democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

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.

Being a rationalist and regurgitating historical facts are not the same thing. Rationalism is methodology. Anyways I mistook the Maccbean revolt with Siege of Masada.

[ذو الفقار]

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.

No doubt the Saudis are an extreme example of indulgence in luxury and wealth, but 1. the Saudi lifestyle was opposed by the "Wahhabis" who became disillusioned with them, I referenced Juhayman's 1979 uprising. Study its background to understand. 2. Throughout history most of our Muslim rulers have likewise been indulgent in luxury

But the point I made is that Arabia was free of cultural Europeanization that happened in virtually all other Muslim countries due to colonialism. This was in large part due to the influence of "Wahhabism" in the Arabian Peninsula, which served as an effective resistance to cultural Europeanization. One cannot say this of those parts of the Muslim world which were colonized by British, French, Dutch, Soviets, Italians, Germans, etc.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

No doubt the Saudis are an extreme example of indulgence in luxury and wealth, but 1. the Saudi lifestyle was opposed by the "Wahhabis" who became disillusioned with them, I referenced Juhayman's 1979 uprising. Study its background to understand. 2. Throughout history most of our Muslim rulers have likewise been indulgent in luxury

But the point I made is that Arabia was free of cultural Europeanization that happened in virtually all other Muslim countries due to colonialism. This was in large part due to the influence of "Wahhabism" in the Arabian Peninsula, which served as an effective resistance to cultural Europeanization. One cannot say this of those parts of the Muslim world which were colonized by British, French, Dutch, Soviets, Italians, Germans, etc.

Free of? No way, lol You don't see drifting in the streets of Kandahar



They're probably one of the most culturally Europeanized

[ذو الفقار]

Free of? No way, lol You don't see drifting in the streets of Kandahar



They're probably one of the most culturally Europeanized

Streets of Kandahar? LOL. Since when does Kandahar even have streets? That's a video from Saudi Arabia not Kandahar.

And racing is probably one of the most universal human activities young people of every time and place do for fun. Even the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to race for fun.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Streets of Kandahar? LOL. Since when does Kandahar even have streets? That's a video from Saudi Arabia not Kandahar.

And racing is probably one of the most universal human activities young people of every time and place do for fun. Even the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to race for fun.

yeah that was my point this stuff doesn't happen in the streets of Kandahar......don't play this down using some false equivalence, Prophet(saw) wasn't drifting using Western sports cars trying to copy the movie The Fast & Furious. In other words,you are just flat wrong. Get out more.

[ذو الفقار]

yeah that was my point this stuff doesn't happen in the streets of Kandahar......don't play this down using some false equivalence, Prophet(saw) wasn't drifting using Western sports cars trying to copy the movie The Fast & Furious. In other words,you are just flat wrong. Get out more.

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.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

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.

No it shows that these kids are influenced by American pop/media culture. And that you're wrong and trying desperately to dig your way out. All to deflect that your ilk have been the worst traitors to Muslims. you've kept us down so much that not only did you fail in repelling the West's hegemony, you've in fact allowed a backdoor for the most toxic influences the West has to offer ....like this rubbish. You've fostered a low brow culture.

We need to abandon Orthodoxy, it's not just a desire, it's a necessity, you guys don't know what you're doing.

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.

yes so my example still applies; because this falls into your evaluation of the indulgent Western morality that you were speaking of.

[ذو الفقار]

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.

Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi and Shah Ismail of Delhi were superbly orthodox. How can you even say otherwise? You yourself described "Wahhabis" as "ultra-orthodox", and your definition of "Wahhabi" would necessarily include both Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi, Shah Ismail of Delhi, and their Movement.

Modernists are claiming they are rationalists. For example Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who was, by the way, strongly opposed to a political revolt against the British (which is perhaps why they knighted him).

As for Jamaluddin Afghani, I don't know if he called for a political revolt or not, but being a modernist he was not interested in a cultural revolution against European culture. He may or may not have opposed the political domination of Europeans on the Muslims, but being a good modernist, he swallowed wholesale many of their modern ideas and concepts which the Orthodox reject outright.

