You can have you religion. It's not my problem, thank God. I live in the good part of the world. People are free over here.
Buy on AliExpress.com
The Holocaust (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter CheSchifo!
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
That's why I'm against mass religion in the first place. It's bound to go wrong. But if you agree with me that interpretation can be wrong, you also agree with me that states must always be secular. Because otherwise you can't predict the interpretation. Therefore the Quran cannot enter this discussion. Islam cannot have any role in the process of governing a state.
Tahir, first, I assume that what you said is supposed to work for every kind of society (whether it's Islamic or not), since Qoran is apparently supposed to have teachings for all the people, all over the universe. Am I right?
I don't get the idea here. WHO are going to elect the rulers and what/who is gonna certify those bolded criteria in the people who are electing the rulers?
Well, talking about it seems to be way too easy but point is that HOW are we gonna know this "those" practically?
It's all beautiful and touching but it's only talk. Even the most unjust governments believe that their economic system is equitable and orderly. I mean these are actually the bare facts, the obvious and initial goals for every government. It's not like Islam has established these basics and it's not like that abandoning these "Islam teachings" is the reason for Islam world being in such turmoil because suggesting practical WAYS and methods in order to reach these goals is what matters at first.
Does it mean that infidels (كافر
are also allowed to live among the other people, benefiting from similar rights?
What religious duties and obligations you mean? For this I think that you first need to tell me how this government is gonna be elected. Now suppose that the majority of a society are electing a government which doesn't oblige itself to carry out religious duties and obligations and the majority also don't care about these duties and obligations. Are Muslim subjects who do care about those duties allowed to disobey the government or even fight with it?
What if the country A, attacks the country B. Do we have to/are we allowed to recourse to arms in such situation?
I don't get the idea here. WHO are going to elect the rulers and what/who is gonna certify those bolded criteria in the people who are electing the rulers?
Well, talking about it seems to be way too easy but point is that HOW are we gonna know this "those" practically?
It's all beautiful and touching but it's only talk. Even the most unjust governments believe that their economic system is equitable and orderly. I mean these are actually the bare facts, the obvious and initial goals for every government. It's not like Islam has established these basics and it's not like that abandoning these "Islam teachings" is the reason for Islam world being in such turmoil because suggesting practical WAYS and methods in order to reach these goals is what matters at first.
Does it mean that infidels (كافر
are also allowed to live among the other people, benefiting from similar rights?What religious duties and obligations you mean? For this I think that you first need to tell me how this government is gonna be elected. Now suppose that the majority of a society are electing a government which doesn't oblige itself to carry out religious duties and obligations and the majority also don't care about these duties and obligations. Are Muslim subjects who do care about those duties allowed to disobey the government or even fight with it?
What if the country A, attacks the country B. Do we have to/are we allowed to recourse to arms in such situation?
Ah..yes (if I understand your question correctly).
Even though it doesn't mention elections (you're assuming it will be an elected government) but for arguments sake...how do we elect our leaders now? How have people elected leaders in the past? Is this a new concept to you? Why do you support Mousavi? He has a history behind him right? He stands for certain things, right? He has promised to make changes, hasn't he? Common.
What do you mean how? That's our problem isn't it? A lot of countries already fit that criteria already, how did they do it?
Again, with the "it's only talk", who would you have enforce these?
And not following these basic ideas are ONE of the major reasons why it is in turmoil you can't deny that. Why is it there peace and tranquility in places they have better economic policies & structure and give their people more rights?
You need to stop placing beliefs of your fellow citizens or your interpretation of Islam on me. I don't call anyone a kafir. I'm an Ahmadi ffs, I'm labeled as kafir.
And you even asking this question means you haven't understood the fundamental concept of the piece I posted. There will be no religion involved in the government so why would it matter if someone is "kafir" or not?
It means that you are to follow the rule and law of the country you live in. That means, I as a US citizen am to follow the law of the land regardless of what I think of it. The only exception being a government that stops you from practicing your religion. The duties and obligations meaning the five daily prayers, reading the Qur'an, or what have you.
No, I don't need to tell you how "this government is gonna be elected" because you clearly didn't understand the piece I posted. It doesn't say or require any one type of government.
OK, so if this society that doesn't want to carry out religious duties and obligations elects a government that doesn't care about these things...will it stop people who do want to?
The government of Pakistan follows a so called Sharia Law that it interprets and bends at its will and in the constitution Ahmadi Muslims are labeled as "non-Muslims". We are not allowed to give out our religious material, we are not allowed to preach, we are not allowed to have mosques, we are not allowed to give the call to prayer, we are not allowed to perform the haj, and after we were declared non-Muslim an extra line was created in Pakistani passports that is labeled "Religion" (the only country in the world that has it that I know of) and there we have to write "Ahmadi" or testify that our prophet was an impostor (Dajjal), even saying "Assalamo Aleikum" is a jailable offense. Yet they cannot, no matter how much they want, stop us from praying and gathering. That is how we stand up to them; we do not fight back and we are involved in any type of sectarian violence.
