Iranian cargo plane shot down over Damascus airport

[RevolutionThroughReason]

No its an evidence that dictatorship doesn't work be it Islamic or secular.....

The problem is in the Muslim world secularism would turn into a dictatorship so in the end it won't work either way.

[Badlun]

Actually; I hate to admit this but Dagarwal is right; ALL the ones you have mentioned were Secularists

They were from a Sunni background; just like you are also from a Sunni background but Their governments were 100% Secular.

This is evidence that Real Secularism does not work for Muslims.

I hate Saddam, Qaddafi, Mubarak, Ziaul Haq, Musharraf, Assad, Sauds, all sheiks and Amirs because they are dictators. We must differentiate between secular dictators and democratically secular.

Also I hate communist secular leaders. I like Najib because he was Pashtun and could have united all Afghans under one banner and could have saved Afghanistan from the barbarian Taliban. However Karzai is doing a better job these days.

My ideology is not communism, atheism, dictatorships, monarchy, martial law but democracy, secularism, development, human rights, liberalism, modern education, science and religion for faith, worship and morality.

[Khostai]

The problem is in the Muslim world secularism would turn into a dictatorship so in the end it won't work either way.

NO its not, other wise you can call Turkey, Indonesie, Malesie and Bangadesh also dictatorsips ...-_-

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No its an evidence that dictatorship doesn't work be it Islamic or secular.....

China under Mao ascended and the leadership is still drawn from a relatively small politburo.

There also is no evidence democracy works and certainly no evidence it works when imposed in previously colonized states where the democratic candidates are themselves drawn from the very people the colonialists empowered.

In fact the two greatest democracies to ever exist, the Union and the Confederacy fought a bloody civil war.

So for sure it does not avert war. Democracy also did not avert the economic depression or great recession.

It main value is offering some degree of stability in autonomous states. The People feel as if they have direct ownership over their government.

But in reality, political candidates like Ron Paul and others in California right now would tell you different regarding the two party system of rule here in the US. This has actually resulted in the exclusion of certain undesirables who would alter American foreign policy for the better, in contrast to the two parties that maintain generally the same outlook.

Take for instance a look at what the Republicans did to Ron Paul in Vermont.

Then there are also variations on democracy where there is a parliamentary system versus the American system we have in place too. Britain still suffered contraction and collapse and sought empire even when it had a parliament in place for centuries.

The main advantage I see is that it offers some stability by hoodwinking the masses into thinking they were responsible and therefore have no recourse for the actions of their leaders.

For instance, when George W Bush goes into Iraq, many would just shrug their shoulders and say "heck lets wait for 4 years and then we can deal with this idiot." Yet as we saw, they didn't and he continued to be stupid and do stupid things.

Yet 50 percent of Americans were not responsible for that mental retard.

It also creates a false sense of ownership in that lobby groups and others can insert themselves between the people and their elected representatives - for instance AIPAC and its role in goading the American congress into IRaq and also the various economic groups that pushed TARP.

I would say it offers stability based on this façade and then this focuses the peoples energies elsewhere as opposed to focusing their anger on the idiot elites that make bad decisions or their benefactors.

[Khostai]

I hate Saddam, Qaddafi, Mubarak, Ziaul Haq, Musharraf, Assad, Sauds, all sheiks and Amirs because they are dictators. We must differentiate between secular dictators and democratically secular.

Also I hate communist secular leaders. I like Najib because he was Pashtun and could have united all Afghans under one banner and could have saved Afghanistan from the barbarian Taliban. However Karzai is doing a better job these days.

My ideology is not communism, atheism, dictatorships, monarchy, martial law but democracy, secularism, development, human rights, liberalism, modern education, science and religion for faith, worship and morality.

Afghans can't handel this. Sometimes I wish taliban had stayed longer in power so that Afghans would have experienced the so called "true" Sharia and Islam a littel longer, that would have produced a lot more atheist and secularists, that would led to a revolt and the islamist and extremist "mullahs" would be shown there true place ( a mosque or rotting in a grave).

And we could have peace and stability.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I'd weigh risks and benefits bro.

