Egypt bans 55,000 mosque preachers in crackdown on Islamists

[RevolutionThroughReason]

What proof you need when I suggest democracy, development, human rights, science, technology for Pashtuns. My question was that you may have issues with secularism but do you have also issues with other approaches like democracy and development?

Am I also misguided when I promote democracy and development amongst Pashtuns? For SK democracy is shirk/kuffr/infidelity so I cannot expect a debate with him but I would like to know whether you favor these ideas like democracy or you are also against it.

I never recognize that you have ever debunked my claim that Islam never functioned as a successful system politically, economically and culturally. It is a perfect religion but not system. You quote only 30 years of piuous caliphs but that was an Arab rule and 30 years is not a sufficient period for calling a system successful when it did not work for 1400 years.

That's my point; many of us have written several times where we not only demonstrate evidence where you're wrong. We show on what grounds your argument is flawed. If you don't recognize it's simply because you reject anything that doesn't fit into your own worldview; and if you ignore everything that is inconvenient for you to address; then you'll always tell yourself no one refuted you. But believe me I have and I still do; Your argument is flawed on numerous levels. Both on historical accuracy and the criterion that you use. You claim your narrative as factual from the outset.

The proof you need is examining evidence as a whole with all the intricacies and dynamics involved; you have failed to do this. You're merely giving very very superficial descriptions of things. Hence why I insist you are misguided and frankly, your arguments are very poorly developed and juvenile/amateurish.

[Badlun]

That's my point; many of us have written several times where we not only demonstrate evidence where you're wrong. We show on what grounds your argument is flawed. If you don't recognize it's simply because you reject anything that doesn't fit into your own worldview; and if you ignore everything that is inconvenient for you to address; then you'll always tell yourself no one refuted you. But believe me I have and I still do; Your argument is flawed on numerous levels. Both on historical accuracy and the criterion that you use. You claim your narrative as factual from the outset.

The proof you need is examining evidence as a whole with all the intricacies and dynamics involved; you have failed to do this. You're merely giving very very superficial descriptions of things. Hence why I insist you are misguided and frankly, your arguments are very poorly developed and juvenile/amateurish.

The same applies on you. I argue and you refute. You argue and I refute. Both of us think I have refuted the other while both also think I have not been refuted. As there is no judge so the decision remain reserved for both. However there is no harm in continuation of the debate and till the time one is squarely refuted and he himself recognizes that yes I am done or this site arranges a kind of moderation for each topic and at the end the moderator decides who won and who lost.

Let me repeat my question which you ignored.
1. Do you also oppose democracy, development, science, technology , liberalism, capitalism, socialism as you oppose secularism.

and a subsequent one
2. Why secularism does not work for Muslims if it works for the developed West? It did not work for the West in middle ages but now it is working. Don't you think Muslims are passing through their middle/dark ages and they need to give a chance to secularism.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The same applies on you. I argue and you refute. You argue and I refute. Both of us think I have refuted the other while both also think I have not been refuted. As there is no judge so the decision remain reserved for both. However there is no harm in continuation of the debate and till the time one is squarely refuted and he himself recognizes that yes I am done or this site arranges a kind of moderation for each topic and at the end the moderator decides who won and who lost.

Let me repeat my question which you ignored.
1. Do you also oppose democracy, development, science, technology , liberalism, capitalism, socialism as you oppose secularism.

and a subsequent one
2. Why secularism does not work for Muslims if it works for the developed West? It did not work for the West in middle ages but now it is working. Don't you think Muslims are passing through their middle/dark ages and they need to give a chance to secularism.

This is untrue; everytime we've had a debate I have addressed every single one of your point.

If you notice in most of our exchanges tyou make very hazy and general statements; where as I actually go to your specific points and demonstrate EXACTLY why they're incorrect and the evidence that exists that demonstrate their incorrectness. Your method is simply to repeat yourself over and over agaiin with this assumption your conclusions are 100% accurate without any concept of context or nuance behind them. This is very superficial.

1. Secularism doesn't work for Muslims because Secularism is a cultural system based on European cultural experiences; It can't work because it fails to understand the social landscape of a society that doesn't have its fundamental outlook. Muslim societies do not have a fundamental outlook for secularism.

This is why the only Successful Secular nations are Europeans; every other secular society almost unanimously is poor or destiute. Even Khostai mentioned South Africa; and the White Europeans control the wealth there while the native blacks are destitute.