I argue that worse than political domination is cultural domination.

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)

Virtually all the contemporary Muslim modernists also describe themselves as "rationalists". I don't know of any rationalist who isn't also a modernist. Abdul Karim Soroush apparently holds homosexuality to be immoral, but he is opposed to criminalizing it. Only a rationalist and modernist would deny the orthodox Shari'a that homosexuality is not merely a personal sin but an example of sexual misconduct that is a violation of Islam's criminal code. We say that the one found guilty of sodomy is to be executed, and likewise the one found guilty of bestiality. Do you deny this?

In fact, I believe the only reason you have mentioned these two or three examples is because you as an Afghan have grown up since childhood being taught that these things are horrendous despicable acts. Your view is being informed by your cultural upbringing, not by any rationalism. I've met plenty of Muslims like you who are extremely western and modern but simply cannot stomach the idea of homosexuality being okay because of cultural upbringing. Otherwise, their own standard and conception of rationality should make them embrace what their non-Muslim rationalist counterparts have embraced as perfectly moral.

Coming to your arguments against these things, you haven't presented any kind of bombshell. The orthodox have been saying the same thing all along. But I find your last argument against interfaith marriage based on the idea of wanting to prevent miscegenation to be laughable. Miscegenation is about mixing genes not religion. So you are against interracial marriage not necessarily interfaith marriage. And the idea that interracial marriage is wrong because it leads to miscegenation assumes that miscegenation is somehow unhealthy. What kind of rationalist are you? I clearly see you trying to rationalize your Afghan cultural sentiments, not Islamic moral laws.

Btw, you should check out our (orthodox) 206-page book on homosexuality. Thus far I haven't read a better argument based on science and morality than it:

IslamHomosexuality.Com | About

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

They acknowledge that it is simply not their domain. Whether human evolution is true or false is inconsequential to the known, orthodox teachings of Islam.

But much of that stems from Orthodoxy. Like do you believe Adam was literally made from clay?

Yes I believe man is made of 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?

Yes, because the reason for this ratio of division of the inheritance is not based on management. It is a Divine law, and there are other wisdom and rationale behind it which you haven't bothered to consider.

Do you believe the lahya (Sunnah beard) is a important requirement even when the original motive was to differentiate us from Jews and Zoroastrians?

Yes I believe keeping a beard is a religious imperative in Islam, but again, not merely because it was intended to differentiate us from other communities, but because the Prophet (peace be upon him) described it as the Fitra (innate disposition of man)

It is also meant to distinguish us from women. Keeping a beard as distinction between men and women is in fact a greater rationale than as distinguishing from Zoroastrians and Jews. Your argument implies that it is not necessary to keep a beard anymore since the original objective for the practice no longer exists, but that too is self-evidently false.

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.

Evolutionists believe all organic, carbon-based life on Earth has a common origin. The idea is described as the "Tree of Life". Do you personally believe that you and the apple you ate for breakfast have a common progenitor? After all you probably share about a quarter of the same DNA

[ذو الفقار]

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

Exactly, and this is the essential problem with rationalism, no one can ever agree what is considered rational and what is irrational. It can hardly be described as a consistent stream. You say emulating Europe isn't rational, but that is your point of view. Another rationalist comes along and says it is perfectly rational. Is your idea of rationality arbitrary or is it based on some carefully constructed, tried and tested framework?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi and Shah Ismail of Delhi were superbly orthodox

Not really,

Piri-Muridi (preceptor-disciple) system in favour of attracting recruits for his jihad (as referred to in the book). Interestingly, he insisted on ijtihad but rejected taqleed (following interpretation of jurists)

see? Not really orthodox at all. I agree with his rejection of strict Taqleed but nomial taqleed is ok.

As for Jamaluddin Afghani, I don't know if he called for a political revolt or not, but being a modernist he was not interested in a cultural revolution against European culture. He may or may not have opposed the political domination of Europeans on the Muslims, but being a good modernist, he swallowed wholesale many of their modern ideas and concepts which the Orthodox reject outright.

You've obviously never explored any of his ideas.

I argue that worse than political domination is cultural domination.

