democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

It's not an all a conspiracy, but a well known fact.

If it was well known, why don't they actually show the document that they claim his name is in, instead of simply stating it's in some document? Yep, conspiratorial. And of course a desperate Orthoodox, trying to cling to their decline in social influence and power will grasp to anything that they feel they're losing to.


Seriously, you don't understand that I can spot quote mining like yours very easily. Your page is littered with it.

Zakat is a specific religious tax. You are putting forward a principle that wealth distribution is general is on the basis of management. There exists no such principle for wealth distribution according to Islam. Wealth distribution through inheritance is distributed on basis of laws of Shari'a.

But you just said It's Marxian to distribute wealth, zaka'at distributes wealth. Don't back peddle now ...By your reasoning this would incriminate Islam as being Marxian. You can't just have it one way or the other. For me a common point of agreement doesn't make two ideas the same. But clearly not the case with you. lol

I never made that argument, we're talking about resource management, not exactly equivalent to wealth distribution. If resource management is being dealt with here, then the goal is to ensure that resources are properly sustained. Thus stagnant application with no consideration of relevant variables would not be in line with the aims of Islam. this is another reason why your approach isn't realistic. Islam is 7aq, and 7aq means reality so Islam must reflect reality.

Why did Allah supposedly go through all the trouble of delineating the fixed ratio of division of inheritance in Sura 4:11 if the ultimate principle is distribution of wealth based on management? Your rationalizations always end up showing that the original content of the Text got it so wrong?

It's a base guideline based on usual tendencies. Males still tended to be the ones who ran these affairs because of male-female social dynamics, especially during that period of time. This however didn't preclude outliers and indeed Islam already acknowledges that differing circumstances allow for differing application.

It is such a fallacy to compare facial hair that is meant to be visible to the hair that grows on your private parts.

if that's the case it makes your premise a fallacy because the basis of your argument was their "natural tendency" to grow, The parameter being examined here. You can't special plead now. Special pleading is a fallacy.

How was it harder to differentiate between groups of people in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Without beard, kufi, thawb, etc., how are Muslim men visibly differentiated from others?

Well I think garments were often very similar so this was their way to "stand out".

LOL next thing you know you'll be saying a man wearing lipstick is also a matter of taste. Some men wear nail-polish too. Maybe male lipstick should be green to be different from female red lipstick. Where does it end? Men can wear black nail-polish and women can stick to pink

.

Yeah that's a false equivalence though. The Prophet (saw) used to wear an izar, which is a skirt, similar to a Lungi or sarong that Indians like yourself wear. On the Basis that women wear skirts, are you suggesting he was cross dressing?

Point being, you can't just assume somethiing is automatically exclusive for women, you have to see how and in what context it's use. Lipstick has specifically been appropriated to make women's lips more erotic. So yeah that is feminine. Where as sarong/lungi/izar doesn't necessarily have that suggestion, same with shaving the beard, or in some cultures having an earring or wearing rings and such

We say certain behaviors in their essence are either masculine or feminine. Growing the beard in its essence is a masculine trait. Wearing jewelry in its essence is a feminine trait.

Maybe because you're gay that you see wearing jewelry as a feminine trait because it makes you feel more eat ease with your homosexual tendencies.

Nabi(saw) wore rings which is jewelry so, you're calling Our Prophet feminine.

Vikings were not distinct because of their beards, but Romans were distinct because of their custom of shaving the beard.[/FONT][/SIZE]

that's just special pleading and arbitrary, there's nothing to suggest romans started the custom of shavinhg beafds, in fact they didn't because we see Ancient Egyptian relics of males without beards. ancient Hindus also had men without beards, as did the ancient chinese, Nothing suggests that they saw it as feminine. You're pushinhg a narrative. ....which is really just you carrying on the sexual orientation crisis of your Religious leaders who get aroused by men .

[ذو الفقار]

If it was well known, why don't they actually show the document that they claim his name is in, instead of simply stating it's in some document? Yep, conspiratorial. And of course a desperate Orthoodox, trying to cling to their decline in social influence and power will grasp to anything that they feel they're losing to.


