoudk 12:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The references are made in wrong direction than the context. It is a kind of offensive action against personalities.
 * It is better to discuss about Iran in subsections rather than preamble.
 * Ruhollah Khomeini is belongs to recent years. It is better to mension other people from past centuries also. See Hassan Modarres etc.

Translations
Could someone with knowledge in the source language please clean up the Notes section? It's difficult to understand what e.g. the following means:

"'When not referring to the people votes results in accuse of tyranny then it is allowed to resign ourselves to people vote but as secondary commandments like eating corpse'"

clacke 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "When not referring to the people votes results in accuse of tyranny then it is allowed to accept people vote as a secondary commandments, like eating corpse"

 * Primary commandment: Eating corpse of animals is Haraam.
 * Secondary commandment: In case one is in danger of death due to hunger then he/she has permission to eat as much as prevents his/her death. So it turns to Halaal in this case. But as you can see it is conditional.

 * The quoted sentence shows week compatibility of their POV and democracy, since it is conditional. As you can see in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy#Shia.27s_viewpoint the idea of Khomeini is completely different.
 * Farhoudk 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. I've never heard of secondary commandments before, since I haven't studied Islamic concepts much. But the sentence is still not correct English, and quite hard to follow, so I was hoping that someone could make it more readable. Does it mean something like this?

 * "If not letting the people vote would result in accusations of tyranny, then voting is allowed as a second commandment, like when eating the corpse of an animal." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClaesWallin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

 * Yap. "referring to" is better translation than "letting" Farhoudk 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"majority religion"
it is completely untenable to call an "Islamic democracy" any democracy that happens to have an Islamic majority population. By this argument, France would be a "Roman Catholic democracy", and India a "Hindu democracy", both countries upholding strict separation of church and state, as does Turkey. Saying that Islamic democracies "attempt to reconcile Islam with a secular, democratic state" is nonsense. Nobody ever said a democratic state needs to be secular. A democratic state is first and foremost anything the electorate bloody well wants it to be. A country can very well be democratic and not secular. Saying that they "attempt" to reconcile Islam with democracy is hilarious pov, implying that this is somehow more difficult than reconciling Christianity with democracy (we would need to state that "Greece is attempting to reconcile Orthodox Christianity with a democratic state". dab (𒁳) 10:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that whilst I agree that whilst Turkey is commonly reffered to as a secular republic, it does not separate whurch and state, wuite the opposite. Islam in Turkey is the established religion, and the only religion administrated by the state. That's not to say you could call it an Islamic Democracy andy more than you could call the UK an "Anglican Democracy" -but it's not secular in the same way as India or the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.20.16 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A very poor definition
"A democratic state where the majority of the population are Muslim"

Following this wonderful piece of logic, can we conclude that France, Italy, Spain etc. are "Christian democracies"?

And Turkey is a secular republic. It's more secular than Greece, Norway as they have official religions.

Thus I'm going to remove the associated parts. You may clean up the mess, but don't undo it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, referring to Iran as a democracy is stretching the definition of democracy so far as to render it meaningless. Iran is ruled by an unelected body of clerics; that is not democracy.

Turkey is a Secular Greco-Roman democracy with a Islamic majority population
It is a Islamic country or a state with Islamic majority population but with a governmental system based on a secular Greco-Roman (also called 'Western') model of democracy, although it may have Islamic parties. The Turkish government is not based on a model of Islamic democracy which is Islamic Shouracracy - a party-less republic.ILAKNA (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reliable source that support this position? A  ecis Brievenbus 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What about political parties?
I feel this article would be improved by mentioning the various political parties that stand for some sort of 'Islamic democracy' - i.e., Islamic parties that accept and work within a democratic system. Examples include Turkey's AK Party, Malaysia's UMNO party, the Pakistan Muslim League and various parties in Indonesia. See this article from The Economist: Terraxos (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamic democracy
The presence of Islamic parties in a Greco-Roman democracy modeled system of government in an Islamic country ie. with a majority of Islamic population & even if provided in the constitution that Islam will be the prevailing religion, although 'labelled so' does not turn it into a Islamic Democracy which is Islamic Shouracracy - a party-less republic For a government to be a 'Islamic democracy', the label has to match with the contents also. This applies to all these kinds of governments wherever they may be.ILAKNA (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reliable source that supports this position? A  ecis Brievenbus 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[Q:5:50]("Do they want the rule of the Ignorance {ie. not based on God's guidance} & who is better from God in rule {as He is the All-Knowing & the All-Wise, no one is knowing more than Him because He has always existed since from before the beginning of creation & there was no time that He did not exist, no one is wiser than Him because He has created everything so He has the detailed knowledge of everything because He has designed it so He knows how everything works} for a people who are certain" {about God}). As per this text, the Greco-Roman democracy qualifies as the rule of Ignorance & not rule of Islam. The rule of Islam is Shouracracy [Q:42:38] or Islamic Democracy. The detail of working of Islamic democracy was posted here.ILAKNA (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

