Re: One in four is Muslim, study says
Wow, bro picoico you’re something else. :k:
[QUOTE]
Was there ever consensus? Yes.
[/QUOTE]
No. Please cite any elections or referendums to prove the existence of these alleged consensuses. Chairman Mao worked with a handful of people and consulted them. Does that mean Mao's China was democratic?
[QUOTE]
Was there a form of representation? Yes.
[/QUOTE]
No. Please cite any elections documenting who selected these alleged "representatives." Sticking with the example of China (there are numerous others), there is a form of representation there, for more democratic than the caliphate. At least these guys are elected, albeit in a sham democracy. Moreover, they "represent" all Chinese. The caliph's advisors represented only Muslims. No "kafir" was allowed into the "Politburo", if you will during the early calpihate (although the Ottomans did have at least one Jewish vizier). You call this representation when a majority of the people it ruled were non-Muslim? Is China democratic?
[QUOTE]
To claim democracy has a monopoly over these is insane.
[/QUOTE]
In theory it doesn't; in practice thus far it has. Can you point to any other representative system?
[QUOTE]
When the cold war stopped, so did the very messy latin american policies. That was the point.
[/QUOTE]
What policies (the US continues to be involved in Latin America if that is what you are getting at)? The democratic trend in Latin America and Asia started before 1989. How do you explain that?
[QUOTE]
I don't kow what you mean by "involved", but the nature of the game has changed substantially.
[/QUOTE]
Coups, military interventions, etc. Why do you think Franklin Roosevelt had to promulgate a "Good Neighbor" policy? It was an acknowledgment of not exactly being a "good neighbor" prior to that and we are talking about such an acknowledgment in the 1930's.
[QUOTE]
And only a loon would suggest that they don't meddle...they're involved
[/QUOTE]
The same can be said about many countries--including your own. Why was Zia commanding troops protecting King Hussein in Jordan? Why was Pakistan "meddling" in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban? Why is Pakistan training the military of Zimbabwe? And so on. It is funny how Muslims say zero about their own countries in this area yet whine incessantly about a distant, foreign country being involved in other countries.
Muslims need to look in the mirror now and then. There are a host of maladies endemic to the Muslim world (religious intolerance, suppression of women, jihadism, to name three prominent examples). This is not to say that such things don't exist elsewhere; they do. However, they are only common in the Muslim world. There are no laws in Latin America that say the testimony of a minority religion's male is half that of a majority religion's male or that a minority religion's female's testimony against a majority religion member is not allowed. There are no laws in Japan or Taiwan that ban women from working (The Organization of Islamic Conference's Declaration on Human Rights differs mainly from the UN one, which everyone else adheres to, in that it does not say women deserve equal rights as men). There are not armed religious militant groups in country after country in Latin America, Europe, or Eastern Asia.
Let's look at some of the countries the US has been most allied with since the Cold War, in no particular order.
UK: Rebuilt it, democracy
Japan: Rebuilt it, wrote its democratic constitution, was once occupied by the US
Germany: Rebuilt it, democracy, was once occupied by the US
South Korea: Democracy, was once occupied by the US
Taiwan: Democracy
The Philippines: Former US colony, democracy today
Israel: Democracy
Egypt: Autocracy (although according to your statements in this thread it is "democratic")
Saudi Arabia: Monarchy
Jordan: Monarchy
Turkey: Democracy
Poland: Democracy
Mexico: Democracy
The UK was already a democracy before the Marshall Plan, Germany had a democracy for about a decade before Hitler. The rest of the countries on the list had no significant democratic tradition until modern times yet they transitioned to democracy in recent decades despite being closely allied with the US. The only exceptions on this list are Arab states...
Alhamdullillah v r the Muslims
I hope our country will safe any disintegration in future, Inshallah
a helpful site for students.........
The "West"...at one point in history? It would be silly to suggest that the Greeks (who most definitely "invented" democracy) were somehow beholden to notions of human rights too.
Equally absurd would be any claim that there is NO concern for these outside of the West at any epoch in history.
No its an evolution...first the right to vote...giving the power to the people
then the freedoms, human rights, etc....
that is why a Jew is more free to practice his religion in the west than countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia
No its an evolution...first the right to vote...giving the power to the people
then the freedoms, human rights, etc....
Correct and it is a global evolution--with one exception...There is only one portion of the world where in several countries women's rights and rights of religious minorities are actually regressing.
No its an evolution...first the right to vote...giving the power to the people
then the freedoms, human rights, etc....
that is why a Jew is more free to practice his religion in the west than countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia
It can't be an evolution when we're talking about the movement of democracy across different empires/civilizations. Whereas there is no doubt the modern industrialized West had romanticized Hellenic culture, it itself is not a product of it.
It can't be an evolution when we're talking about the movement of democracy across different empires/civilizations. Whereas there is no doubt the modern industrialized West had romanticized Hellenic culture, it itself is not a product of it.
Democracy was a concept started by the Greeks and then lost due to the Persian Invasion, Roman Conquest and then the Dark Ages of Europe in which Arabs preserved most of the Greek and Roman knowledge.
Europeans only began to re-discover Greek and Roman knowledge in the 15th century, a period known as the Renaissance.
America declared indepdence in 1776 and they used the Greek model as a template to build a free society. The American ideal spread to Europe and other places. But it evolved slowly, from abolishing slavery in 1863, to giving women the right to vote, to civil rights movement to immigration reform where everyone from around the world can come instead of just Europeans.
So it is an evolution in an American sense.
No. Please cite any elections or referendums to prove the existence of these alleged consensuses. Chairman Mao worked with a handful of people and consulted them. Does that mean Mao's China was democratic?
Rather, Mao was very well capable of consensus without democracy...the claim that consensus is impossible without it seems to be yours.