2.) Technology and Science are different than Liberalism, Development and Science. You don't need secularism for these things. There is enough in Islam for these things to develop. We know from Islamic Golden Age that Islamic Law ruling society co-existed with Scientific Development. Likewise we know that Secularism exists in some of the poorest most impoverished parts of the world; so this proves that Secularism does not create a prosperous society

I'm for democracy within an Islamic Framework; that fundamental rules of society do not violate the Shari'ah; it is ok to Vote for Leaders and make Legislation regarding Material Endeavors by voting for candidates who will work towards ending pollution or build better infrastructure etc.. When it comes to social morality and so on this is legislated by Islamic doctrines; and determined on the basis of evidence from Islamic sources. It is debatable but ultimately everyone must present the strongest evidence possible in this type of legislation.

But Western type of democracy where corrupt and immoral lifestyles are given legal sanction is completely unacceptable and more over socially detrimental.

[Badlun]

This is untrue; everytime we've had a debate I have addressed every single one of your point.

If you notice in most of our exchanges tyou make very hazy and general statements; where as I actually go to your specific points and demonstrate EXACTLY why they're incorrect and the evidence that exists that demonstrate their incorrectness. Your method is simply to repeat yourself over and over agaiin with this assumption your conclusions are 100% accurate without any concept of context or nuance behind them. This is very superficial.

1. Secularism doesn't work for Muslims because Secularism is a cultural system based on European cultural experiences; It can't work because it fails to understand the social landscape of a society that doesn't have its fundamental outlook. Muslim societies do not have a fundamental outlook for secularism.

This is why the only Successful Secular nations are Europeans; every other secular society almost unanimously is poor or destiute. Even Khostai mentioned South Africa; and the White Europeans control the wealth there while the native blacks are destitute.

2.) Technology and Science are different than Liberalism, Development and Science. You don't need secularism for these things. There is enough in Islam for these things to develop. We know from Islamic Golden Age that Islamic Law ruling society co-existed with Scientific Development. Likewise we know that Secularism exists in some of the poorest most impoverished parts of the world; so this proves that Secularism does not create a prosperous society

I'm for democracy within an Islamic Framework; that fundamental rules of society do not violate the Shari'ah; it is ok to Vote for Leaders and make Legislation regarding Material Endeavors by voting for candidates who will work towards ending pollution or build better infrastructure etc.. When it comes to social morality and so on this is legislated by Islamic doctrines; and determined on the basis of evidence from Islamic sources. It is debatable but ultimately everyone must present the strongest evidence possible in this type of legislation.

But Western type of democracy where corrupt and immoral lifestyles are given legal sanction is completely unacceptable and more over socially detrimental.

Of which golden age you are talking when Shariat and science/technology coexisted? I need details please.

Secularism is a political idea not a cultural one. How can you say secularism is something cultural or depends on culture. Europe, US, Canada, Japan, China, South Korea are all secular countries but have totally different cultures. Even in Europe German, English, French, Dutch, Finish, Spanish, Italian etc have cultures poles apart.

The problem of Africa is lack of democracy. Once democracy and secularism are combined then we have results.

It means that you are in favor of democracy but morality should be left to religion. Yes I agree with this. In Muslim world morality should be determined by religion. I am always for Islam with its domain in morality, faith and worship. I do not think any legislature will legislate against universal moral values like truth, honesty, and safeguards against life, property and honor.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Of which golden age you are talking when Shariat and science/technology coexisted? I need details please.

Secularism is a political idea not a cultural one. How can you say secularism is something cultural or depends on culture. Europe, US, Canada, Japan, China, South Korea are all secular countries but have totally different cultures. Even in Europe German, English, French, Dutch, Finish, Spanish, Italian etc have cultures poles apart.

The problem of Africa is lack of democracy. Once democracy and secularism are combined then we have results.

It means that you are in favor of democracy but morality should be left to religion. Yes I agree with this. In Muslim world morality should be determined by religion. I am always for Islam with its domain in morality, faith and worship. I do not think any legislature will legislate against universal moral values like truth, honesty, and safeguards against life, property and honor.

Secularism is a political idea based on certain cultural habits; I say this because secularism originated from the cultural backdrop of Europeans. How can I say this?

