Azadre's Thread on Islam (aka you have questions, I have answers)

WOW… JUST WOW! Amazing people actually think like that. So much hate. Scary.

There are over 6 Million Muslims in the U.S...if it were violent... think about it…

In our land? What? WOW.

 

I don't understand where you're coming from. I said 9/11 was an escalation of violence that has gone on a long time. What spurred OBL initially was the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and America's support and training of the Mujahedeen which is where and how OBL was effectively born. We created this guy. While the US was trying to evict the opposite super power, OBL was just trying to get infidels off ME land. He doesn't care whether it's Soviets or Americans. That OBL has morphed his public message to defend the Palestinian cause and thus get wider support in the Arab world doesn't mean Palestinians haven't suffered for a half century. This is just an evolution, as I said, and he's intelligently trying to align his disgusting cause with their very legitimate cause.

I don't think firing missiles into apartment buildings, bulldozing people's homes, setting up a phalanx of checkpoints to harrass an entire segment of people, and Sharon's own actions as Minister of Defense are any worse than suicide bombings. This piece of garbage was elected leader of Israel. I would assume if OBL was ever elected leader of a nation that maybe someone would have quite a damn fit about that. I'd imagine if any of us lived in that area of the world under the conditions that Israel has created, we'd all feel we were victims of terrorism.

Collateral damage is one of the stupidest phrases in history. What is the Palestinian ability to cause collateral damage? If Palestinians had a few AC130 gunships and then they wouldn't be terrorists, they'd just be experiencing collateral damage in the war to free their homeland. Collateral damage is apparently as directly proportional to ones ability to buy American military hardware as terrorism to defend your home is inversely proportional to ones ability to buy American military hardware.

 

Is it?

 

Of course.
Show me where it says it isnt.

 

I can show you where someone says it isn't.



Can Islam and Democracy Coexist in a Country?
No: Nothing could have been more irrelevant to Muhammad than consent of the governed

Ausuf Ali
It has been said that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. I offer Pakistan as a case in point.
In its 52 years of history, Pakistan--created on August 14, 1947, out of British India, which became independent a day later—-has been placed under military rule after the overthrow of the civilian government by the Pakistani army in 1958, 1977, and 1999. Even during civilian rule, the army has called the shots from behind the elected leaders of Pakistan.

While India is the most populous democracy in the world, Pakistan has miserably failed at any kind of democracy, including Islamic. It is clear that along with democracy, all the Islamization programs have failed. Islam and the Sharia, or Islamic law, simply do not have the conceptual resources, flexibility, and dynamism to suffice for the governance of a modern state and operation of a rational economy and an expanding civil society.

By now, Pakistanis have developed a sad conviction that democracy as we know it is not a workable form of government for their country, because Pakistanis do not have the social psychology, the political culture, the social ethics, or the common decency for making democracy work.

The difference in the fortunes of democracy in India and Pakistan is that the world view of Indians is derived from Hinduism and that of Pakistanis from Islam.

Ideologically, Hinduism is quite compatible with secularism and democracy. Islam is hostile toward both.

As the founder and chief executive of the first Islamic polity at Medina in what is today Saudi Arabia, Muhammad ruled in accordance with the will of Allah as revealed to him and translated into his own will. Nothing could have been more irrelevant to his rule than the consent of the governed. There was no room for "we the people" or for the legislation by elected representatives of the people, because the whole body of laws as laid down in the Sharia was valid and binding for all times. That is the reason parliaments in Muslim countries even today are rubber-stamp bodies. Neither citizens’ right to criticize nor to dissent from their rulers is recognized.

Islam admonishes Muslims to obey Allah, his prophet, and those in power, as it admonishes women to obey men, because "men are a degree above them." Non-Muslims, heretics, apostates and homosexuals are regarded as fit for persecution.

Muslims do not recognize the idea of diversity in their own countries, though they take the fullest advantage of it in the West. To be sure, a woman rose to the position of the prime minister in Pakistan, but this was resented by fundamentalist Muslim men, because Muhammad prophesied that any nation or organization with a woman as its leader is headed for disaster.

Given the attitudes Islam imparts to Muslims, it is apparent why democracy failed in Pakistan--fundamentalist Islam and democracy are not compatible. Once this is understood, an honest search for a suitable form of political system, even if less satisfactory than democracy, can begin.

As a Pakistani, I find it sad that a people who can master the rules of cricket should have failed at learning the rules of democracy, which are far simpler. So long as Pakistanis insist on applying the uncompromising demands of fundamentalist Islam, democracy has no chance in Pakistan. Sadly, democracy seems to be doomed in the foreseeable future in the whole Islamic world.