Seriously, you don't understand that I can spot quote mining like yours very easily. Your page is littered with it.

Quote mining, not at all. I'm quoting from an academic, scholarly journal, not some anonymous, conspiracy based website or Alex Jones InfoWars.

But you just said It's Marxian to distribute wealth, zaka'at distributes wealth. Don't back peddle now

Zakaat isn't distributing all the wealth, it is only a religious tax that takes a fraction of people's wealth for redistribution. But Marxism is a lot more overarching, it wants to distribute all of the wealth produced from the means of production based on need and 'equitable' distribution.

It's a base guideline based on usual tendencies. Males still tended to be the ones who ran these affairs because of male-female social dynamics, especially during that period of time. This however didn't preclude outliers and indeed Islam already acknowledges that differing circumstances allow for differing application.

The credibility and usefulness of the Quran is impugned on this line of reasoning. Why doesn't the Quran simply state the general principle? If the Quran is from God and is divinely inspired, why didn't God account for changing circumstances and simply spell out the general principle which would have universal application and not lead to confusion?

Isn't Islam, the Quran, and Islamic laws meant to be universal? If not, then it would be meaningless to continue to refer to them as authoritative texts.

if that's the case it makes your premise a fallacy because the basis of your argument was their "natural tendency" to grow, The parameter being examined here. You can't special plead now. Special pleading is a fallacy.

That was never the basis of my argument.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]

Quote mining, not at all. I'm quoting from an academic, scholarly journal, not some anonymous, conspiracy based website or Alex Jones InfoWars.

Conspiratorial doesn't mean Alex Jones mumbles it, there's nothing in this journal that actually demonstrates the claim. It just says "in some alleged manifest , his name is there". At best ...and I say loosely at best, they can say he attended a meeting. Just like a Christian attending a Sufi gathering wouldn't necessarily make him a Sufi. However, even if we accept he attended, it doesn't demonstrate that they're a Mason.

Zakaat isn't distributing all the wealth, it is only a religious tax that takes a fraction of people's wealth for redistribution. But Marxism is a lot more overarching, it wants to distribute all of the wealth produced from the means of production based on need and 'equitable' distribution.

You're back peddling, if my simply talking about resource management is "marxist thinking" , then your reasoning applies here too. I'm not saying Islam is Marxist, but that your reasoning is bogus. You're attempt to turn back on that here is called Special Pleading.

The credibility and usefulness of the Quran is impugned on this line of reasoning. Why doesn't the Quran simply state the general principle? If the Quran is from God and is divinely inspired, why didn't God account for changing circumstances and simply spell out the general principle which would have universal application and not lead to confusion?

The Qur'an was revealed in relation to events, the events were to demonstrate the different ways we apply things. And indeed verses of the Qur'an express that notion.

Isn't Islam, the Quran, and Islamic laws meant to be universal? If not, then it would be meaningless to continue to refer to them as authoritative texts.

Yes, which is why their principles are still relevant.

That was never the basis of my argument.

Your argument was that it was the beard is the natural tendency of masculinity. Whatever permutation of that you used, This would still apply. You're special pleading a great deal.

[Elias]

Zulfiqar

How do you justify saudis eating lizard?

[ذو الفقار]

Zulfiqar

How do you justify saudis eating lizard?

I never justified it. Lizard meat is haram.

Only the illiterate Bedouins eat it. I don't justify everything Saudis do, I'm the most fierce critic of Saudi, read Firdousi's latest thread.

[Elias]

I never justified it. Lizard meat is haram.

Only the illiterate Bedouins eat it. I don't justify everything Saudis do, I'm the most fierce critic of Saudi, read Firdousi's latest thread.

No man it’s accepted by saudis.
I wanted to hear your response because few posts earlier you were justifying saudis drifting.

[maneatinglizard]

Zulfiqar

How do you justify saudis eating lizard?

Eating lizards is halal according to some Madhabs. There are a lot of things to criticize Saudis for, and we shouldn't take them as exemplars of Islam like a lot of non-Arabs do, but I wouldn't criticize them for this practice.