Which he was against

Virtually all the contemporary Muslim modernists also describe themselves as "rationalists". I don't know of any rationalist who isn't also a modernist. Abdul Karim Soroush apparently holds homosexuality to be immoral, but he is opposed to criminalizing it. Only a rationalist and modernist would deny the orthodox Shari'a that homosexuality is not merely a personal sin but an example of sexual misconduct that is a violation of Islam's criminal code. We say that the one found guilty of sodomy is to be executed, and likewise the one found guilty of bestiality. Do you deny this?

But regardless of what one calls yourself. For example you think of yourself as a revolutionary, but you're just the stereotypical regressive Mullah-cult worshipper the typical South Asian Muslim tends to be. Rationalism and Modernism are different things. Rationalism and Modernism are different things. What is Modern is not necessarily rational and what is rational is not necessarily modern. What people call themselves is just what people call themselves.

In fact, I believe the only reason you have mentioned these two or three examples is because you as an Afghan have grown up since childhood being taught that these things are horrendous despicable acts. Your view is being informed by your cultural upbringing, not by any rationalism. I've met plenty of Muslims like you who are extremely western and modern but simply cannot stomach the idea of homosexuality being okay because of cultural upbringing. Otherwise, their own standard and conception of rationality should make them embrace what their non-Muslim rationalist counterparts have embraced as perfectly moral.

Being you were trying to defend Drifting as validated and condoned by the Sunnah, your conclusions are more projection.

Coming to your arguments against these things, you haven't presented any kind of bombshell. The orthodox have been saying the same thing all along.

No the Orthodox view is that people choose to do these things (homosexuality/transgenderism), that they simply do so because they're morally perverse and because there's something in their biology that's not functioning properly. Hence The Orthodox view is to target such individuals with threats and harassment as one of your posts indicated a few weeks ago. and this which makes the Orthodox look like a bunch of Psychopaths and pushes more people away. The approach I give is more balanaced and nuanced. It neither tries to condone these people nor validate their behavior as an "alternate" lifestyle. And hence it's immediately more reasonable.

Treating these issues as a Neurological-Psychological health issue. As for Miscengenation, I have never seen the Orthodox appeal to Anthropology or Sociobiology. EVER. Why would they? The Orthodox are ideologues and thus can't think outside of their ideology. That would violate being Orthodox. Once you do that, you're no longer authentically Orthodox.

But I find your last argument against interfaith marriage based on the idea of wanting to prevent miscegenation to be laughable. Miscegenation is about mixing genes not religion. So you are against interracial marriage not necessarily interfaith marriage.

The technical meaning is about genetics, but it's also used for cultural and social mixing as well. If you understand basic anthropology that's a very rational argument. It's crucial to maintain social health of the community and prevent deterioration. I think you

Btw, you should check out our (orthodox) 206-page book on homosexuality. Thus far I haven't read a better argument based on science and morality than it:

url=http://www.islamhomosexuality.com/hs/categories/io-about.cfm]IslamHomosexuality.Com | About[/url]

Yeah all I had to do was see the Table of contents and see "born gay Hoax" to determine your Orthodoxy has no clue what they're talking about. and has absolutely no relation to my arguments whatsoever. Anyone that doesn't understand that our current modern understanding of homosexual orientation from a scientific perspective, is a phenomena outside the control of the person, doesn't hvae the first clue what they're talking about.

They acknowledge that it is simply not their domain. Whether human evolution is true or false is inconsequential to the known, orthodox teachings of Islam.

It's consequential because it brings to question claims of the Orthodox and whether the Orthodox understanding of Islam is in touch with reality or just the equivalent of people playing Magic: The Gathering.

Yes I believe man is made of clay.

And such a belief runs contrary to molecular biology which shows that humans show absolutely no silicate (one of the key chemical components of clay) as a building block for human tissue..

Yes, because the reason for this ratio of division of the inheritance is not based on management. It is a Divine law, and there are other wisdom and rationale behind it which you haven't bothered to consider.