POV
The two definitions provided don't match the definition of democracy. It all seems like a kind of contradictio in terminis to me. PS I've your so found of your regimes, get your own word for it and don't abuse the Greek language. Bombshell (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any other POV issues besides this smallminded drivel? What are the reasons this article is tagged npov? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.191.15 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way is that objection small-minded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is an insult to the readers intelligence to say that Iran is a democracy
Everybody knows that the Basij stages the elections. Only mullah approved candidates are allowed to run. The Basij militia does the vote counting and runs the places where you can 'vote'. All employed people in the gov't and private sector has to turn up and get their ID cards stamped so the Mullahs can see that they have voted 'correctly'. If you want proof, look it up on Google. Please don't be a coward and delete this. This is related to the composition of the article. 87.59.78.18 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Move
Move to Islam and democracy. -Stevertigo 06:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How is that possible?
How can this be possible? Islam doesn't seem democratic. Lucas Duke (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoax?

 * I guess I'm confused as to how this article is a hoax. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph
hi

Ive made a few changes, but with your supprot with like to make a few more. The link to harvard study does not work :/

1. A firmly secular state which recognizes no state religion and religious doctrines and ideas play no role in development of laws. Although public opinion may lead to influence on some laws

2. A democratic state which recognizes Islam as state religion, such as Malaysia, Algeria, or Maldives are examples of Islamic Democracies. Some religious values are incorporated into public life by elected represenatives, but the intepretation of Islamic law lies with elected representaives. The extent to which the goverment enforces religious princples in public life like alcohol ban are limited is not the only source of law.

2. A "democratic" state which endeavours to institute Sharia. It is also called as Islamic theocratic democracy.[1] Islamic Theocracies offers more broad range of inclusion of Islam principles into the affairs of the state.The Role of goverment and security services extends into enforcing every religious edict. States like Iran (and saudi arabia, but saudi is not a democracy) are firm proponents of this form. The extent to which the goverment enforces the religion is set in the constition and laws are regarding affairs to do with religoin e.g crime are interpreted by scholars. Whilst elected representives decide non religious things like Taxation and Envirometnal policy

I think the word islamist has negative connations ? --Tutan89 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

also with pakistan, that country has a parliament and scholars play not role in govt.Some leaders like Shaukat Aziz where very secular and others like Nawaz Sharif where not so.It depedns on the party in power and if the party in power wants to form an electoral alliance with conservative religous parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutan89 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

edit : why does freedom house get to decide which countries are democracies ? different states have different levels of freedom according to the unique security and political enviroment. In Europe you are now allowed to carry guns or deny the holocaust does freedom house regard that as undemocratic ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutan89 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What in the world does carrying a gun or denying the Holocaust have to do with a country's status as a democracy? Freedom House refers to most majority-Muslim states as undemocratic because they don't hold legitimate, systematic elections to determine who leads a particular country.  They are called undemocratic because that is exactly what they are.  And isn't it amazing how the "level of freedom" of virtually every Majority-Muslim state is so low as to be essentially non-existent? I guess the security and political environment found in each of those countries isn't that "unique" after all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Table on democracy indices
I would like to see the table on democracy indices kept for the following reasons

1. It provides a lot of useful information in a concise form, rather than having a wall of text.

2.It provides a useful counterpoint to the 'in practice' sections. The indices definitely have their flaws and present a certain western viewpoint, but they are widely used, and so ought to be included.

3. The 'in practice' section can never be long enough to include discussion on all countries, but the table provides many links.

4. It demonstrates the wide variety of islamic democracies, as well as providing contextual information i.e. countries that are in the muslim world but have a secular government (whether democratic or not). Since 'islamic democracy' means many different things to different people, I think it's useful to show the variety.