You didn't read at all did you?
It clearly says "Recourse to arms is permitted in self-defence only" I don't know clearer it can get.
Even though it doesn't mention elections (you're assuming it will be an elected government) but for arguments sake...how do we elect our leaders now? How have people elected leaders in the past? Is this a new concept to you? Why do you support Mousavi? He has a history behind him right? He stands for certain things, right? He has promised to make changes, hasn't he? Common.
What do you mean how? That's our problem isn't it? A lot of countries already fit that criteria already, how did they do it?
Again, with the "it's only talk", who would you have enforce these?
And not following these basic ideas are ONE of the major reasons why it is in turmoil you can't deny that. Why is it there peace and tranquility in places they have better economic policies & structure and give their people more rights?
Does it mean that infidels (كافر are also allowed to live among the other people, benefiting from similar rights?
are also allowed to live among the other people, benefiting from similar rights?
And you even asking this question means you haven't understood the fundamental concept of the piece I posted. There will be no religion involved in the government so why would it matter if someone is "kafir" or not?
It means that you are to follow the rule and law of the country you live in. That means, I as a US citizen am to follow the law of the land regardless of what I think of it. The only exception being a government that stops you from practicing your religion. The duties and obligations meaning the five daily prayers, reading the Qur'an, or what have you.
No, I don't need to tell you how "this government is gonna be elected" because you clearly didn't understand the piece I posted. It doesn't say or require any one type of government.
OK, so if this society that doesn't want to carry out religious duties and obligations elects a government that doesn't care about these things...will it stop people who do want to?
The government of Pakistan follows a so called Sharia Law that it interprets and bends at its will and in the constitution Ahmadi Muslims are labeled as "non-Muslims". We are not allowed to give out our religious material, we are not allowed to preach, we are not allowed to have mosques, we are not allowed to give the call to prayer, we are not allowed to perform the haj, and after we were declared non-Muslim an extra line was created in Pakistani passports that is labeled "Religion" (the only country in the world that has it that I know of) and there we have to write "Ahmadi" or testify that our prophet was an impostor (Dajjal), even saying "Assalamo Aleikum" is a jailable offense. Yet they cannot, no matter how much they want, stop us from praying and gathering. That is how we stand up to them; we do not fight back and we are involved in any type of sectarian violence.
You didn't read at all did you?
It clearly says "Recourse to arms is permitted in self-defence only" I don't know clearer it can get.
She took you to the cleaners, my friend.
The piece you posted it a lot of wishful thinking and "how we would like things to be", but no insight about how to achieve this. If you make a claim that "rulers should be competent people, motivated in all honesty" but then you offer no instructions on how to reach this goal then your philosophy carries no useful information.
Your responses to her challenges are extremely poor.
The piece you posted it a lot of wishful thinking and "how we would like things to be", but no insight about how to achieve this. If you make a claim that "rulers should be competent people, motivated in all honesty" but then you offer no instructions on how to reach this goal then your philosophy carries no useful information.
Your responses to her challenges are extremely poor.
Let's remember that you are the one who presented these guidelines as the path to harmony. And then questions arose about how exactly they help achieve this.
Having a competent and honest public is the pipe dream of every democracy and it's never been achieved. Democracy always suffers at the hands of populists. Just because you say "the voters should be competent" is not only a huge duh! but also completely worthless on its own.
Having a competent and honest public is the pipe dream of every democracy and it's never been achieved. Democracy always suffers at the hands of populists. Just because you say "the voters should be competent" is not only a huge duh! but also completely worthless on its own.
We're not talking about the state of peoples spirituality or their spiritual standing. To say that only Muslims are able to do good or be good would extremely wrong and conceited. Islam says to learn from those that have good qualities and adopt them.
Huge duh? How is it a huge duh if these guidelines were written over 1500 years ago?
If I showed you that the first humanitarian rights were also written over 1500 years ago you would probably also say "duh" because "we already have these rights as established at the Geneva Convention".
Besides, I don't even know why you're complaining about this seeing as the part of the world you live in already follow nearly all of those points. If there is any part of the world that needs to take heed to this are the corrupt regimes of the 3rd World and the most powerful ones: Russia, US, China, etc.
Huge duh? How is it a huge duh if these guidelines were written over 1500 years ago?
If I showed you that the first humanitarian rights were also written over 1500 years ago you would probably also say "duh" because "we already have these rights as established at the Geneva Convention".
Besides, I don't even know why you're complaining about this seeing as the part of the world you live in already follow nearly all of those points. If there is any part of the world that needs to take heed to this are the corrupt regimes of the 3rd World and the most powerful ones: Russia, US, China, etc.
