democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Hey everyone ...MixxedPashtana is RightWingPakhtun and Kanishka etc etc .... just bear this in mind.

[mixxedpashtana]

Hey everyone ...MixxedPashtana is RightWingPakhtun and Kanishka etc etc .... just bear this in mind.

Why are you so focussed on my presence?

Your general people knowledge sucks man. Honestly I couldn't care less about whatever you think I am, the fact that you need to "warn" people is just hilarious, as if I am a prominent member of this forum.

Next thing I am FBI, spying on your ass.. you're paranoia dude. lmao.

[mixxedpashtana]

Okay, didnt even know "rightwingpakhtun" and "kanishka" are other members.. lmao!

And why exactly do you think we are all the same person?

You'd say someone who spends alot of time, like you, on this forum would have the capacity to make decent assumptions.

[Firdousi]

Everytime I hear the word "democracy", I just think about the occupy wall street days.

I happened upon a march they were doing at that time, and they were shouting "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE"... yeah, people with massive safety nets, a minimum wage that would never be supported by a free market, luxuries when compared to the rest of the world, access to debt when they're not creditworthy, and those people congregate to bitch about how "hard" their life is.

I just keep thinking of that stupid protest.

Human beings need causes. Need idealism. Need change. Even these r etarded-annoying-naive First World citizens are entitled to b-itch about their life.

Not long time ago I watched a video on YT about Sionism. A Jewish rabbi was saying that "being Jew" means "being a practicing Jew". Many lay Jews, in order to compensate their spiritual vacuum, they fill it Sionist nationalism. The same logic would apply to these First World citizens: since their world is almost "problem-free", they need take the banner of every s tupid and pointless cause in order to feel good. To feel human. To feel part of something.

Oh my gosh I am so smart.

[ذو الفقار]

Oh come on, this is just ad-hoc rebranding of Mu'tazilah. What you're saying is simply untrue.

Wahhabis are Ultra Orthdoox and always undermined the communities they were from for the benefit of Foreign occupiers . Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are perfect examples of this. The Orthodox trying to co-opt their failures on Rationalists, when our historical record shows otherwise.

Whatever the merits of your claim about Wahhabis undermining the community to the benefit of foreign occupiers, it has to be admitted that Wahhabis kept Arabia away from Europeanization. When I think of Wahhabis, I think of the original Ikhwan, without whom the Saudis could not have been as successful as they were. But the Saudis betrayed the Ikhwan back in 1927, in order to pacify the British. The Ikhwan were raiding into Kuwait and the Hashemite Kingdoms in Hijaz, Jordan and Iraq. But because those were clients of the British, the Saudis started coordinating with the British to exterminate the Ikhwan. The uprising of Juhayman in 1979 represents a neo-Ikhwan uprising against the Saudis. So the true so-called “Wahhabis” cannot be accused of being “foreign-backed”. The Saud family do not represent “Wahhabism” they only used it to cement their throne and discarded them when it was convenient to do so.

But if we look at the so called rationalists and modernists, they have always betrayed the cause of Islam, either by being pawns of foreign powers or enforcing their brand of secularism like Mustafa Kamal “Ataturk”.

Just as I said before the Muslim Youth in the West are becoming ensared to Western Liberalism and starting to have favorable attitudes about Homosexuality, Transgenderism and even Muslim women marrying Non-Muslims precisely because the Orthodox don't have an effective response to these things.

Interesting you say that, because today's modernists and so-called "rationalists" don't seem to be manufacturing intellectual arguments against the things you mentioned, on the contrary, they are actively persuading Muslims to embrace them or perish in their obscurity.

I'd be curious to know what are some of your "rationalist" arguments that would persuade the typical Muslim youth to denounce the things you mentioned (homosexuality, transgenderism, interfaith marriage), such arguments which the orthodox are incapable of making.

I mean The Orthodox can't deal with the fact that humans evolved as a species because they take a literal reading of Humans being made of clay. It's insane.
The best they can do is quote mine and seek refuge in crappy Harun Yahya books.

I'd hardly say Harun Yahya represents the orthodox stream in Islamic thought. As for evolution, I've always thought of it as a dilemma for Christian fundamentalists not traditional Islam. After all, we don't have any dogma about the human species being 6000 years old. I remember watching Bill Nye's debate with Christian fundamentalist Ken Ham and couldn't believe how stupid the Christian side must be if this is their level of intellectualism in the 21st century. Even a second rate Mulla isn't as anti-science as the Christian intellectual elite that have literally billions of dollars at their disposal making museums and life size Arks of Noah. What a waste.