5. There is a similar table on the democracy in the middle east page, so the rationale is probably similar.

6. A lot of this material is likely to end up back in the text. It's much clearer as a table.

Please discuss Halon8 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for claim
It is my opinion that a citation is needed for the following claim, taken from the "Sunni viewpoint" section. It is its own paragraph.

"Furthermore, counter arguments to these points assert that this attitude presuppose democracy as a static system which only embraces a particular type of social and cultural system, namely that of the post-Christian West."

This is a claim that cannot be distilled from the content that precedes it, and it needs its own citation. I added a "citationneeded" template. If you wish to talk to me for some reason, please use my user talk page, instead of replying on this article's talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Using the Koran as a reference
I am not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to use the Koran as a reference in this article, unless it specifically mentions democracy's role in Islam, as it would be a primary source, and constructing an argument with material from the Koran would be original research. However, such an argument could be made in a secondary or tertiary source, which would need to be given as a reference. Previously, two references in the article were verses from the Koran. I changed them into mentions, instead. The references were in the "Sunni viewpoint" section of the article, and the paragraph starts, "Muslim democrats". If you wish to talk to me for some reason, please use my user talk page, instead of replying on this article's talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141107131744/http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/liaquat19490309.html to http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/liaquat19490309.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamic democracy
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic democracy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From Iran: А. Г. Булатова. Лакцы (XIX — нач. XX вв.). Историко-этнографические очерки. — Махачкала, 2000. From Religion in ancient Rome: Beard et al., Vol. 1, 1; 189 - 90 (Aeneas and Vesta): 123 - 45 (Aeneas and Venus as Julian ancestors). See also Vergil, Aeneid''. From Saudi Arabia: Malbouisson, p. 23 From Judaism and politics: Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages From Belgium: BuG 159 – Bericht uit het Gewisse – 7 mei 2012. npdata.be (7 May 2012). From Mohammad Khatami:  From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: </li> <li>From Burkina Faso: Rupley, p. 28</li> <li>From Socialism: Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859</li> <li>From Abbasid Caliphate: Morony, Michael G. Iraq after the Muslim conquest. Gorgias Press LLC, 2005</li> <li>From Protestantism and Islam: The Jamestown project by Karen Ordahl Kupperman</li> <li>From Hindu nationalism: </li> <li>From Suppression of Freemasonry: "Freemasonry and the Spanish Civil War: Part II", by Matthew Scanlan retrieved 19 August 2009</li> <li>From Caliphate: http://www.alislam.org/egazette/updates/the-islamic-khilafat-its-rise-fall-and-re-emergence/ The Islamic Khilafat – Its Rise, Fall, and Re-emergence</li> <li>From Fiqh: </li> <li>From Yemen: </li> <li>From Bosniaks: Ramet 2006, p. 49.</li> <li>From Khawarij: Abul A'la Maududi, Khilafat-o-Malookeyat (Caliphate and kingship), (Urdu), p 214.</li> <li>From Islamism: UMNO Online. UMNO's Constitution: Goal 3.3. From:</li> <li>From Soviet–Afghan War: </li> <li>From Salafi movement: Dawood al-Shirian, 'What Is Saudi Arabia Going to Do?' Al-Hayat, May 19, 2003</li> <li>From All Parties Hurriyat Conference: </li> <li>From Islamic philosophy: "This intellect is separate, unaffected, and unmixed [...] In separation, it is just what it is, and this alone is immortal and eternal" (De Anima 430a18, 23-24).</li> <li>From Individualism: L. Susan Brown. The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism, and Anarchism. BLACK ROSE BOOKS LID. 1993</li> <li>From Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan: </li> <li>From Osama bin Laden: "Bin Laden was granted Bosnian passport", Agence France-Presse, September 24, 1999.