And that statement right there just reveals the dogma and irrational nature of Orthodoxy; because inheritance, by its function is a method to manage delineation of resources, there's no overt metaphysical motivation behind it. This only reinforces that the Orthodox do not know how to manage or rule society.

Yes I believe keeping a beard is a religious imperative in Islam, but again, not merely because it was intended to differentiate us from other communities, but because the Prophet (peace be upon him) described it as the Fitra (innate disposition of man)

You misunderstand the hadith where he mentions Fitra, ....because it doesn't mean what you think it means. We're also required to take care of our private regions, but that grows naturally, so by the rendering of fitra you're using, that would mean we should grow those too because they're "fitra". In actuality, what's being said is that those are things we naturally have to take care m, not that we keep them because they're "natural".

The beard is just a means to differentiate us from the communities of Muhammad(saw)'s time, which is in fact no longer relevant now.

It is also meant to distinguish us from women.]

If you think grown men without beards are like women. Maybe you're Gay. Just saying.

Do you personally believe that you and the apple you ate for breakfast have a common progenitor? After all you probably share about a quarter of the same DNA

[/SIZE]

uh yeah, what's the controversy exactly? If we all come from unicellular organisms that makes perfect sense ....

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Exactly, and this is the essential problem with rationalism, no one can ever agree what is considered rational and what is irrational. It can hardly be described as a consistent stream. You say emulating Europe isn't rational, but that is your point of view. Another rationalist comes along and says it is perfectly rational. Is your idea of rationality arbitrary or is it based on some carefully constructed, tried and tested framework?

What you did right now is what's called "Changing Goal Posts" or "Texas Sharp-Shooting". What's rational is pretty concrete, it's simply about understanding truth values of statements. But people pandering the word rational, doesn't mean it meets that criteria. Blindly accepting Modernity isn't rational because it can lead to Appeal to Novelty Fallacy. Hence Modern= Rational is a false reasoning. This is is not a point of view or opinion based approach, although opinions can be weighed for which is more likely to be correct, it's the way logical constructs are made. A person can't just "come along" and say it's perfectly rational. It doesnt work that way.

You obviously don't understand how reasoning works ....but that doesn't surprise me, because in your realm of Orthodoxy, opinions is precisely what it boils down to, so it makes sense that you perceive reality from that lens.

[ذو الفقار]

Not really,

see? Not really orthodox at all. I agree with his rejection of strict Taqleed but nomial taqleed is ok.

Explain the difference.

You've obviously never explored any of his ideas.

Is it not true that Afghani and Muhammad Abduh (his disciple) were freemasons?

No the Orthodox view is that people choose to do these things (homosexuality/transgenderism), that they simply do so because they're morally perverse and because there's something in their biology that's not functioning properly.

The orthodox view is that homosexuality is a major sin and corruption full stop. There is no "orthodox" position on why or how people become homosexual, that is a speculative topic as far as we are concerned, through which the aid of science, medicine, biology and psychology can surely be sought.

Hence The Orthodox view is to target such individuals with threats and harassment as one of your posts indicated a few weeks ago. and this which makes the Orthodox look like a bunch of Psychopaths and pushes more people away.

I never advocated threatening or harassing people who are either suspected of being homosexual or who may even identify as homosexual. I only advocated something being done about the cross-dressers who are flagrantly corruption society by dressing as women in public. Orthodox Islam doesn't seek to invade people's privacy and pry into their bedrooms. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom you are answerable only to God for on Judgment Day. The Islamic laws are only meant to prevent sexual immorality and misconduct that is done openly and publicly for obvious reasons. Cross-dressing men going about openly is a social and public issue which the Islamic government has to address with a firm hand. I also believe in vigilantism in public affairs being the right of ordinary Muslims as part of the principle of promotion of virtue and prevention of vice. That doesn't mean going around hospitalizing cross-dressers, only roughing them up a little to send a message that your behavior isn't welcome in our neighborhood.

The technical meaning is about genetics, but it's also used for cultural and social mixing as well. If you understand basic anthropology that's a very rational argument. It's crucial to maintain social health of the community and prevent deterioration. I think you

A rationalist would argue that cultural and social mixing serves to strengthen and improve the world. Cross pollination of ideas. What do you say to that?