Regardless, the first Caliph and second Caliphs were elected in a similar process by Ansar and Muharjirun. Those who did not dissolve their tribal affiliation respected the decision. This is called "consensus".
[quote]
No. Please cite any elections documenting who selected these alleged "representatives."
[/quote]
Done.
[quote]
Sticking with the example of China (there are numerous others), there is a form of representation there, for more democratic than the caliphate. At least these guys are elected, albeit in a sham democracy.
[/quote]
Depends. Caliphs in the Imperial era were effectively representatives of tribes which threw their support behind said individual. Tribal elders did indeed represent their tribes (probably much more intimately than any elected official could). This is representation.
I don't understand your characterization of these elections as Sham, unless there is only one candidate on the ballet.
[quote]
The caliph's advisors represented only Muslims. No "kafir" was allowed into the "Politburo",
[/quote]
...and? Ignoring the fact, of course, that many Caliphs did indeed have Jewish and Christian advisors (rolls eyes). That's neither here nor there, as what we could call "citizens" was determined by faith. Historically, there was limited self rule for non-Muslims, so no need for such close involvement in the affairs of a different state.
[quote]
if you will during the early calpihate (although the Ottomans did have at least one Jewish vizier). You call this representation when a majority of the people it ruled were non-Muslim? Is China democratic?
[quote]
Yes, LOL...people were represented by their tribal leaders. Perhaps more so than I am by my MP. But that's a different matter...
I really don't care if China is democratic or not...it is, however, a legit form of government.
[quote]
In theory it doesn't; in practice thus far it has. Can you point to any other representative system?
[/quote]
Shrugs...pick one...I'm not making any exclusive claims as to who has or has not a monopoly on representation.
[quote]
The same can be said about many countries--including your own. Why was Zia commanding troops protecting King Hussein in Jordan? Why was Pakistan "meddling" in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban? Why is Pakistan training the military of Zimbabwe? And so on. It is funny how Muslims say zero about their own countries in this area yet whine incessantly about a distant, foreign country being involved in other countries.
[/quote]
LOL...yes...it can. Hence my statement that they're no better...which is not to say everyone else is best. No?
[quote]
This is not to say that such things don't exist elsewhere; they do. However, they are only common in the Muslim world.
[/quote]
Shrugs...some are specific problems, others...not really. I mean, it's become quite fashionable to focus on the Muslim world, and to treat it (absurdly, and idiotically) as a homogeneous mass, but that's how people deal with complex issues...they deal with complex abstractions. Those not familiar with how intellectuals break down issues as such are prone to chicken-little syndrome...no dear, the sky isn't really falling even though the streets are indeed flooded.
[quote]
There are no laws in Latin America that say the testimony of a minority religion's male is half that of a majority religion's male or that a minority religion's female's testimony against a majority religion member is not allowed.
[/quote]
Only a valid gripe against all Muslim states if indeed all Muslim states had such laws.
[quote]
There are no laws in Japan or Taiwan that ban women from working
[/quote]
Only a valid gripe against all Muslim states if indeed all Muslim states had such laws.
[quote]
There are not armed religious militant groups in country after country in Latin America, Europe, or Eastern Asia.
[/quote]
LOL....now that's funny....remove "religous', and viola...and yes, you can count BlackWater and other mercenary-terror groups in that crowed too.
[quote]
UK: Rebuilt it, democracy
[/quote]
Rebuilt themselves, gave US democracy.
[quote]
Japan: Rebuilt it, wrote its democratic constitution, was once occupied by the US
[/quote]
Was already industrialized, but no doubt US foreign policy here was at it's best. It worked. Democracy? Whoop-de-doo...Japanese don't mind it, so whatever.
[quote]
Germany: Rebuilt it, democracy, was once occupied by the US
[/quote]
Same as above.
[quote]
South Korea: Democracy, was once occupied by the US
[/quote]
South Koreans had democracy...but didn't see spectacular economic growth until a certain dictator came along...
[quote]
Taiwan: Democracy
[/quote]
Could have had Saddam as leader, would still have been an ally.
[quote]
The Philippines: Former US colony, democracy today
[/quote]
Usurping Moro land, as the Chinese are doing to the Uighars.
[quote]
Israel: Democracy
[/quote]
Usurping Palestininan land.
[quote]
Egypt: Autocracy (although according to your statements in this thread it is "democratic")
[/quote]
Actually, according to your equating of consensus and representation to democracy...I never made such a claim.
[quote]
Saudi Arabia: Monarchy
Jordan: Monarchy
[/quote]
Point?
[quote]
Turkey: Democracy
Poland: Democracy
Mexico: Democracy
[/quote]
You forgot Pakistan, Iraq (at one point), China (largest trading partner), several Latin American dictatorships during the 80's, and so on.
[quote]
The rest of the countries on the list had no significant democratic tradition until modern times yet they transitioned to democracy in recent decades despite being closely allied with the US. The only exceptions on this list are Arab states...
[/QUOTE]
I'm really trying hard to discern what your point is...
America declared indepdence in 1776 and they used the Greek model as a template to build a free society.
Roman?
[quote]
The American ideal spread to Europe and other places. But it evolved slowly, from abolishing slavery in 1863, to giving women the right to vote, to civil rights movement to immigration reform where everyone from around the world can come instead of just Europeans.
[/quote]
Abolishing of slavery was spearheaded by the British...political participation by women was well established in communist states prior to the US, Americans had to fight very hard to overcome their racial divide, and so on...there was no doubt a lot of influence Western states had amongst each other, however I don't think it was a one-way outflow from America....
This from a country where little boys are fair game.
Some pervert takes the picture of NCC school girls and creates a 3rd rate yellow journal article and perverted 3rd rate human like you latch on to it! you must lead a really unhappy pathetic life with such hatred!