The so-called Islamic "orthodoxy" is actually better described as "orthopraxy" than "orthodoxy". Islam is more about practice and lifestyle than it is about theology. Our theology is simple and straightforward, One God Who is both Transcendent and Immanent, the reality of divine revelation, existence of Angels, and resurrection from the dead to the Afterlife. The latter doctrine (resurrection) is perhaps the closest in being the Christian equivalent of a ultra-rational "mystery", which is why the Quraan devotes a lot of its content to rationalizing the resurrection.

Evolution is certainly a sound scientific fact, but perhaps the details and theories proposed by contemporary biologists aren't exactly foolproof. Nonetheless, we see that if the scientific discovery of human evolution was really a threat to orthodox Islam, like it is to fundamentalist Christianity, there would be a lot more of a reaction from the world of orthodox Islam to it as there has been from the world of fundamentalist Christianity. Instead we see that the world of orthodox Islam is much more consumed with modern social issues that are intellectual challenges to Islamic practice rather than its theology.

[ذو الفقار]

They don't need to be majority in order to become the dominant force. Hitler got "just" the 30% of the votes and managed to create a fascist regime. This nationalist people are a bunch losers who have no brain and nothing to lose so they are more willing to sacrifice themselves than the educated people who tend to me more soft, pacifist and less prone to violence. Dont underestimate them.

One key difference between 1930s Germany and today’s rise of the Far-Right, at least in America, is that there is an aggressive reaction from progressive and leftist forces, most notably, Antifa. There seems to be a fundamental difference between America and Europe in this regard. America is, in its very constitution, a liberal nation. But more than that, it has vibrant progressive politics. I see the absence of progressive politics in Europe. Sure they have strong leftist politics, but not really progressive politics. America’s history of racism means as a nation it has had to address that problem, which is why Blacks and Hispanics have made space for themselves in America which they would not be able to do in Europe. While countries that have historically suffered because of racism have more or less addressed those issues and progressed, Europe has stagnated in that department.

Therefore, I definitely see the real potential for the Far-Right to slowly but surely seize power in Europe, but I don’t see it happening in America.

[ذو الفقار]

The above cartoon to me demonstrates the danger of democracy in Muslim countries. I have put forward the political theory that the nation described as "Muslim" has in fact bifurcated into two camps, an increasingly secularist camp which emphasizes its ethnic or national identity above its religious one, and which in fact views Religion as an obstacle to fulfilling its "national destiny", and the traditionalist/religious camp. Democracy means that former will dominate the latter, and do everything in its power to undermine and harass them.

The cartoon depicts the "Mulla" as a monstrous villain, who accuses the masses of wanting "fascism". Understand this point carefully. The cartoon was made in the backdrop of the Shahbag movement in 2013. This was a popular movement in Bangladesh demanding the execution of religious leaders in the country accused of having "collaborated" with Pakistan in the 1971 "war of independence". The religious elements in the country described this movement as supporting fascism because they were basically engaging in a witch-hunt and suspecting any "religious" Muslim of being unpatriotic and pro-Pakistani. Islam had become synonymous with disloyalty to the Bangla nation. The protesters in the cartoon are depicted as ordinary people, patriotic and loyal to Bangladesh, who are demanding something against the Mullas they have besieged in their fortress.

This cartoon ironically proves to me the fascist nature of the propaganda behind the cartoon itself. It also highlights the danger of populist democracy in Muslim-majority countries themselves, that is, the danger it poses to the religiously observant minority.

The premise of the cartoon is that the majority of the people are against the "Mulla" and this somehow justifies their cause as one that is right. But that is only if you accept the premise that the majority of people or a popular movement must by definition be in the right.

[ذو الفقار]

Why were the Muslim intellectuals struggling with Greek Philosophy? Sounds quite unnecessary!
Also the most of the ideas in the Islamic Golden Age were inspired by those 'Greek Philosophers/Scientists/Thinkers', i don't know why thats bad. Before you say something opposite, it is quite apparent from your post that you view Greeks 'negatively', Mazlims struggling with Greek Philosophy.

Yes I do view Greek civilization very negatively. I view the spread of Hellenism, both Greek philosophy and culture, as dissemination of poison. I consider the Maccabean revolt as not only an heroic example of rebellion against Greek political rule, but more importantly as a movement against Hellenic culture and philosophy. Our tradition is very much a Semitic one. Our ideal is the figure of the Prophet, while for the Greeks it is the philosopher.