U.S. Canada , Europe, Australia can be considered more or less apart of the Euro-centric Umbrella; so no they're not really different cultures; They're variations of the same cultural landscape. The essential cultural values in these societies are the same. Just because in Holland they speak Dutch and in America they speak English doesn't make them "poles" apart. It just means they have SLIGHT variations.

Just like Pashtuns and Arabs speak different languages but the essential values are the same. Pashtuns may speak Pashto and wear a lungai and an Arab may wear an izar and amamah, but their principle values are identical.

China and Japan; but have a legacy of heavy European colonialization; China while growing as an economy has DRAMATIC disparity between ruling Elite and rurals. There is tremendous exploitation happening in China. Japan was rebuilt by America, but even if we don't factor than in. They're an exception, not the rule.

If you say the problem in Africa is lack of democracy then you proved that Secularism and Democracy have nothing to do with each other. And you can have democracy WITHOUT secularism or following a secular model. However in South Africa they not only have democracy and secularism. The problem is Secularism was created by Europeans to exploit poor people; so that's why most of the Secular societies in the world are poor and remain so till this day.

What you don't understand is that I'm saying there is a Moral Legislation; not just PERSONAL Morals; but for example determining what can be marketed in a Muslim country. The Legality of usury and so on. These are Legislations which are derived from Islam and this is what I mean by MORAL legislation. Not just Personal morality

So not only do you not agree ....you also fail to understand what I'm talking about.

[Badlun]

Secularism is a political idea based on certain cultural habits; I say this because secularism originated from the cultural backdrop of Europeans. How can I say this?

U.S. Canada , Europe, Australia can be considered more or less apart of the Euro-centric Umbrella; so no they're not really different cultures; They're variations of the same cultural landscape. The essential cultural values in these societies are the same. Just because in Holland they speak Dutch and in America they speak English doesn't make them "poles" apart. It just means they have SLIGHT variations.

Just like Pashtuns and Arabs speak different languages but the essential values are the same. Pashtuns may speak Pashto and wear a lungai and an Arab may wear an izar and amamah, but their principle values are identical.

China and Japan; but have a legacy of heavy European colonialization; China while growing as an economy has DRAMATIC disparity between ruling Elite and rurals. There is tremendous exploitation happening in China. Japan was rebuilt by America, but even if we don't factor than in. They're an exception, not the rule.

If you say the problem in Africa is lack of democracy then you proved that Secularism and Democracy have nothing to do with each other. And you can have democracy WITHOUT secularism or following a secular model. However in South Africa they not only have democracy and secularism. The problem is Secularism was created by Europeans to exploit poor people; so that's why most of the Secular societies in the world are poor and remain so till this day.

What you don't understand is that I'm saying there is a Moral Legislation; not just PERSONAL Morals; but for example determining what can be marketed in a Muslim country. The Legality of usury and so on. These are Legislations which are derived from Islam and this is what I mean by MORAL legislation. Not just Personal morality

So not only do you not agree ....you also fail to understand what I'm talking about.

You did not answer my query about the golden Islamic period when sharia and science/technology coexisted?
Like Japan many Muslim countries also remained under colonial powers. Then why we should not adopt their political ideology? The difference between a German and English or French is not only linguistic but cultural . Now they seem simialr because of secualrism and similar patterns of development. They had their worst wars before full democracy and secularism.

Afghanistan has less history of colonial influence so there you find Taliban. Other countries with more modern influence of colonial powers like India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Central Asia are far better in development.

Africa has a tremendous influence of religion. Both Islam and Christianity are very strong there. There is neither full secularism nor democracy. The better countries are those which are less religious and more secular and democratic.

On moral issues we can have discussions in legislatures but universal morality can never be violated. There are Muslim scholars which differentiate usury from interest. But we do not have any Sharia based model neither in today's world nor in past.So this sharia based political system is an utopia. Even we do not have moral or penal and criminal/civil legal codes of sharia as we have of common secular law.

Pashtuns are more happy in London than in an Arab country. Only TALIBAN CAN FIND COMMON GROUNDS WITH ARAB CULTURE. NO BODY NOW WANT THEIR CLOTHES, BEARD, FOOD ETC.