If that person can only use words and they cause me to lose my balance and engage in resource depleting war making or cause me to expose my flank and permit those with even greater strength to play puppet master with us both - I'd use a smarter strategy.

When the crusaders invaded Baitul Maqdis, the Fatimi shiite state not only supported them, they even congradulated them when 70.000 Sunni Muslims were massacred until a pool of their blood came up to the chest of their butchers.

When Mongols invaded the Muslim lands, it was the shiite scholar, Tousi, who aided and guided them to defeat the Sunnis.

Likewise there are many examples from our history where rawafid proved to be a lethal weapon used against us.

If you talk strategy, consider the fact that prominent scholars through out the last 1400 years never advocated cooperating with people of misguidance. Don't you think our mujtahideen and ulema are more qualified to decide what strategy we should employ in dealing with the rawafid?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

NO its not, other wise you can call Turkey, Indonesie, Malesie and Bangadesh also dictatorsips ...-_-

Turkey is secular by constitution but it is slowly changing to Islamic governance; they just need to recondition the people over time by influence educational system

Malaysia is actually good but also slowly changing towards more Islamic governance gradually.

Bangladesh lot of issues; they're a mess their economy is growing but most of it ends up with corrupt politicians; their only life line is Indian support sadly.

Indonesia do you remember Suharto? dictator.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Afghans can't handel this. Sometimes I wish taliban had stayed longer in power so that Afghans would have experienced the so called "true" Sharia and Islam a littel longer, that would have produced a lot more atheist and secularists, that would led to a revolt and the islamist and extremist "mullahs" would be shown there true place ( a mosque or rotting in a grave).

And we could have peace and stability.

I think that's the problem with many secularists ....they don't recognize there is a Middle Ground between Taliban and Secularism ...they think that unless you have secularism then you have Taliban.

very superficial thinking. Now I am not saying secularism isn't a problem everywhere in countries where religion plays a very loose role , secularism will work like in America; Secularism is mainly for people of European background.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I hate Saddam, Qaddafi, Mubarak, Ziaul Haq, Musharraf, Assad, Sauds, all sheiks and Amirs because they are dictators. We must differentiate between secular dictators and democratically secular.

Also I hate communist secular leaders. I like Najib because he was Pashtun and could have united all Afghans under one banner and could have saved Afghanistan from the barbarian Taliban. However Karzai is doing a better job these days.

My ideology is not communism, atheism, dictatorships, monarchy, martial law but democracy, secularism, development, human rights, liberalism, modern education, science and religion for faith, worship and morality.

Well there you go, Najib was not only known for mass murders and torture even some reports that under his directive when he was in KHaD he permitted Russian forces to rape Afghan Pashtun women in Kandahar as a way to intimidate people.

And this is why secularism cannot work in Muslim societies, especially not Afghanistan; Secularists are so desperate for power that they'll patronize even a criminal like Najib just to repel criminals like the Taliban.

The balanced way; the Ikhwan strategy is support neither but listen to the wants of the people.

I understand what you want and what you stand for but none of those things reflect the Welfare of the people and that is why it cannot be implemented.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

When the crusaders invaded Baitul Maqdis, the Fatimi shiite state not only supported them, they even congradulated them when 70.000 Sunni Muslims were massacred until a pool of their blood came up to the chest of their butchers.

When Mongols invaded the Muslim lands, it was the shiite scholar, Tousi, who aided and guided them to defeat the Sunnis.

Likewise there are many examples from our history where rawafid proved to be a lethal weapon used against us.

If you talk strategy, consider the fact that prominent scholars through out the last 1400 years never advocated cooperating with people of misguidance. Don't you think our mujtahideen and ulema are more qualified to decide what strategy we should employ in dealing with the rawafid?

Shamlawar,

I appreciate your references and think they are good ones there. I will have to read into them to confirm - or understand these historical events.

My issue is sweeping generalizations.

For instance, I have met a lot of Shiites in my time who got pretty comfortable because in our world here, theres so much work in the hospital there we don't really get into things too much. When do though we discuss things from a humanistic angle.

