Why fight America's war?

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: alchemize
What I don't understand is why they are arguing about the *tax system*???

Geez, you want to surface all the obscene discriminatory brutality, just start talking about women's rights in islam.

Women have more than enough rights in Islam. If you have reasons to believe contrary, please let me know, and I'll give you proof otherwise.

Are there any female Imans? I await your response.

No, just as there isnt any female Popes.

So catholicism is discriminatory too. Nice attempt at diversion, but you've admitted that your religion is discriminatory. Catholics also have Nuns. Catholics had Mother Theresa. I don't believe women have any spiritual standing in Islam, feel free to prove me wrong.

Plenty of Christian variants have female ministers, Methodist for examaple. So to quote you again:

"Women have more than enough rights in Islam." Ah, as the MAN defines it. So equality of the sexes does not exist under Islam.

Jesus, I feel like a liberal...(pun intended)

 

[ajf3]

Here's a snippet (from that evil fox news channel):

Let's start with an undeniable fact: The United States of America has set more people free than any other country in the history of mankind. We all know about World War II, but here's what's happened recently:

In Eastern Europe, the policies of Ronald Reagan led to the freeing of at least 122 million people from Soviet domination.

More than 48 million South Koreans remain free because of American protection.

Nearly 23 million Taiwanese remain free because of American protection.

The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.

By removing the brutal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and Britain have given almost 50 million people at least a shot at some kind of self-determination. Also, the American-driven campaign against the butcher Milosovic in the Balkans saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them Muslims.

America is sending $3 billion a year to Africa to combat the AIDS epidemic. By comparison Canada is sending $270 million, France a paltry $60 million.

 

[trexpesto]

Originally posted by: ajf3
Here's a snippet (from that evil fox news channel):

Let's start with an undeniable fact: The United States of America has set more people free than any other country in the history of mankind. We all know about World War II, but here's what's happened recently:

In Eastern Europe, the policies of Ronald Reagan led to the freeing of at least 122 million people from Soviet domination.

More than 48 million South Koreans remain free because of American protection.

Nearly 23 million Taiwanese remain free because of American protection.

The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.

By removing the brutal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and Britain have given almost 50 million people at least a shot at some kind of self-determination. Also, the American-driven campaign against the butcher Milosovic in the Balkans saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them Muslims.

America is sending $3 billion a year to Africa to combat the AIDS epidemic. By comparison Canada is sending $270 million, France a paltry $60 million.

OK dittohead..
So we decide what other people's battles are and then jump in for purely humanitarian reasons. Suuuuure. It's called opportunism. Hello, Halliburton?
Lack of planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion shows that pretty clearly.

Most of that stuff was done before the current stupid administration, but even if you give Cheney/Bush the benefit of the doubt, who are we to be the one's to decide other people's lives. That's just arrogant - it's not our call to make.

I like what I heard Bill Mahre said on Larry King, something like: So people are getting all upset about Fahrenheit 911, saying you shouldn't mislead people with propaganda in a documentary. But um, it's OK about the president's launching a war based on untruth, saying that they had WMD?

Bush is so full of sh!t you can see it in his smug mug. And you can hear it in his laugh. What a punk.

And oh yeah he took part of my freedom when he corrupted the election. Punkass.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: trexpesto

Originally posted by: ajf3
Here's a snippet (from that evil fox news channel):

Let's start with an undeniable fact: The United States of America has set more people free than any other country in the history of mankind. We all know about World War II, but here's what's happened recently:

In Eastern Europe, the policies of Ronald Reagan led to the freeing of at least 122 million people from Soviet domination.

More than 48 million South Koreans remain free because of American protection.

Nearly 23 million Taiwanese remain free because of American protection.

The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.

By removing the brutal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and Britain have given almost 50 million people at least a shot at some kind of self-determination. Also, the American-driven campaign against the butcher Milosovic in the Balkans saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them Muslims.

America is sending $3 billion a year to Africa to combat the AIDS epidemic. By comparison Canada is sending $270 million, France a paltry $60 million.

OK dittohead..
So we decide what other people's battles are and then jump in for purely humanitarian reasons. Suuuuure. It's called opportunism. Hello, Halliburton?
Lack of planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion shows that pretty clearly.

Most of that stuff was done before the current stupid administration, but even if you give Cheney/Bush the benefit of the doubt, who are we to be the one's to decide other people's lives. That's just arrogant - it's not our call to make.

I like what I heard Bill Mahre said on Larry King, something like: So people are getting all upset about Fahrenheit 911, saying you shouldn't mislead people with propaganda in a documentary. But um, it's OK about the president's launching a war based on untruth, saying that they had WMD?

Bush is so full of sh!t you can see it in his smug mug. And you can hear it in his laugh. What a punk.