Not that I'd eat it myself. Doesn't look appealing at all.

[maneatinglizard]

I do "get out", and street racing these days is almost exclusively an Arab thing. It doesn't even happen in the West. Europe doesn't have open broad streets like this. North America's traffic rules are so strict nobody dares to have such "fun". If anything, this video proves that in some respects the Muslim world is a lot more free than the West.

When I talk of cultural Europeanization I'm not talking about playing Western sports or using Western technology. I'm not even talking about eating European cuisine. I'm talking about the social structure of Europe being adapted by Muslims, adapting their legal systems, their standards of morality, and above all, their secularism.

Wow, you can really tell this guy's a total shut the way he describes things, even the country in which he resides.

[ذو الفقار]

No man it’s accepted by saudis.
I wanted to hear your response because few posts earlier you were justifying saudis drifting.

So what? Drifting haram? Bacha baazi Halal?

[Elias]

Eating lizards is halal according to some Madhabs. There are a lot of things to criticize Saudis for, and we shouldn't take them as exemplars of Islam like a lot of non-Arabs do, but I wouldn't criticize them for this practice.

Not that I'd eat it myself. Doesn't look appealing at all.

Yeah brother, it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

[Charsi Malang]

So what? Drifting haram? Bacha baazi Halal?

There we go.

Your true colours have shown through now.

Under all that religious “sunnah this and sunnah that” and incessant ranting religious posts we can all now see that you are in fact the same as all your other brethren. No amount of outwards “Islamic” zeal will hide it like it never does for the rest of your kind. I had you sussed from the beginning mate.

[khushal]

Strictly speaking, the Amir is not "required" to consult. He is only encouraged to do so. Any consultative body will never have executive authority in an Islamic state, only the function of making recommendations to the executive.

Then why have a shura in the first place.

[ذو الفقار]

Then why have a shura in the first place.

Because it is beneficial to consult and listen to the recommendations. Allah has praised those who conduct their affairs through mutual consultation.

So Shoora is Mustahhab but not Waajib.

[khushal]

Casting a ballot means you are responsible if your candidate is elected. Then you share a degree of responsibility for what he does once in power. Since I reject the system in principle, how can I hypocritically participate in it?

You are participating in it. If your paying taxes, how that money is used without you casting a ballot and speaking up for it and just giving it to people to do what they wish, then you are solely responsible for their actions becasue you gave them permission.
But youre probably a welfare recipient who lies to the gov(people) on welfare application and robs their charity.

Unless there is a candidate who is openly saying that if given power he will do nothing but serve the will of God, I don't see any scenario in which voting for anyone else is "moral" from my religious perspective.

Most politicians only preach the "good word" but dont practice the "good word." the reason that they get away with it is because of ignorant people like you refuse to vote and give them that power by refusing to vote.

In my particular situation of being a Canadian citizen, I can definitely not vote for any of the existing political parties or candidates. Similarly, in most other countries the situation is the same, you cannot vote for any party or candidate unless he is pledging to purely implement Islam and do nothing else.

But in order to even be a candidate in today's so-called democratic systems you have to first accept the constitution and the legitimacy of the system. I do not see a single constitution in the whole world which is Islamic except for the constitution of Saudi Arabia - the Holy Quraan.

The Saudi kings are the walking, talking Quran?

I dont see anything wrong with the US constitution especially the bill of rights. nothing unislamic about it unless you can point it out to me.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

So what? Drifting haram? Bacha baazi Halal?

You keep changing goal posts...and it's hilarious that you think no one notices. lol. Your point was about Westerners culturally influencing the Saudis, which you claimed the Wahhabis kept away. Which is pure nonsense. Dirfting is indulgent, wasteful and decadent behavior. Not only is it pointless and a waste of resources, which you we agree is problematic about Western society, it creates unnecessary dangers for everyone.

Being that you think beardless men are imitating women, perhaps you have an itch for Bacha Bazi, perhaps you have a latent desire to be the bacha.