Many Pashtuns hate Arabs for their ill treatment. No Arab will give citizenship to his Muslim brother from Afghanistan or Pakistan because of similar cultural or religious affinity.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You did not answer my query about the golden Islamic period when sharia and science/technology coexisted?
Like Japan many Muslim countries also remained under colonial powers. Then why we should not adopt their political ideology? The difference between a German and English or French is not only linguistic but
Afghanistan has less history of colonial influence so there you find Taliban. Other countries with more modern influence of colonial powers like India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Central Asia are far better in development. cultural . Now they seem simialr because of secualrism and similar patterns of development. They had their worst wars before full democracy and secularism.

Africa has a tremendous influence of religion. Both Islam and Christianity are very strong there. There is neither full secularism nor democracy. The better countries are those which are less religious and more secular and democratic.

On moral issues we can have discussions in legislatures but universal morality can never be violated. There are Muslim scholars which differentiate usury from interest. But we do not have any Sharia based model neither in today's world nor in past.So this sharia based political system is an utopia. Even we do not have moral or penal and criminal/civil legal codes of sharia as we have of common secular law.

Pashtuns are more happy in London than in an Arab country. Only TALIBAN CAN FIND COMMON GROUNDS WITH ARAB CULTURE. NO BODY NOW WANT THEIR CLOTHES, BEARD, FOOD ETC.

Many Pashtuns hate Arabs for their ill treatment. No Arab will give citizenship to his Muslim brother from Afghanistan or Pakistan because of similar cultural or religious affinity.

It existed many different times for a long period; Abbasids, Ghaznawids, , Andalusia. Take your pick; By the way 'Golden Age" does not mean Utopia. I think you have a very Juvenile notion that we mean Shari'ah is supposed to create utopia. That's not what anyone has promised.

Well Japan was actually never colonized; They were rebuilt by America; colonialization implies exploitation. But like I said even if we ignore America rebuilding Japan; they're an exception to the rule.

Africa having a "tremendous influence" of religion is irrelevant since Africa is secular. Even America has a tremendous influence of religion; but it is secular. African countries are secular and poor.

This is also proof that most of the PROSPEROUS secular societies are WHITES so there is a RACIAL motivation behind secularism most likely too. So in a sense it is a new form of slavery to Whites.

If Afghanistan has had less colonial influence why do we celebrate Afghanistan's independence from Britain? Afghanistan is being colonized even now. Occupation is colonialization. Taliban didn't even kill 4 Million peope, Russia killed 4 million people in Afghanistan, destroyed the natural environment. U.S. pollutted with Uranium weapons. So many examples that makes the Taliban look like the lesser problem. And I am not a Taliban supporter but using the Taliban excuse which you always do is very weak.
We suffered more because of secularism than because of the Taliban.

Show me some credible authentic scholars with proper degrees from accredited Islamic Seminaries who say usury is acceptable? And If there are Universal Islamic Morals then it is up to us to legislate them from Islam; then we don't need secularism for that. We already have a system which serves that purpose. Shari'ah. As for creating a feasible system; then we should build one based on Islamic principles; not secular principles.

Secularism is irrelevant to us in that case. We don't need it.

As for Pashtuns and how they're treated in Arab countries; This has nothing to do with Culture and Principles. The same abuse you speak of happens to Pashtuns of different tribes; in fact more Pashtuns are killed by Pashtuns; iirregardless of whether it was Taliban or whoever else than anybody else. You went into a TOTALLY irrelevant direction. The point here is that the fundamental principles of Pashtuns and Arabs are identical thus we're linked by that. Just like Europe , America and Canada are linked by their fundamental principles.

However you're wrong, Pashtuns are treated excellently in Yemen, Oman, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan as well as North African countries. Only places they're mistreated are Dubai, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but these countries also mistreat other Arabs. And the leaders in those countries have leaders who were propped into power by Secular Britain and United States.

This is perfect example of what I mean Badlun YOU NEVER LOOK AT THE WHOLE story; you just pick and choose which information to use.

[Friend]

Badlun's problem is that he is highly influenced by the secularism based on western cultures and their social values, he has become blind.

[Khostai]

I admit he's punishing you and Badlun by making you house slaves of Europeans who are rejected by Afghans.

say the house slave of the sand nighas lol

[RevolutionThroughReason]

say the house slave of the sand nighas lol

I thought to you I was a sand ****** ....and now I'm their house slave ....which is it? You keep contradicting yourself. LOL

Don't worry you'll never be a white, always their slave. You're at least consistent in that lol