And oh yeah he took part of my freedom when he corrupted the election. Punkass.

LOL! good one :thumbsup:

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Sultan


No, just as there isnt any female Popes.

So catholicism is discriminatory too. Nice attempt at diversion, but you've admitted that your religion is discriminatory. Catholics also have Nuns. Catholics had Mother Theresa. I don't believe women have any spiritual standing in Islam, feel free to prove me wrong.

Plenty of Christian variants have female ministers, Methodist for examaple. So to quote you again:

"Women have more than enough rights in Islam." Ah, as the MAN defines it. So equality of the sexes does not exist under Islam.

Jesus, I feel like a liberal...(pun intended)

Im sorry but does having a woman Imam or Pope make any religion discriminatory? I dont think it does. You may differ, but thats fine. I am not out here to prove you wrong. I am just sharing views you may not be aware of.

Women do have a spiritual standing in Islam. Marium (or Mary as referred to in Christianity) is held in the highest respect in Islam. The wives of the Prophet are also held in the highest of respects. Hazrat Hajra, mother of Prophet Ismail is another example of a woman holding spiritual standing. Her actions form part of the ritual of Hajj (Pilgrimage). Bilquees Edhi is an example of a woman who does the same work as Mother Theresa, albeit on a smaller scale. However, no authority is given in Islam to alleviate any person to the status of saints, male or female.

There are plenty of women preachers in Islam as well. Dr Farhet Hashmi of Pakistan is one.

If by "So equality of the sexes does not exist under Islam", you mean Male rights is word to word equal to Female rights, then you are correct. A mother's right cannot be given to a man. A husband's rights cannot be given to a woman. So on and so forth.

The bold statement that I wrote was meant as a rebuke to a former post, so I apologize if that became the bone of contention. The correct words would be Women have equivalent rights in Islam. Man does not define them.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: K1052

The real achivement is constructing a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

Somehow I have a feeling that many more things are allowed in the west that would be frowned upon in a true Islamic state.

The fact remains that no true Islamic state exists and none will for the conceivable future.

I wish we had this in the US...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: K1052

The real achivement is constructing a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

Somehow I have a feeling that many more things are allowed in the west that would be frowned upon in a true Islamic state.

The fact remains that no true Islamic state exists and none will for the conceivable future.

I wish we had this in the US...

A true Islamic state? I wouldn't want to be discriminated against.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: K1052

The real achivement is constructing a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

Somehow I have a feeling that many more things are allowed in the west that would be frowned upon in a true Islamic state.

The fact remains that no true Islamic state exists and none will for the conceivable future.

I wish we had this in the US...

A true Islamic state? I wouldn't want to be discriminated against.

dont worry, you wont.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: K1052

The real achivement is constructing a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

Somehow I have a feeling that many more things are allowed in the west that would be frowned upon in a true Islamic state.

The fact remains that no true Islamic state exists and none will for the conceivable future.

I wish we had this in the US...

A true Islamic state? I wouldn't want to be discriminated against.

dont worry, you wont.

Well if it was an Islamic state then I probably will be discriminated against. Thankfully my country will never be an Islamic or any other religious state.

 

[alchemize]

A "true" islamic state is a fantasy, just as a "true" Christian state. Any government dominated by a religion is going to be a corrupt state, because of the many different interpretations of the religion. Your version might not be, Sultan, but good luck finding 51% of any population to agree with you. Otherwise you've got a dictatorship. And I think you can see the results in every country with a majority islamic population.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: alchemize
A "true" islamic state is a fantasy, just as a "true" Christian state. Any government dominated by a religion is going to be a corrupt state, because of the many different interpretations of the religion. Your version might not be, Sultan, but good luck finding 51% of any population to agree with you. Otherwise you've got a dictatorship. And I think you can see the results in every country with a majority islamic population.

A "true" Islamic state did exist, worked well for a number of years, declined when the leaders and the people distanced themselves from the principles of the religion. Religious guidelines are meant to cease corruption, not cause it. I believe religions are pretty simple, all have the same root, dont lie, dont cheat, etc. I know that the Quran has a total of round about 250 injunctions to be followed. The actions of the Prophet (which forms the second source of Islamic law - used as precedence) cant be that big. The key is to understand the reasons behind such precedence without any selfish motives. Thats up to humans to implement.

As an example: if Clinton can have a relationship with Lewinsky and then say he "did not have sexual relationship" with her, because it was she who gave him something, then the motive of the person is suspect, and is a means of bending the law to his own favor. Thats human actions, laws are meant to be abided by properly. You can justify any act through a loop hole. That is what corrupts a state, not the form of government.

 

[nathansut]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Doboji
Ok sorry hope this doesnt confuse you with the truth.....

