Horse manure! That was not at ALL the point of the Islamic blog you posted, and you know it. The blog you posted in the OP argued that Muslims should not consider any democratic process legitimate, not even in principle, because "Democracy is an un-Islamic system".
I am completely aware of that but for some reason a mod moved it out of the Islam section and people started arguing about how great democracy was from a simply secular point of view to which I replied. If they argued on the basis of Islam I would have been happy to reply based on Islam. I posted the article because I think at this debate is an extremely important one for Muslims at this time, not just in the US, but this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the article in its entirety. Why should my arguments be refined by what Imam Anwar said?
Now if you dispute that democracy is Un Islamic then present your sources from the Sharia which would back up your opinion and we will move the debate on from there. But if you are going to put forward arguments such as democracy means everyone has a say its only logical that I will reply to that in the way I did.
It is possible and indeed I do belive that Democracy is Un Islamic and also that it is a facade to fool people into believing that they actually have a say and as a result guarantee the maintanence and indeed strengthening of what Communists would say is a "Bourgeois dictatorship".
The blog further argued that Muslims should not participate in the democratic process because non-Muslim Westerners are "enemies of God", and because it endangers the "psychological barrier" that ought to separate Muslims from their non-Muslim neighbors.
Where does it say this? It says that they should not participate in elections because they are Un Islamic then goes on to make some general points.
If you argue that he is saying they simply shouldnt vote because "non-Muslim Westerners are "enemies of God" then how can you also argue that "The blog you posted in the OP argued that Muslims should not consider
any democratic process legitimate, not even in principle, because "Democracy is an un-Islamic system". Thats contradictory. Its either one or the other.
The one about Democracy being Un Islamic is indeed the correct opinion but if he was simply saying they shouldn't vote because "non-Muslim Westerners are "enemies of God" then he would have no problem with democracy in Muslim countries which is not the case.
On the issue of psycological barriers he is correct.
Now, sir, if you believe government in the U.S. and the West in general needs reform to make it more truly democratic, and more faithfully reflect the will of the people, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But we can have that discussion elsewhere, because that was NOT the argument in the OP.
Then we agree but it should not be me who you take to task those who started argueing on secular points. Maybe you would have prefered I just ignored these so as it would seem I had no reply to them.
So once again I will say if people want to argue from the perspective of Islam that democracy is no Un Islamic then I will discuss it on those terms, but don't expect me to refine myself if others are replying from a secular point of view. I agree they are two different issues but there is no reason why both cannot be discussed. Indeed if you had wanted the issue to remain one of religion then why not leave it in the Islam section instead of moving it here and stating "By the way, I put this in General Debates because
it is not just about religion or politics."
I find it rather disingenuous of you to criticize democracy because it is opposed to Islam, and label non-Muslims with this hateful slur "the enemies of God", and claim that non-Muslims should be separated from you by a "psychological barrier" in the Islam forum, and then come here to the General Debates forum and pretend that your criticism is merely democracy *as practiced* and that you simply are concerned about the "will of the people" and that not enough cab drivers are being elected to high office.
First off it was the blog who labelled non Muslims as "the enemies of Allah" and yet this is true as they are opposed to the will and laws of Allah, but don't confuse what is written in the article with what I say as there is a difference. Do you agree with every single thing said in every single article you ever posted?
Enemies of Allah is not hateful and indeed its the only logical thing to conclude. Allah called for Shariah to be applied so if for example someone opposed that then they are opposed to the will and orders of Allah and they are enemies of Allah. Not really a complex thing to understand.
I wont go over the second part of the above quote as I think I made it quite evident that I can believe both and what I discuss will be based on who I am discussing it with. Surely you can see that.
Again, that's just a big, steaming pile of horse manure.
Intelligent.