I am very plain and upfront with them that I have read their theology and find serious intellectual problems and historical inaccuracies, but I note to them the common larger picture interests of both peoples apart form the foolish extremist ideologues or benefactors from outside largesse.

What I mean is that if you and I were to clump all the sunnis we know and all the Shiites we know into blocks representing 100 people each - we would agree 90% of sunnis are ideologically aloof and have no notion of what Shiite theology says. They are the folks that say "a muslim is a muslim is a muslim etc." By this same token, I have experienced the same amongst Shiites, there is the 10% extremist group that has the agenda you mention.

What is key is to start a dialogue that doesn't make it so that we "work together" in the sense that they join our governments or intermarry etc" but rather that for trade, economic purposes, and autonomy protective purposes we tell them:

Sunni: Shiites, we think your contrived history is nonsensical. It looks really really dumb when you invent stupid stories like Umar piercing Fatima Bibi's uterus with a rusty nail etc. And you know what, we understand you suffer from some mass hysteria that has allowed you to convince yourselves that you are the correct party and the spiritually put down underdog.

But look, you have been embargoed to heck. Your economy is in shambles. Your people leave your country to get medical care abroad and there is a large swathe that is not happy with your approach.

Putting a ton of money into defensive posturing and black ops to intervene into surrounding nations and trying to pertend to be smart by thinking you can outsmart Americans by bogging them down in Iraq and Afghanistan so that your two enemies fight is a losing proposition from the get go.

Read history, you are going to fail and whats going to happen is that your pace of advancement will slow.

I have a proposition.

Shiite: OK, we think you are an oppressive bigot, but lets hear it.

Sunni: Your former Safaweds ethnically cleansed sunnis and lets face it, Iran as Saddam's idiot adventure proved is securely in your hands. There are other large pockets of your ideological colleagues in other areas.

You got issues, we got issues but there are too many of you for the Sunnis to kill off and there are too many of us for you to perpetually try to govern through intrigue.

We need to come up with a policy that maintains your and our autonomy and makes it so that we don't interfere in eachothers worlds.

You can go on having the Abu Bakr roasts and using supposed pictures of Umar for target practice in your own little hewad and we will go on studying the faults in your literature.

But what we will do is we will never allow our airspace or land to be used as attack points on your innocents or civilians.

And you do the same.

You will have safe passage in an honorable way across our lands and give us the same through ours (not in a political or military sense, but in a sense of civilian travel and business, and governance).

We will build a federated series of states that harness our united resources for us all, but we have to have some agreements that demarcate ways to avoid confrontation.

Shiite:
Your boy Saddam massacred us too and when your kin and kith in Syria gain dominance they will do the same to our own extremist sect.

Sunni:
Do you really want to own the Alawiites? Isnt that like asking us to own Mirzaiis or Ahmadis or asking you to own bahais? Isnt that a bit absurd. But you know what, they have their own coastal areas and villages and they should generally be left alone if they agree to not play their Assad like intrigue games. They can go to hospitals, schools, etc they would be under one regional government and may not ascend to any prominent governmental positions just as the sunnis in your area probably wont be able to do that - but at the end of the day, our resources are being plundered and our autonomy mutually is being threatened.

Shiite:
How can I be sure you will live up to your word - its me against the world in my view.

Sunni:
Well, you got me or you got a guy who basically drove two indigenous continents worth of people to extinction and is about to kill of a third in Australia. So the way I see it is you got no choice.

Shiite:
Fair enough, but watch your back and Ill watch mine.

-----------------------

So not cooperation Shamlawar but a sort of Constitution of Medina style set up where everyone has their responsibility for regional autonomy.

There is a great article on the earliest fragments of the Quran that came out this year in Arabica Shamlawar.

Its amazing because its a discussion of the only existing manuscript of a possible companion reading in an ahruf slightly divergent from the Uthmanic recension.

The authors, two german did some excellent studies on the manuscript that attempt to reconstruct a prophetic prototype from examining the Uthmanic recension and this mushaf.

What they note is that the mushaf in hand is very close to the Uthmanic recension and that the Uthamanic recension actually approximate their proposed prophetic prototype more closely than the single existing manuscript.