The Jizyah does not apply to all non-muslims... only to Jews and Christians... other religions are not permitted to exist within muslim society at all. Furthermore... Muslim doctrine does not allow for the construction of non-muslim places of worship, nor does it allow for the open practice of non-muslim religions.

-Max

Disgusting if anyone wishes or currently practices such a type of government.

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: nathansut

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Doboji
Ok sorry hope this doesnt confuse you with the truth.....

The Jizyah does not apply to all non-muslims... only to Jews and Christians... other religions are not permitted to exist within muslim society at all. Furthermore... Muslim doctrine does not allow for the construction of non-muslim places of worship, nor does it allow for the open practice of non-muslim religions.

-Max

Disgusting if anyone wishes or currently practices such a type of government.

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

Yeah, everyone was a bastard for being critical of South Africa's apartheid state. Why couldn't everyone let them be in that condition?

Sorry, but any government that heavily discriminates against different peoples, especially in the context in this thread, deserves no respect.

 

[oreagan]

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: oreagan

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian. In fact, the concept of democracy was concieved right after the death of Prophet Mohammad when the new Caliph was chosen by declaration of support from the people of Islam (the process was referred to as Baith). The former sentence was but one of many examples of the unique ideas brought forth by the coming of Islam, some of which Western nations have adopted and succeeded with. Then again, Malaysia is an example of a Muslim nation (not entirely a theocratic nation), an Eastern nation that has succeeded while practicing much of Sharia or Islamic law.

A theocratic Islamic government did work for many years, hundreds of years, before declining and breaking up. An Islamic government does not imply dictatorship or oppression.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: oreagan

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian. In fact, the concept of democracy was concieved right after the death of Prophet Mohammad when the new Caliph was chosen by declaration of support from the people of Islam (the process was referred to as Baith). The former sentence was but one of many examples of the unique ideas brought forth by the coming of Islam, some of which Western nations have adopted and succeeded with. Then again, Malaysia is an example of a Muslim nation (not entirely a theocratic nation), an Eastern nation that has succeeded while practicing much of Sharia or Islamic law.

A theocratic Islamic government did work for many years, hundreds of years, before declining and breaking up. An Islamic government does not imply dictatorship or oppression.

lol, sure...

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: oreagan

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian. In fact, the concept of democracy was concieved right after the death of Prophet Mohammad when the new Caliph was chosen by declaration of support from the people of Islam (the process was referred to as Baith). The former sentence was but one of many examples of the unique ideas brought forth by the coming of Islam, some of which Western nations have adopted and succeeded with. Then again, Malaysia is an example of a Muslim nation (not entirely a theocratic nation), an Eastern nation that has succeeded while practicing much of Sharia or Islamic law.

A theocratic Islamic government did work for many years, hundreds of years, before declining and breaking up. An Islamic government does not imply dictatorship or oppression.

lol, sure...

and why does that seem funny and/or unbelievable to you?

 

[Ozoned]

Why fight America's war?





Here is a reason

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: oreagan

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian. In fact, the concept of democracy was concieved right after the death of Prophet Mohammad when the new Caliph was chosen by declaration of support from the people of Islam (the process was referred to as Baith). The former sentence was but one of many examples of the unique ideas brought forth by the coming of Islam, some of which Western nations have adopted and succeeded with. Then again, Malaysia is an example of a Muslim nation (not entirely a theocratic nation), an Eastern nation that has succeeded while practicing much of Sharia or Islamic law.

A theocratic Islamic government did work for many years, hundreds of years, before declining and breaking up. An Islamic government does not imply dictatorship or oppression.

lol, sure...

and why does that seem funny and/or unbelievable to you?

Because it's obviously false. Every religion has come up with many important things, so why are you so obviously lying and saying that democracy was created by Islam when there are all other sorts of things to talk about instead.

 

[K1052]

Sultan: Are you seriously suggesting that the Islamic world invented democracy?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: oreagan

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian. In fact, the concept of democracy was concieved right after the death of Prophet Mohammad when the new Caliph was chosen by declaration of support from the people of Islam (the process was referred to as Baith). The former sentence was but one of many examples of the unique ideas brought forth by the coming of Islam, some of which Western nations have adopted and succeeded with. Then again, Malaysia is an example of a Muslim nation (not entirely a theocratic nation), an Eastern nation that has succeeded while practicing much of Sharia or Islamic law.

A theocratic Islamic government did work for many years, hundreds of years, before declining and breaking up. An Islamic government does not imply dictatorship or oppression.

lol, sure...

and why does that seem funny and/or unbelievable to you?

Because it's obviously false. Every religion has come up with many important things, so why are you so obviously lying and saying that democracy was created by Islam when there are all other sorts of things to talk about instead.