</li> <li>From Philippines: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/208472.pdf</li> <li>From Hamas: Civilian death toll rises after second day of air strikes The Guardian (UK), December 29, 2008</li> <li>From List of political parties in Egypt: </li> <li>From Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain: "The roots of nationalism in the Muslim World" Chapter title by Shabir Ahmed and Abid Karim</li> <li>From Succession to Muhammad: Nahj al-Balagha Sermon 71, Letter 27, Letter 34, Letter 35</li> <li>From Civil society: Pawel Stefan Zaleski, Neoliberalizm i spoleczenstwo obywatelskie (Neoliberalism and Civil Society), Wydawnictwo UMK, Torun 2012</li> <li>From Jesus in Islam: "Yahya b. Zakariyya", Encyclopedia of Islam.</li> <li>From Kosovo: https://books.google.com/books?id=WX4hAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=kosovo+no+official+religion&source=bl&ots=mbIXHNB6Np&sig=JUAHkkUcBmYc-xKTo2z49HWxwpk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAzgKahUKEwiLqKaPu-fHAhWXCY4KHXG9DAg#v=onepage&q=kosovo%20no%20official%20religion&f=false</li> <li>From Sierra Leone: Kingfisher Geography encyclopedia. ISBN 1-85613-582-9. p. 180</li> <li>From Islam and Mormonism: "Fasting and Fast Offerings", lds.org.</li> <li>From Religious aspects of Nazism: Time/Life book "The Third Reich - The SS"</li> <li>From Taliban: Burns, John F. "Pakistan Says Taliban Demands Evidence That Bin Laden Is Tied to Attacks." The New York Times. 2001-09-18</li> <li>From South Thailand insurgency: </li> <li>From Ruhollah Khomeini: "Khomeini bans broadcast music", New York Times, 24 July 1979</li> <li>From United Arab Emirates: Senior UAE official arrested over driver attack. ArabianBusiness.com. Retrieved 26 January 2014.</li> <li>From Islam in Ireland: Census 2011 Results: Profile 7 Religion, Ethnicity and Irish Travellers – Ethnic and Cultural Background in Ireland.</li> <li>From Christian Zionism: Sermon preached June 1864 to London Society for promoting Christianity among the Jews</li> <li>From Religious pluralism: "Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an" by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad. Part 2, Argument 4 Section labeled “A Grand Conception”</li> <li>From Sovereignty: </li> <li>From Sayyid Qutb: Hasan, S. Badrul, Syed Qutb Shaheed, Islamic Publications International, 2nd ed. 1982</li> <li>From Hezbollah: Reuters, September 12, 2006; Al-Hayat (London), September 13, 2006</li> <li>From Pakistani general election, 2013: </li> <li>From Soviet democracy: See note regarding Library of Congress Country Studies. Chapter 8 - Government Structure and Functions</li> <li>From Abul A'la Maududi: Azam, K.M., Hayat-e-Sadeed: Bani-e-Dar ul Islam Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan (A Righteous Life: Founder of Dar ul Islam Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan), Lahore: Nashriyat, 2010 (583 pp., Urdu) [ISBN 978-969-8983-58-1]</li> <li>From The Guardian: Audit Bureau of Circulations Ltd– abc.org.uk</li> <li>From Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula: </li> <li>From Panun Kashmir: </li> <li>From Communitarianism: Pawel Stefan Zaleski, Neoliberalizm i spoleczenstwo obywatelskie (Neoliberalism and Civil Society), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Torun 2012.</li> <li>From Communism: </li> <li>From Hizb ut-Tahrir: Whine, “Hizb ut-Tahrir in Open Societies”, in The Challenge of Hizb ut-Tahrir.</li> <li>From Astronomy in the medieval Islamic world: </li> <li>From Iranian Revolution: E. Baqi, `Figures for the Dead in the Revolution`, Emruz, July 30, 2003.</li> <li>From Creativity (religion): </li> <li>From Jewish feminism: </li> <li>From Feminism in India: Chaudhuri, Maitrayee. Feminism in India (Issues in Contemporary Indian Feminism). New York: Zed, 2005.</li> <li>From Umayyad Caliphate: A Chronology Of Islamic History 570-1000 CE, By H.U. Rahman 1999 Page 128</li> <li>From Two-nation theory: Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan</li> <li>From Fascism: Marco Piraino, Stefano Fiorito. Fascist Identity. P39-41.</li> <li>From Gandhism: Encyclopaedia of Indian philosophy by Vraj Kumar Pandey – History – 2007</li> <li>From Muhammad Asad: Azam, K.M., (A Righteous Life: Founder of Dar ul Islam Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan), Lahore: Nashriyat, 2010 (583 pp., Urdu) [ISBN 978-969-8983-58-1]</li> <li>From Islamofascism: .</li> <li>From Hussein-Ali Montazeri: </li> <li>From Islam and violence: R. Peters, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman et al., Brill, ISBN 978-9004161214, see article on Zinā</li> </ul>

Reference named "Haimzadeh":<ul> <li>From Islamism: </li> <li>From National Forces Alliance: </li> </ul>