In that same article they rebuke the Shiite claims about specific sections of the Quran and use an evidence basis to basically blow holes in their theories on Jama AL Quran.

My point is that as time and investigative studies roll by, their very collaborators are undoing their theological underpinnings.

The Muslim world needs to ascend again and have complete economic and resource autonomy so that none can interfere in its affairs - when this happens mark my words - either Shiites will submit to secular atheism or garner less enthusiasm for attacking the superior sunni theology.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Najib was a dangerous two faced man. The reason why secularists love him is because of his nifaaq. Nobody really believes that he is innocent.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

There is no Sunni authority. Saudis do not represent Sunnis. They represent the royal family.

The reasons why Gulf states fear Iran and shiites in general is because shiites are led by their scholars. Scholars dictate the foreign policy of Iran.

Making a strategic deal with shiites on behalf of Sunnis is possible. But as I said there is no such a thing as a Sunni state.


What shiite laymen say to you does not reflect their generally held beliefs and sentiments regarding Sunnis.

Sunnis do not believe all shiites should be killed. It is not part of our creed or jurisprudence. Shiite creed and jurisprudence is like Talmud. It advocates most horrible things imaginable.

The war in Syria is not a war between Sunnah and Shia. Qatar and Saudi are rivals there.

In fact ISIS is not a friend of gulf states as you may know. Yet Isis is bringing the pain to the Shiites. Not Saudi or qatar sponsored rag tag of smoking and boozing thugs like jaysh al hurr or ikhwanis.

Syria is a legitimate war because of what is happening right now. Not because who started the revolt to overthrow Assad. Appreciate the difference.

Shamlawar,

I appreciate your references and think they are good ones there. I will have to read into them to confirm - or understand these historical events.

My issue is sweeping generalizations.

For instance, I have met a lot of Shiites in my time who got pretty comfortable because in our world here, theres so much work in the hospital there we don't really get into things too much. When do though we discuss things from a humanistic angle.

I am very plain and upfront with them that I have read their theology and find serious intellectual problems and historical inaccuracies, but I note to them the common larger picture interests of both peoples apart form the foolish extremist ideologues or benefactors from outside largesse.

What I mean is that if you and I were to clump all the sunnis we know and all the Shiites we know into blocks representing 100 people each - we would agree 90% of sunnis are ideologically aloof and have no notion of what Shiite theology says. They are the folks that say "a muslim is a muslim is a muslim etc." By this same token, I have experienced the same amongst Shiites, there is the 10% extremist group that has the agenda you mention.

What is key is to start a dialogue that doesn't make it so that we "work together" in the sense that they join our governments or intermarry etc" but rather that for trade, economic purposes, and autonomy protective purposes we tell them:

Sunni: Shiites, we think your contrived history is nonsensical. It looks really really dumb when you invent stupid stories like Umar piercing Fatima Bibi's uterus with a rusty nail etc. And you know what, we understand you suffer from some mass hysteria that has allowed you to convince yourselves that you are the correct party and the spiritually put down underdog.

But look, you have been embargoed to heck. Your economy is in shambles. Your people leave your country to get medical care abroad and there is a large swathe that is not happy with your approach.

Putting a ton of money into defensive posturing and black ops to intervene into surrounding nations and trying to pertend to be smart by thinking you can outsmart Americans by bogging them down in Iraq and Afghanistan so that your two enemies fight is a losing proposition from the get go.

Read history, you are going to fail and whats going to happen is that your pace of advancement will slow.

I have a proposition.

Shiite: OK, we think you are an oppressive bigot, but lets hear it.

Sunni: Your former Safaweds ethnically cleansed sunnis and lets face it, Iran as Saddam's idiot adventure proved is securely in your hands. There are other large pockets of your ideological colleagues in other areas.

You got issues, we got issues but there are too many of you for the Sunnis to kill off and there are too many of us for you to perpetually try to govern through intrigue.

We need to come up with a policy that maintains your and our autonomy and makes it so that we don't interfere in eachothers worlds.

