Why do muslims hate democracy

[Al-Fatihah]

No, it doesn't. That's quite simply not how the German Parliamentary system worked. Another failed response that continues to make my point.

Thanks!

Response: Yet your weak rebuttal shows otherwise.

 

[Shad]

Response: And an appointment to lead his party is an election. So your own logic continues to debunk you and make my point.

No an appoint of party leader is only that of party leader. It is also restricted to the party only. No one outside the party has a vote. Appoint of Chancellor was done by the President which did not require a vote.

 

[sojourner]

Response: And if choosing the best for a job is discrimination, then according to your logic, discrimination is a good thing. So your point is pointless.

Discrimination is never a good thing, because it's always a dehumanizing act, that dismisses the worth of one or some, based on some arbitrary, subjective standard. It turns individuals into objects that can be devalued and dismissed.

Your point is pointless, unless you're willing to concede that Allah does not value most human beings.

 

[sojourner]

Response: Yet your weak rebuttal shows otherwise.

You could come up with a new non-argument to keep people interested in the thread. "Nuh-uh!" usually fails as a viable argument at about age 3.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

No an appoint of party leader is only that of party leader. It is also restricted to the party only. No one outside the party has a vote. Appoint of Chancellor was done by the President which did not require a vote.

Response: And the authority to appoint is still given by the majority.

 

[sojourner]

The unfounded, highly biased, and subjective opinions presented here as a defense of Islam are simply not up to the task of refuting historical evidence and logical argument.

In other words, Islam isn't "the only right religion" based upon "because Al says so."

Give it up, Cowboy. Your attempt is not looking good for Islam here.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Discrimination is never a good thing, because it's always a dehumanizing act, that dismisses the worth of one or some, based on some arbitrary, subjective standard. It turns individuals into objects that can be devalued and dismissed.

Your point is pointless, unless you're willing to concede that Allah does not value most human beings.

Response: Yet choosing someone based on what is best is not discrimination or dehumanizing, for it is logical to choose the best for a job.

So your logic continues to fail and shows not only the greatness of Allah but exposes your ideology as dehumanizing and unjust.

 

[YmirGF]

Personally, I think Fatihah is doing a great job showing the real face of Islam. The reader would be wise to pay very close attention.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

You could come up with a new non-argument to keep people interested in the thread. "Nuh-uh!" usually fails as a viable argument at about age 3.

Response: Likewise.

 

[sojourner]

Response: And the authority to appoint is still given by the majority.

But that's not your argument. Your argument is that Hitler was elected by a majority. Fact: he wasn't. And no amount of wishing or twisting terms can magically make it otherwise.


Unless you want to change your argument. In which case it would no longer support the point you were making.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Personally, I think Fatihah is doing a great job showing the real face of Islam. The reader would be wise to pay very close attention.

Response: And with your unsound responses, the reader will see the beauty of Islam better as they pay closer attention to how it compares the principles of Islam.

 

[sojourner]

Response: Likewise.

Somehow "evidence to the contrary" does not constitute a vapid "because I said" argument. Man up and just admit you're wrong on the point you were trying to make. Everyone here knows you were wrong. You're just digging the "embarrassment hole" deeper for yourself.

 

[sojourner]

Response: Yet choosing someone based on what is best is not discrimination or dehumanizing, for it is logical to choose the best for a job.

So your logic continues to fail and shows not only the greatness of Allah but exposes your ideology as dehumanizing and unjust.

Tying "what is best" to "religious affiliation" (where government is concerned) is creating an arbitrary standard that serves to dismiss and dehumanize all who don't conform to the artificial standard of "normal." IOW, it's discrimination.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

But that's not your argument. Your argument is that Hitler was elected by a majority. Fact: he wasn't. And no amount of wishing or twisting terms can magically make it otherwise.


Unless you want to change your argument. In which case it would no longer support the point you were making.

Response: And your own words that he was appointed supports the fact that he was elected. So unless you want to change your argument, then you redundancy continues to make my point.

 

[YmirGF]

Somehow "evidence to the contrary" does not constitute a vapid "because I said" argument. Man up and just admit you're wrong on the point you were trying to make. Everyone here knows you were wrong. You're just digging the "embarrassment hole" deeper for yourself.

But he is so good at it. I say we just offer him a contract on a backhoe.

 

[sojourner]

Personally, I think Fatihah is doing a great job showing the real face of Islam. The reader would be wise to pay very close attention.

The deception, denial, and entitlement are truly astounding.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Somehow "evidence to the contrary" does not constitute a vapid "because I said" argument. Man up and just admit you're wrong on the point you were trying to make. Everyone here knows you were wrong. You're just digging the "embarrassment hole" deeper for yourself.

Response: Yet your own nonsensical statement that an appointment and an election is two different things shows otherwise. Thus the embarrassment is on you.

 

[YmirGF]

The deception, denial, and entitlement are truly astounding.

Only at first. After awhile it is quite predictable. One can actually play him like a fiddle.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Tying "what is best" to "religious affiliation" (where government is concerned) is creating an arbitrary standard that serves to dismiss and dehumanize all who don't conform to the artificial standard of "normal." IOW, it's discrimination.

Response: And if choosing someone best for a job is discrimination, then according to your logic, discrimination is a good thing. So your point remains as it was, pointless.

 

[sojourner]

Response: And your own words that he was appointed supports the fact that he was elected. So unless you want to change your argument, then you redundancy continues to make my point.

<Slowly, as if to a very small child>
Once again, O Best Beloved, ap-point-ment... is-n't... the... saaame... as... e-lec-tion... m'kay?