Yeah all I had to do was see the Table of contents and see "born gay Hoax" to determine your Orthodoxy has no clue what they're talking about.

I have actually read the book unlike you. If you want I can send it to you as a pdf, since I don't think you can download it online anymore. The chapter on born gay hoax is a response to the argument of certain homosexualists that being gay is something you are born with.

And such a belief runs contrary to molecular biology which shows that humans show absolutely no silicate (one of the key chemical components of clay) as a building block for human tissue..

Whatever the merits of your claim, the orthodox idea that man was made from clay isn't that every single human being is made from clay. We are made from the seed of our father. Man being made from clay is a reference to the primordial man (Adam) from whom we, the human race, descend.

And that statement right there just reveals the dogma and irrational nature of Orthodoxy; because inheritance, by its function is a method to manage delineation of resources, there's no overt metaphysical motivation behind it. This only reinforces that the Orthodox do not know how to manage or rule society.

Here you reveal the fundamental influence of Marxism upon you. The principle of distributing wealth on the basis of need, and that the distribution of wealth is meant to be functional. That is not the principle of wealth distribution with us. With us, if it is someone's right to a portion of wealth, he must be given his right, what he does or doesn't do with that money is his business.

You misunderstand the hadith where he mentions Fitra, ....because it doesn't mean what you think it means. We're also required to take care of our private regions, but that grows naturally, so by the rendering of fitra you're using, that would mean we should grow those too because they're "fitra". In actuality, what's being said is that those are things we naturally have to take care m, not that we keep them because they're "natural".

I never said that growing a beard is fitra because removing hair from one's body is unnatural. It is fitra to grow a beard as a means of display one's masculinity. To shave the beard is going against the innate masculine disposition. Therefore your analogy with removing pubic and armpit hairs is flawed.

The beard is just a means to differentiate us from the communities of Muhammad(saw)'s time, which is in fact no longer relevant now.

Explain why it is no longer relevant now? I'm pretty sure more people had beards back then including Christians, Jews and pagans. So if the purpose is to differentiate from other communities, it would be more important to keep a beard now in the 21st century than in the 7th century.

If you think grown men without beards are like women. Maybe you're Gay. Just saying.

No I said removing one's beard is an attempt to imitate women. Should grown men who are obviously men be allowed to wear jewelry, bracelets, ear rings, etc. No heterosexual will be attracted to them, but that's not the point. The point is men should not deny their masculinity and women should maintain their femininity. A man shaving his beard is denying his masculinity just like a woman shaving her head is clearly a distortion and ugly mutilation of her femininity.

The custom of going clean shaven was introduced by the Romans. This custom has from the beginning been associated with pagan immoral civilization of the West, and not coincidentally, it has remained so till this day. The people of God have always rejected this alien and foreign custom.

[Akbar]

Streets of Kandahar? LOL. Since when does Kandahar even have streets? That's a video from Saudi Arabia not Kandahar.

And racing is probably one of the most universal human activities young people of every time and place do for fun. Even the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to race for fun.

there you go munafiq
again you try to degrade , in this case Kandahar. Kandahar also has mosques and genuine Muslims. unlike your country which is filled with kazzabs such mirza ghulam.

you also continue to defend this stupid drifting sport because it is arabs who are doing it and somehow connecting this stupidity to prophet(pbuh).

Prophet (pbuh) never drifted . drifting is nothing islamic or harmless fun.
it is putting yours and others lives at risk and also polluting the atmosphere.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Explain the difference.

Well for example you can make taqleed because its simpler and practical but things which are clearly based on certain scant reasoning or somewhat murky in a madhhab might be reconsidered.

Is it not true that Afghani and Muhammad Abduh (his disciple) were freemasons?

There's never been any evidence I have seen about this. You can probably find some whacky conspiratorial b.s. online though,

The orthodox view is that homosexuality is a major sin and corruption full stop. There is no "orthodox" position on why or how people become homosexual, that is a speculative topic as far as we are concerned, through which the aid of science, medicine, biology and psychology can surely be sought.