Greek philosophy challenged our straightforward and beautiful theology in One God, transcendent and immanent. It advocated the absurd idea of the "eternity of the world" (Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists) while we believe the world has an origin and was created.

Greek philosophy rejects ideas of revelation and divine inspiration, instead that attaining proximity to the truth is purely an exercise in rationality and logic.

A lot of Greek philosophy opposed emotion. It reminds me of the fictional Vulcan species from Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek universe. The Hellenic world produced philosophers like Aristippus of Cyrene who came up with the idea of hedonism (pleasure and gratification is the ultimate object of life).

[salman47]

Yes I do view Greek civilization very negatively. I view the spread of Hellenism, both Greek philosophy and culture, as dissemination of poison. I consider the Maccabean revolt as not only an heroic example of rebellion against Greek political rule, but more importantly as a movement against Hellenic culture and philosophy. Our tradition is very much a Semitic one. Our ideal is the figure of the Prophet, while for the Greeks it is the philosopher.

Greek philosophy challenged our straightforward and beautiful theology in One God, transcendent and immanent. It advocated the absurd idea of the "eternity of the world" (Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists) while we believe the world has an origin and was created.

Greek philosophy rejects ideas of revelation and divine inspiration, instead that attaining proximity to the truth is purely an exercise in rationality and logic.

A lot of Greek philosophy opposed emotion. It reminds me of the fictional Vulcan species from Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek universe. The Hellenic world produced philosophers like Aristippus of Cyrene who came up with the idea of hedonism (pleasure and gratification is the ultimate object of life).

'Our Tradition': If you imply that we share a common tradition. We simply Don't
Keep your tradition with yourself and leave me and my tradition(s) alone.

[ذو الفقار]

'Our Tradition': If you imply that we share a common tradition. We simply Don't
Keep your tradition with yourself and leave me and my tradition(s) alone.

My tradition is Islam. If you have another tradition I apologize for implying otherwise.

[salman47]

My tradition is Islam. If you have another tradition I apologize for implying otherwise.

Whatever...

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Whatever the merits of your claim about Wahhabis undermining the community to the benefit of foreign occupiers, it has to be admitted that Wahhabis kept Arabia away from Europeanization.

You can't seriously be saying that to me with a straight face. lol



Even by your standards where you critiqued Western societies as being too soft and self indulgent Earlier, Saudis meet every criteria of decadence that you claim the West embodies. I'd say Saudis are even more WESTERN than the West. The West at least has work ethic.

But if we look at the so called rationalists and modernists, they have always betrayed the cause of Islam, either by being pawns of foreign powers or enforcing their brand of secularism like Mustafa Kamal “Ataturk”.

Who says Attaturk was a rationalist? Modernism and Rationalism are not identical. He was a Modernist perhaps but not a Rationalist since he unquestioningly wanted to emulate Europe. That's NOT rational. .....Jamaluddin Al Afghani was a rationalist and he was urging Muslims to revolt against the colonial powers, while yoiur Orthodox rulers from Deobandi to Barelwi were embracing British colonial rule. Even Sayyid Ahmad Brailwi, your hero, was not Orthodox which is why the Orthodoxy resisted him. Granted he wasn't a rationalist either.

Interesting you say that, because today's modernists and so-called "rationalists" don't seem to be manufacturing intellectual arguments against the things you mentioned, on the contrary, they are actively persuading Muslims to embrace them or perish in their obscurity.

Proof? An example of a legit rationalist ...not someone you call a rationalist, As we saw with your Attaturk example you mix up rationalist with modernist.

I'd be curious to know what are some of your "rationalist" arguments that would persuade the typical Muslim youth to denounce the things you mentioned (homosexuality, transgenderism, interfaith marriage), such arguments which the orthodox are incapable of making.

homosexuality- biological order (show research that reveals the evidence for this)

transgenderism -neurological/physiological disorder (show the research about this)

Interfaith marriage - (sociobiology/anthropology- significance of preventing miscengenation of women to sustain society)

represents the orthodox stream in Islamic thought. As for evolution, I've always thought of it as a dilemma for Christian fundamentalists not traditional Islam. After all, we don't have any dogma about the human species being 6000 years old. I remember watching Bill Nye's debate with Christian fundamentalist Ken Ham and couldn't believe how stupid the Christian side must be if this is their level of intellectualism in the 21st century. Even a second rate Mulla isn't as anti-science as the Christian intellectual elite that have literally billions of dollars at their disposal making museums and life size Arks of Noah. What a waste.