Reference named "meforum.org":<ul> <li>From Saudi Arabia: </li> <li>From Islamism: A. Nizar Hamzeh "Islamism in Lebanon: A Guide to the Groups", Middle East Quarterly, 1997, 4, 47-53.</li> </ul>

Reference named "ReferenceB":<ul> <li>From Creativity (religion): </li> <li>From Jewish feminism: </li> <li>From Socialism: "Socialism" at Encyclopedia Britannica</li> <li>From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: </li> <li>From Bosniaks: Mustafa Imamović – Historija Bošnjaka</li> <li>From Gaza Strip: Hamas Fights Over Gaza's Islamist Identity New York Times, 5 September 2009</li> <li>From Taliban: "US resolute on Bin Laden hunt</li> <li>From Abu Bakr: Nahj al-Balagha Sermon 71, Letter 27, Letter 34, Letter 35</li> <li>From Hizb ut-Tahrir: Prosecution Opening Note, The Queen v Parveen Akther Sharif, Zahid Hussain Sharif, Tahira Shad Tabassum, Central Criminal Court, London, April 1, 2004</li> <li>From Pakistani general election, 2013: </li> <li>From Panun Kashmir: </li> <li>From United Arab Emirates: Public kissing can lead to deportation | The National. Thenational.ae (7 July 2008). Retrieved on 26 November 2015.</li> <li>From List of political parties in Egypt: </li> <li>From Fiqh: Muawiya Restorer of the Muslim Faith By Aisha Bewley Page 68</li> <li>From Hamas: Hamas Fights Over Gaza's Islamist Identity The New York Times, September 5, 2009</li> <li>From Kosovo: https://books.google.com/books?id=R1vU9p9ftlsC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=kosovo+constitution+article+7&source=bl&ots=1dqb9DseNe&sig=pzCwvAp3T2YVQqtPUof-Flzz4nc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwATgKahUKEwiRkZaQuufHAhXCHY4KHS3FAD0#v=onepage&q=kosovo%20constitution%20article%207&f=false</li> <li>From Bahrain: </li> <li>From Tajikistan: </li> <li>From Individualism: "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.</li> <li>From Hezbollah: </li> <li>From Islamism: </li> <li>From Fascism: John Horne. State, Society and Mobilization in Europe During the First World War. P. 237-239.</li> <li>From Philippines: Joaquin, Nick. A Question of Heroes.</li> <li>From Civil society: Almond, G., & Verba, S.; 'The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes And Democracy In Five Nations; 1989; Sage</li> </ul>

Reference named "atimes.com":<ul> <li>From Taliban: </li> <li>From Islamism: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6579
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307000000/http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf to http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117043505/http://ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29851 to http://ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29851

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120701141951/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-03/middle-east/31118855_1_gaddafi-party-north-african-nation to http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-03/middle-east/31118855_1_gaddafi-party-north-african-nation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421082743/http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/democracy.htm to http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/democracy.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130112200145/http://www.ccd21.org/conferences/wwconf_transript2.htm to http://www.ccd21.org/conferences/wwconf_transript2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151221131945/http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/indonesian-democracy%E2%80%99s-enemy-within to http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/indonesian-democracy%E2%80%99s-enemy-within

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Typical silly POV muslim rubbish, complete with a stinking serving of anti-European propaganda
Disregarding the blatant fact that "Islamic Democracy" is a flat out contradiction in terms, as a democracy which follows islamic teachings on rule of law automatically excludes non-muslims and critics of islam from being elected into high positions of government, this article is so blatantly partisan and pro-Islam that it's not funny. A lot of the sources for some controversial statements (like the broad and shaky claim linking "liberalism" with the early islamic world) are controversial and have been contested hotly by other academics, like the ridicuous claim that the Rashidun Caliphate was a democratic state in any way, shape or form, when it blatantly slaughtered entire non-muslim tribes and held elections through tribal heads and sometimes not at all - That is not a democracy!

Despite these contested statements, which positively litter the article, there is not a single section on "Criticism" or "Opponents" of Islamic Democracy, only "Obstacles", so if you weren't convinced of this article's blatant mohammedan slant already, you should be now.

Take for example the section on "Democracy Index": ''The following lists Muslim-majority countries and shows the scores given by two frequently used indices: Freedom in the World (2013) by the    US-based Freedom House and the 2012 Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit. These indices are frequently used in Western media, but have attracted some criticism and may not reflect recent changes.''