But this is important as by understanding the mechanisms of it we can correctly approach it rather than as you suggest ..go around "harassing and tormenting" people, who maybe suffering from an illness.


I

never advocated threatening or harassing people who are either suspected of being homosexual or who may even identify as homosexual. I only advocated something being done about the cross-dressers who are flagrantly corruption society by dressing as women in public. Orthodox Islam doesn't seek to invade people's privacy and pry into their bedrooms. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom you are answerable only to God for on Judgment Day. The Islamic laws are only meant to prevent sexual immorality and misconduct that is done openly and publicly for obvious reasons. Cross-dressing men going about openly is a social and public issue which the Islamic government has to address with a firm hand. I also believe in vigilantism in public affairs being the right of ordinary Muslims as part of the principle of promotion of virtue and prevention of vice. That doesn't mean going around hospitalizing cross-dressers, only roughing them up a little to send a message that your behavior isn't welcome in our neighborhood.

Yeah, that's not how you treat the mentally deranged even in Islamic Law.

A rationalist would argue that cultural and social mixing serves to strengthen and improve the world. Cross pollination of ideas. What do you say to that?

dude what? You're mixing up topics lol. Cross polination of ideas is a pursuit done through intellectual discourse, not offering your daughter's vagina to Anthony Werner as your cousins the Abedin's s did. I don't think someone that thinks humans were literally made from clay would make sound predictions on rationalism.

I have actually read the book unlike you

.

oh really you have? And what's the "scientific" basis for the "myth" of "being born gay". because the scientific consensus is there is in fact a neurologial difference between straight men and gay men which suggests there are factors outside the control of the person for their sexual orientation.

I mean sure send me the book so I can laugh at it, but anyone that says theatrical statements like "the myth of ..." is probably littered with bias.

Man being made from clay is a reference to the primordial man (Adam) from whom we, the human race, descend.

which still would be falsified by the phylogenetic tree.

Here you reveal the fundamental influence of Marxism upon you. The principle of distributing wealth on the basis of need,

I guess you believe Zakat is Marxism because it seeks to distribute wealth and resources to others on the basis of need.

way to shoot yourself in the foot. I never argued "need" but management. There's no metaphysical principle or spiritual signficance for the division of inheritance outside of maintaining human affairs in harmony. if there's no practical benefit in a practice then it doesn't manage human affairs. It's as simple as that and if it doesn't manage human affairs, then it wouldn't be dealing with issues regarding managing human affairs.

I never said that growing a beard is fitra because removing hair from one's body is unnatural. It is fitra to grow a beard as a means of display one's masculinity. To shave the beard is going against the innate masculine disposition. Therefore your analogy with removing pubic and armpit hairs is flawed.

I know you didn't say that , I'm highlighting that the hadith about fitra is about what we need to groom. Your argument is circular reasoning , you're affirming your own premise, because if shaving our beard is against masculinity then removing the public hair would also be against our masculine nature since those are hairs that grow as a consequence of hormones that define the overt physical traits of matured adult males. So in fact you. Hence this isn't about masculinity at all, it's just a grooming recommendation that the orthodox in the Jahiliyah took out of context.

Explain why it is no longer relevant now? I'm pretty sure more people had beards back then including Christians, Jews and pagans. So if the purpose is to differentiate from other communities, it would be more important to keep a beard now in the 21st century than in the 7th century.

Because it's not that hard to differentiate between groups of people.

No I said removing one's beard is an attempt to imitate women.

I've never seen a man that shaved that is trying to imitate women; you're just revealing your closeted homosexuality sir, if you see that as a cue to imitate women.

Should grown men who are obviously men be allowed to wear jewelry, bracelets, ear rings, etc.

It's a matter of taste, most jewelry for men and women are different so if you see these things are imitation of women, maybe you have some sexual orientation issues.

The point is men should not deny their masculinity and women should maintain their femininity. A man shaving his beard is denying his masculinity just like a woman shaving her head is clearly a distortion and ugly mutilation of her femininity.

I agree with that but the criterion you use to define that, is very flimsy and fickle...this is why you should not be driven by ideology.