No, I said the concept of popular vote / democracy was presented by the actions of baith when the new caliph was chosen. I dont need to lie. You can read up on the ascension of Caliph Abu Bakr to the caliphate after Prophet Mohammad's death. The majority of people voted for him to be the caliph while a section of the society wanted the caliphate to be hereditary and wanted Hazrat Ali (cousin / son-in-law). This created the political differences which was the root cause of the creation of Sunni and Shia Islam.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: K1052

The real achivement is constructing a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

Somehow I have a feeling that many more things are allowed in the west that would be frowned upon in a true Islamic state.

The fact remains that no true Islamic state exists and none will for the conceivable future.

I wish we had this in the US...

A true Islamic state? I wouldn't want to be discriminated against.

no, goddamnit, a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: K1052

The real achivement is constructing a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

Somehow I have a feeling that many more things are allowed in the west that would be frowned upon in a true Islamic state.

The fact remains that no true Islamic state exists and none will for the conceivable future.

I wish we had this in the US...

A true Islamic state? I wouldn't want to be discriminated against.

no, goddamnit, a government not solely based on an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation by it's leaders.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: oreagan

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian. In fact, the concept of democracy was concieved right after the death of Prophet Mohammad when the new Caliph was chosen by declaration of support from the people of Islam (the process was referred to as Baith). The former sentence was but one of many examples of the unique ideas brought forth by the coming of Islam, some of which Western nations have adopted and succeeded with. Then again, Malaysia is an example of a Muslim nation (not entirely a theocratic nation), an Eastern nation that has succeeded while practicing much of Sharia or Islamic law.

A theocratic Islamic government did work for many years, hundreds of years, before declining and breaking up. An Islamic government does not imply dictatorship or oppression.

lol, sure...

and why does that seem funny and/or unbelievable to you?

Because it's obviously false. Every religion has come up with many important things, so why are you so obviously lying and saying that democracy was created by Islam when there are all other sorts of things to talk about instead.

No, I said the concept of popular vote / democracy was presented by the actions of baith when the new caliph was chosen. I dont need to lie. You can read up on the ascension of Caliph Abu Bakr to the caliphate after Prophet Mohammad's death. The majority of people voted for him to be the caliph while a section of the society wanted the caliphate to be hereditary and wanted Hazrat Ali (cousin / son-in-law). This created the political differences which was the root cause of the creation of Sunni and Shia Islam.

The concept of democracy was out there well before Islam was even founded.

Did you know that computers were invented by Buddhists in 100 ad?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: oreagan

Why? Just because it is not a "Christian"/Democratic government, or like America/Canada, why can't we respect other countries' way to govern the way they wish? We may not agree with the practices of the govt., but far be it for us to play god and tell them what is right and wrong.

Conversely, it would be the same if a Muslim country came here, and imposed those standards of practice on us. That would be disgusting. As such, our actions which are equivelant to those mentioned above are what is disgusting, not Muslim/Middle eastern practices.

No, because discrimination and totalitarianism are against Western thought and experience of the past few hundred years, whether you're talking "natural law" or the modern "human rights." Locke, Mill, Jefferson, Adams, these names familiar to you? The Western world tried the religious government deal for a very long time and the result was hundreds of years and millions of lives given to war and oppression. Dictatorships and opressive regimes are not Dutch clogs that we're laughing at because it's different.

Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian. In fact, the concept of democracy was concieved right after the death of Prophet Mohammad when the new Caliph was chosen by declaration of support from the people of Islam (the process was referred to as Baith). The former sentence was but one of many examples of the unique ideas brought forth by the coming of Islam, some of which Western nations have adopted and succeeded with. Then again, Malaysia is an example of a Muslim nation (not entirely a theocratic nation), an Eastern nation that has succeeded while practicing much of Sharia or Islamic law.

A theocratic Islamic government did work for many years, hundreds of years, before declining and breaking up. An Islamic government does not imply dictatorship or oppression.

lol, sure...

and why does that seem funny and/or unbelievable to you?

Because it's obviously false. Every religion has come up with many important things, so why are you so obviously lying and saying that democracy was created by Islam when there are all other sorts of things to talk about instead.

No, I said the concept of popular vote / democracy was presented by the actions of baith when the new caliph was chosen. I dont need to lie. You can read up on the ascension of Caliph Abu Bakr to the caliphate after Prophet Mohammad's death. The majority of people voted for him to be the caliph while a section of the society wanted the caliphate to be hereditary and wanted Hazrat Ali (cousin / son-in-law). This created the political differences which was the root cause of the creation of Sunni and Shia Islam.

The concept of democracy was out there well before Islam was even founded.

Did you know that computers were invented by Buddhists in 100 ad?

ok then, my fault. However, Islamic practices are neither discriminatory or totalitarian as evident that many concepts present in Western societies today existed in ~650AD in an Islamic government.

i didnt know computers were invented by Buddhists in 100 ad