Ausuf Ali, a former professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration of the University of Karachi, is the author of "Broader Dimensions of the Ideology of Pakistan" (Royal Book Co., Karachi, 1988).


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/25/story_2550_1.html

 

Those are myopic, racist and hateful words.

Every religion has it's problems. We are having a dialogue to learn about a religion, not condemn it for the actions of it's radicals ... or anything else.


Fact is, the preponderance of Muslims are peace-loving, including our firends here. It doesn't take much to figure that out. Open your eyes.


Have you heard of another religion here in the US were no one can marry outside their religion? Where women are not permitted to hold positions of power, are not permitted to wear patterned clothing or jewelry, and must cover their heads ... oh, and none can use electricity. Does that sound backward ... and flaunting (more headcovers)? They're the Amish. Do you have a problem with them also?


OH..last thing, regardless of their religion... this country belongs to ALL Americans.

 

What's the dating protocol in the ME? Arranged marriages or dates with a chaperone? Does a lobster bisque mean happy endings or is 3rd base the limit? Is there a bar scene?

 

Other people already beat me to it, but I can't let it go, without saying something.

You don't seem to be too familiar with the constitution of the United States, or the history, or the philosophy of our founding fathers, or any of the traditions that made the United States the great nation that it is.

First of all this land is for the Muslims, as much as it is for any other religion. To say "Their" religion, in "our" land, shows that you really have no concept of freedom of religion, or the idea of an inclusive United States. Their are Muslims serving, fighting, and dying in the U.S. armed services as we speak.

Your comments are so wrong, that they don't make any sense. You act like this land isn't for Muslims and they are guests here. Muslims are as much a part of the U.S. as anyone else is. One of the founding principles of the U.S. was one of religious freedom, and escaping from intolerance, oppression, and the idea that a nation belonged to one religion and not to another.

I hope that you will do everything you can to learn about the nation's history. It is a great nation, founded on some great ideas, with a fantastic and interesting history. As a citizen you should check it out, and learn a little bit about it.

 

My question also relates to the role of women. I know there are many religions with defined gener roles. Some of them have changed or evolved over time.

Is their room within Islam for certain principles to evolve over time? I know that in practice Indonesia with the largest Muslim population on earth had a female leader, and Iraq under Saddam's secular leadership had women attending universities and obtaining professional careers

Yet edicts that are inherently unequal like marriage rules, inheritance rules etc. Is there room for leeway there as women have shown they can be as capable as men? Is there room for the religion to evolve and grow?

 

MR. MEOWGI



that's the only part i agree with.

LOL, the lady bought a house...sorry a mansion... for over 7 Million in Europe on the gov's budget...lol. One thing is for sure, atleast they had a woman leader, can't say the same for some other countries. Anyway she was a corrupt money sucking whor*...

But that goes for absuletly anyone and everyone that is involved with politics in Pakistan. Its the second most corrupt country in the world for a reason. The political structure in itself is flawed. Hell some of the leaders in that country CAN't READ OR WRITE!!!

 

It's hard to hate pacifists.

 

The whole Islam and democracy argument is kinda silly....Iran was a full-fledged democracy in the 1950s until the US and Britain conducted a coup. Plenty of Muslims countries have been and are democracies.

Also, people have a negative view in relation to democracy in Africa as well, but the Congo (DRC) had a full-fledged democracy in the 1960s, but the West conducted a coup and murdered the only democratically elected leader in the country's history. Plenty of African countries have been and are democracies as well.

Most of the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa are supported and/or sponsored by the US. Thus, this is more a international political issue than a religious one.

 

By the way these guy have 'the bomb'. i'm more scared about these fools having it than the Iranians.

 

What about:

Muhammad ruled in accordance with the will of Allah as revealed to him and translated into his own will. Nothing could have been more irrelevant to his rule than the consent of the governed. There was no room for "we the people" or for the legislation by elected representatives of the people, because the whole body of laws as laid down in the Sharia was valid and binding for all times.

?

 

But is fundamental Islam compromised or changed to have a democracy?

 

No democracy is inherent in Islam in my view....the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, was elected after the death of the Prophet Mohammad in 632. Today, Iran is an Islamic Republic where all the laws are based on Islam (12er Shi'ism, Ja'afari School of Law, and Usuli School of Thought) and it is a democracy, a religious one. Anybody who has a leadership role in Iran is elected with high degrees of contestation and participation in the electoral process.

 

Are the laws voted on or are is it really just Sharia law?

 

when the government was being established there were national referendums where the people decided on what type of government it would be...they vote yes to an islamic republic....now there is a parliament that is elected by the people and they establish laws, come up with legilation, and vote on them.

 

Have you read some of the references provided here? Apparently some preach that Muslims cannot attack, only defend themselves.