You can go on having the Abu Bakr roasts and using supposed pictures of Umar for target practice in your own little hewad and we will go on studying the faults in your literature.

But what we will do is we will never allow our airspace or land to be used as attack points on your innocents or civilians.

And you do the same.

You will have safe passage in an honorable way across our lands and give us the same through ours (not in a political or military sense, but in a sense of civilian travel and business, and governance).

We will build a federated series of states that harness our united resources for us all, but we have to have some agreements that demarcate ways to avoid confrontation.

Shiite:
Your boy Saddam massacred us too and when your kin and kith in Syria gain dominance they will do the same to our own extremist sect.

Sunni:
Do you really want to own the Alawiites? Isnt that like asking us to own Mirzaiis or Ahmadis or asking you to own bahais? Isnt that a bit absurd. But you know what, they have their own coastal areas and villages and they should generally be left alone if they agree to not play their Assad like intrigue games. They can go to hospitals, schools, etc they would be under one regional government and may not ascend to any prominent governmental positions just as the sunnis in your area probably wont be able to do that - but at the end of the day, our resources are being plundered and our autonomy mutually is being threatened.

Shiite:
How can I be sure you will live up to your word - its me against the world in my view.

Sunni:
Well, you got me or you got a guy who basically drove two indigenous continents worth of people to extinction and is about to kill of a third in Australia. So the way I see it is you got no choice.

Shiite:
Fair enough, but watch your back and Ill watch mine.

-----------------------

So not cooperation Shamlawar but a sort of Constitution of Medina style set up where everyone has their responsibility for regional autonomy.

There is a great article on the earliest fragments of the Quran that came out this year in Arabica Shamlawar.

Its amazing because its a discussion of the only existing manuscript of a possible companion reading in an ahruf slightly divergent from the Uthmanic recension.

The authors, two german did some excellent studies on the manuscript that attempt to reconstruct a prophetic prototype from examining the Uthmanic recension and this mushaf.

What they note is that the mushaf in hand is very close to the Uthmanic recension and that the Uthamanic recension actually approximate their proposed prophetic prototype more closely than the single existing manuscript.

In that same article they rebuke the Shiite claims about specific sections of the Quran and use an evidence basis to basically blow holes in their theories on Jama AL Quran.

My point is that as time and investigative studies roll by, their very collaborators are undoing their theological underpinnings.

The Muslim world needs to ascend again and have complete economic and resource autonomy so that none can interfere in its affairs - when this happens mark my words - either Shiites will submit to secular atheism or garner less enthusiasm for attacking the superior sunni theology.

[Khostai]

I think that's the problem with many secularists ....they don't recognize there is a Middle Ground between Taliban and Secularism ...they think that unless you have secularism then you have Taliban.

very superficial thinking. Now I am not saying secularism isn't a problem everywhere in countries where religion plays a very loose role , secularism will work like in America; Secularism is mainly for people of European background.

Secularism is the middel ground lol. The two extremes are atheism and extreemism.

[Khostai]

Turkey is secular by constitution but it is slowly changing to Islamic governance; they just need to recondition the people over time by influence educational system

Malaysia is actually good but also slowly changing towards more Islamic governance gradually.

Bangladesh lot of issues; they're a mess their economy is growing but most of it ends up with corrupt politicians; their only life line is Indian support sadly.

Indonesia do you remember Suharto? dictator.

None of them are dictatorships, and all are becoming more liberal than ever, the so called Islamisation of Turkey is a joke, like Erdogan gona stay for ever on power, afer he is gone the other will turn back his policies around....
And by the way Saudi is not secular but is a dictatorship likewise Iran and other small arab states, you just hear nothing from them becuase they are rich and are friends with the west......

Like I said dictatorship be it Islamic or secular are both gona fail.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Secularism is the middel ground lol. The two extremes are atheism and extreemism.

Secularism can't be the middle ground because secularism doesn't relate to the welfare of the people because they don't relate to the society of the people.

Secularism in fact doesn't even have ground in most Muslim countries. I'm not Anti-Secularist; Western countries should always be secular. It just doesn't work for us.