This is blatant POV push if i've ever seen it. Firstly, Freedom House is not related to the Democracy Index, and there are numerous other NGOs who have published similar tallies. Secondly, the line about "western media" is nothing more than obtuse WP:POVPUSH designed to boil all criticism of islamic government away and repudiate all negative analyses of democracy in Muslim nations using the smear of "Western media". Third, even though Freedom House is funded by the US government, that does not take away from the genuine criticisms of democratic institutions and freedom of speech that it makes, nor does it mean that it's results do "not reflect recent changes"(whatever that means) in Muslim nations.

It's quite obvious that the major editors to this article are themselves proponents of the ideology, and are clearly uninterested in presenting the topic in a non-partisan and neutral manner. This article should be flagged for oblong POVPUSH.

 * (e/c)Given the nature of your username, I'm not sure that you can be considered entirely neutral yourself. Could you actually suggest improvements to the article, rather than just rant about what you see as shortcomings?  Ta. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Islam and Democracy: Indonesia's Case
Hi CommanderWaterford, I noticed that you removed my edits. Im not sure but I'll try to explain it here.

My reasoning is that Indonesia is actually not islamic, however it is a democracy with majority muslim population. You wouldn't exactly describe USA to be a christian democracy would you? It might have christian inspired laws, but technically USA is explicitly secular.

I guess you can put it in a special section, Indonesia does not exactly have state a state religion and in many respect is secular. Indonesia is like USA it does not interfere with religion, though its secularism is to a lesser extent. The state ideology is based on "Pancasila", in the first tenets "Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa" which better translated as that there is a supreme god (or there are supreme gods) as uniter of the nation. It does not specify any religion, though this is also sometimes mistranslated as only endorsement for monotheism. "Ketuhanan" is religions or any beliefs, "Yang" is a sign for descriptor. "Esa" which is from sanskrit in this sense means Supreme, not One. "Maha" also from sanskrit is to further exaggerate the "Esa" quality. As a result Indonesian do have religious column in identity card, however it is not mandatory (you can empty them, to signify you are atheist for example) and only used for census (a dutch legacy). Sukarno Pancasila's ideology is 'secular' but as Abdurrahman Wahid, 4th president of Indonesia describe it is "Mild Secularism"

This is because the 2 largest Muslim organization of Indonesia, NU and Muhammadiyah, are very much accepted the pancasila basis of the country. NU and its most associated political wing PKB (Abdurrahman's party), is member of centrist democrat international which also contain famously German's CDU as well as Hungary's Fidesz party, it is more common with Christian democrat politics in the west. There are party associated with muslim brotherhood in the form of PKS but even they have to commit to the state ideology, which means they are pluralist. Islamic groups that stray a bit further from the the pluralism and Pancasila such as HTI (Indonesian branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir) even though they 'participated' in democracy.

You can say in practice Indonesia had 6 state religions.

In the religion ministry (this is also why Indonesia isn't exactly secular either) there are separate religious leaders usually praying for each religions. Yeah this is quite funny, so the presidents or government members sometimes will greet in all 6 religious greetings, followed by the speech. Theres a page on that though it is in Indonesian. https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Lintas_Agama

-"Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh" for islam -"Salam Sejahtera" and "Shaloom" for Christian and Catholics, -"Om Swastyastu" for Hindu -"Namo Buddhaya" for buddhist -"Salam Kebajikan" or "Wei De Dong Tian" (惟德動天) for Kong Hu Cu (chinese confucianism)

You can see this in the recent Indonesian president speech on 26 March. The president used all the greetings.

Indonesia actually had a rebellion in the 1960 referred locally as "Darul Islam" rebellion but the state they want is "Islamic State of Indonesia" although they were defeated, so that is why I think you have to be really careful, Indonesia is not an "islamic" democracy since in Indonesia that would mean that state rebellion. This was sadly a common misconception by foreigners to describe Indonesia as such. That is why I think it is better to say Indonesia currently is a democracy with the largest muslim population. Describing it with "Indonesia as the largest muslim democracy" is also innacurate, and used often by for foreign journalists.

The Salafi section needs sources.
I removed "Al-Albani" from the section listing supposed "pro-Democracy" Salafi scholars, since he has stated that participating in Democracy by voting is forbidden. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzy70nKGf3o and http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/audio/albanivoting.wma 71.59.196.190 (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islam and democracy