The custom of going clean shaven was introduced by the Romans. This custom has from the beginning been associated with pagan immoral civilization of the West, and not coincidentally, it has remained so till this day. The people of God have always rejected this alien and foreign custom.

Vikings also had beards, so by your logic having a beard would signify the traits of Animal raping Pagans. Sorry , but these types of reasoning are too ridiculous and juvenile to take seriously.

[ذو الفقار]

There's never been any evidence I have seen about this. You can probably find some whacky conspiratorial b.s. online though,

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

"Afghani's earliest known contact with the Freemasons is a letter dated May, 1875 requesting his admission into one of the chapters in Cairo. The letter does not reveal the name of the chapter, but its identity is not vital since Afghani soon belonged to several lodges. Other documents show that he was invited to attend sessions in various lodges until he left Egypt. Among these were the Italian Luce d'Oriente, Nilo and Mazzini. It would appear that at least between 1877 and 1879 he belonged to one or more of these, because the invitations he received concerned the election of new members and memorial services for past members. In other documents he is identified as a member of the Nile lodge of Cairo which was affiliated with the National Grand Lodge of Egypt (one of three Grand Masonic bodies established in May, 1878 when the French Grand Orient was reorganized). Afghani was also a leading member of the Star of the East (Kawkab al-Sharq), No. 1355, founded in Cairo in 1871 and affiliated with the United Grand Lodge of England. According to Mohammed Sabry, it was a British Vice-Consul in Cairo, Raphael Borg, himself a Mason, who urged Afghani and his followers "As'affilier A la maFonnerie anglaise" through this chapter. Soon it had many members from the Egyptian elite, including Tawfiq Pasha (Isma'il's son), Sharif Pasha, Butrus Pasha Ghali, Sulayman Pasha 'Abaza, Muhammad 'Abduh, Sa'd Zaghlul, army officers like Latif Bey Salim and Sa'id Nasr, members of the Assembly of Delegates and even 'ulama'. Sabry does not indicate his sources nor the date of Afghani's encounter with Borg, but among the recently discovered documents is an invitation for Afghani, dated 24 January, 1877, to attent an extraordinary session. The following January he was elected president of the lodge for the year 1878. When the dates and nature of these two events are taken into account, it would appear that Afghani had joined the Star of the East, at least, by 1876.

Afghānī and Freemasonry in Egypt
Author(s): A. Albert Kudsi-Zadeh
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1972), pp. 25-35

I guess you believe Zakat is Marxism because it seeks to distribute wealth and resources to others on the basis of need.

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.

way to shoot yourself in the foot. I never argued "need" but management. There's no metaphysical principle or spiritual signficance for the division of inheritance outside of maintaining human affairs in harmony. if there's no practical benefit in a practice then it doesn't manage human affairs. It's as simple as that and if it doesn't manage human affairs, then it wouldn't be dealing with issues regarding managing human affairs.

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?

I know you didn't say that , I'm highlighting that the hadith about fitra is about what we need to groom. Your argument is circular reasoning , you're affirming your own premise, because if shaving our beard is against masculinity then removing the public hair would also be against our masculine nature since those are hairs that grow as a consequence of hormones that define the overt physical traits of matured adult males. So in fact you. Hence this isn't about masculinity at all, it's just a grooming recommendation that the orthodox in the Jahiliyah took out of context.

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

Because it's not that hard to differentiate between groups of people.

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?

It's a matter of taste, most jewelry for men and women are different so if you see these things are imitation of women, maybe you have some sexual orientation issues.

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.

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.

Vikings also had beards, so by your logic having a beard would signify the traits of Animal raping Pagans. Sorry , but these types of reasoning are too ridiculous and juvenile to take seriously.

That is my argument that growing the beard is essentially an expression of masculinity that comes from our Fitra (innate disposition). Shaving the beard was the novel custom introduced to the world by the Romans. For the Muslims to adapt this foreign Roman custom means they are imitating the people who went against the standard habit of men around the world. Vikings were not distinct because of their beards, but Romans were distinct because of their custom of shaving the beard.