Ask your favorite Orthodox 'Alim what he thinks about evolutionary theory and tell us what he says.

The so-called Islamic "orthodoxy" is actually better described as "orthopraxy" than "orthodoxy". Islam is more about practice and lifestyle than it is about theology. Our theology is simple and straightforward, One God Who is both Transcendent and Immanent, the reality of divine revelation, existence of Angels, and resurrection from the dead to the Afterlife. The latter doctrine (resurrection) is perhaps the closest in being the Christian equivalent of a ultra-rational "mystery", which is why the Quraan devotes a lot of its content to rationalizing the resurrection.

But much of that stems from Orthodoxy. Like do you believe Adam was literally made from clay? Do you believe that in any and all cases women should get half- a males inheritance, even if she's better at managing the estate of her parents? Do you believe the lahya (Sunnah beard) is a important requirement even when the original motive was to differentiate us from Jews and Zoroastrians?

Then you're orthodox.

Evolution is certainly a sound scientific fact, but perhaps the details and theories proposed by contemporary biologists aren't exactly foolproof.

Sure but the level of error is very narrow if you understand mathematical models of phyologenetic trees, that would be impossible to just err by poor reasoning.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Whatever...

No, his tradition is Indic Mullahism which is just a refurbishing of Hindu Punditism.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Yes I do view Greek civilization very negatively. I view the spread of Hellenism, both Greek philosophy and culture, as dissemination of poison. I consider the Maccabean revolt as not only an heroic example of rebellion against Greek political rule, but more importantly as a movement against Hellenic culture and philosophy. Our tradition is very much a Semitic one. Our ideal is the figure of the Prophet, while for the Greeks it is the philosopher.

Islam is couched in Semitic symbolism and language but the concepts are syncretic and make connections with universal themes and ideas. Some of the stories in the Qur'an (such as Dhul Qarnain) are references to events and persons who were not Semites but more than likely Indo-Aryans or Greeks. Even the Philosophical concepts in the Qur'an can find representation in Pantheistic ideas of Taoism.


The Maccabean revolt wasn't against Greek political rule, it was against Roman Political rule. You are simply fabricating things now.

Greek philosophy challenged our straightforward and beautiful theology in One God, transcendent and immanent. It advocated the absurd idea of the "eternity of the world" (Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists) while we believe the world has an origin and was created.

Greek Philosophy challenged nothing, it's our Muslim thinkers who challenged it Because of the very concept of what it means to be transcendent and immanent. It's not "straight forward" since the two concepts on their base renderings mean mutually exclusive things. This had to be philosophically resolved. Greek Philosophy offered some models of how to do it, but the conclusion and resolution was purely the realization of Muslim thought.

Even the Mu'tazilah accept that the world has origin and was created. In fact everything except Dhat (Divine Essence) and the sifat al musassah (essential attributes which are innate with the Dhat). If anything it's the Orthodox that fringe upon shirk by accepting the co-eternality of entities other than Allah(swt).

Greek philosophy rejects ideas of revelation and divine inspiration, instead that attaining proximity to the truth is purely an exercise in rationality and logic.

The Mu'tazilah didn't reject wahy, you're ignoring the diverse expanse of Greek philosophical thought. It wasn't all one way or the other.

A lot of Greek philosophy opposed emotion. It reminds me of the fictional Vulcan species from Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek universe. The Hellenic world produced philosophers like Aristippus of Cyrene who came up with the idea of hedonism (pleasure and gratification is the ultimate object of life).

Well duh because Greek Philosophy is not one monolithic concept. The South Asian "Muslim" world produced Huma Abedin. You apparently don't understand that "Greek philosophy" doesn't mean that Platonism is responsible for Epicureanism and vice versa. Just like a pudgy Indian guy with a kufi isn't responsible for Huma Abedin.

[ذو الفقار]

The Maccabean revolt wasn't against Greek political rule, it was against Roman Political rule. You are simply fabricating things now.

I will, in sha Allah, answer your other points later, but this one caught my eye because I thought you had at least some elementary education before making such lofty claims about being a "rationalist".

The Maccabean revolt was not against the Romans, it was against the Seleucids who were Greeks. It was a revolt in the 2nd century BCE.

The Romans didn't enter into Palestine until the 1st century BCE, under the Roman general Pompey.

So recheck your history before so casually accusing me of fabricating stuff.