Why do muslims hate democracy

[Shad]

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

Considering the public did not elect Hitler as President during the presidential election his appoint as leader was not supported by the people. Hindenburg as part of a representative government made decisions against public opinion for the sake of government stability. Taking the title of President by Hitler was illegal as there is no direct successor to the position, a person must be elected. Hitler held no such election.

 

[sojourner]

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

Ha! "The Backhoe Defense!"

 

[sojourner]

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

I've got him tuned to about a B-flat right now...

 

[sojourner]

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

How is an election the same as an appointment?

(This oughta be good!)

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Considering the public did not elect Hitler as President during the presidential election his appoint as leader was not supported by the people. Hindenburg as part of a representative government made decisions against public opinion for the sake of government stability. Taking the title of President by Hitler was illegal as there is no direct successor to the position, a person must be elected. Hitler held no such election.

Response: No one said he was elected through a Presidential election so your strawman fails. What was stated that that he was elected by a majority, which your own words prove is the case, as you admit he was appointed.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

How is an election the same as an appointment?

(This oughta be good!)

Response: To elect means to choose someone. The very same definition as appoint. So an election is an appointment.

Common sense.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

<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?

Response: And according to this warped logic, jumping is not leaping. Or large is not big. Any reasonable person can see the absurdity in your logic, thus exposing yourself as usual.

 

[sojourner]

Response: To elect means to choose someone. The very same definition as appoint. So an election is an appointment.

Common sense.

To elect means to choose by a majority of an electorate. To appoint means to to be called to a position by one person in authority. An election is not an appointment. By any stretch of the imagination.

 

[sojourner]

Response: And according to this warped logic, jumping is not leaping. Or large is not big. Any reasonable person can see the absurdity in your logic, thus exposing yourself as usual.

jump/leap and large/big are differences of sematics. Election/appointment is a difference of political action. They are carried out by a much different procedure from each other. It's more like "leaping is not like crawling."

 

[Al-Fatihah]

To elect means to choose by a majority of an electorate. To appoint means to to be called to a position by one person in authority. An election is not an appointment. By any stretch of the imagination.

Response: Yet no dictionary on the planet says so. Rather, it clearly states to choose someone, in addition to the fact that both elect and appoint are synonymous terms. So they can't mean two different things by definition. So your warped logic fails as usual.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

jump/leap and large/big are differences of sematics. Election/appointment is a difference of political action. They are carried out by a much different procedure from each other. It's more like "leaping is not like crawling."

Response: Words are defined by their definition and every thesaurus and dictionary agrees to that both appoint and elect mean the exact same thing. Your warped English fails.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Response: You were issued a challenge to disprove the Qur'an, and nothing above was an answer to the challenge.

Correct. I have not taken over my street yet.

So your own response supports the fact that the Qur'an challenge proves the Qur'an is true.

No. It merely doesn't prove it's not true.
Consider you asking me to prove the world is more than 10 billion years old. If I am unable or unwilling to, that doesn't prove the world is less than 10 billion years old. It merely doesn't prove it's older than 10 billion years.

All this is quite aside from the ridiculousness of the challenge, which is a different consideration entirely.

For the Qur'an challenge provides a hands on-eyewitness account that inspiring enough followers to help him/her conquer and rule a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible, because anyone who takes the challenge will fail and not come close to answering it. And since it is clearly humanly impossible to use human-made speech/literature to achieve the act, then that means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation was not the invention of any human/s, but from one who has greater power and authority than humans, and that is Allah.

Well...there ya go. Case closed, I guess.
So, about my other question?

Do you think that Muslims are inspired by the Qur'an now? I'll bet that some are and some aren't. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 90% of Muslims are inspired by the Qur'an. Such a thing is impossible, given the percentage of illiteracy, but let's run with 90%, since it doesn't really matter.

Why do the others follow Islam?

 

[sojourner]

Response: Yet no dictionary on the planet says so. Rather, it clearly states to choose someone, in addition to the fact that both elect and appoint are synonymous terms. So they can't mean two different things by definition. So your warped logic fails as usual.

Elect: 1. To select by vote for an office or for membership.

Appoint: 1. (also intr) to assign officially, as for a position, responsibility, etc:

Both definitions furnished by The Free Dictionary online.

How this works in The Real World:

Members of Congress in the US are elected by voters to their various offices. A majority of votes selects the candidate for office.

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. No vote is taken, no majority is needed.

Hitler was appointed -- not elected. No vote was taken. No majority was needed.

Gee... guess you were WRONG.

 

[sojourner]

Response: Words are defined by their definition and every thesaurus and dictionary agrees to that both appoint and elect mean the exact same thing. Your warped English fails.

See post above.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Fundamentalists are so sure their way is right, they are willing to do anything to get control.

 

[Katzpur]

On what basis would you presume that Muslims have a homogeneous view on anything?

That's just what I was going to ask.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Correct. I have not taken over my street yet.



No. It merely doesn't prove it's not true.
Consider you asking me to prove the world is more than 10 billion years old. If I am unable or unwilling to, that doesn't prove the world is less than 10 billion years old. It merely doesn't prove it's older than 10 billion years.

All this is quite aside from the ridiculousness of the challenge, which is a different consideration entirely.



Well...there ya go. Case closed, I guess.
So, about my other question?

Do you think that Muslims are inspired by the Qur'an now? I'll bet that some are and some aren't. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 90% of Muslims are inspired by the Qur'an. Such a thing is impossible, given the percentage of illiteracy, but let's run with 90%, since it doesn't really matter.

Why do the others follow Islam?

Response: Your failure to answer the Qur'an challenge does not prove it is true, nor did I say it did. What was stated is that your failure SUPPORTS the fact that it is true, which it does since failure is exactly what the challenge predicts.

As for the rest, I'm not concerned with what or how others are inspired by the Qur'an or why they follow. My responsibility is to deliver the message of Islam and provide its proof.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Elect: 1. To select by vote for an office or for membership.

Appoint: 1. (also intr) to assign officially, as for a position, responsibility, etc:

Both definitions furnished by The Free Dictionary online.

How this works in The Real World:

Members of Congress in the US are elected by voters to their various offices. A majority of votes selects the candidate for office.

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. No vote is taken, no majority is needed.

Hitler was appointed -- not elected. No vote was taken. No majority was needed.

Gee... guess you were WRONG.

Response: And the same source says the definition of elect is to be chosen deliberately, singled out, and selected and says it is synonymous to the word appoint. So appoint and elect means the same thing. Debunked by your own source and making my point as usual. Thanks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Response: Your failure to answer the Qur'an challenge does not prove it is true, nor did I say it did. What was stated is that your failure SUPPORTS the fact that it is true, which it does since failure is exactly what the challenge predicts.

You're welcome to believe that, I guess.


It was never likely I was going to try and takeover my street, nor that if I did so I'd be able to knock it over in a time-frame relevant to this thread.
The lack of a poster on RF from being able to take over their street is one of the least compelling pieces of 'support' I have ever seen in my life.
It's somewhat akin to an atheist challenging you to convert them. But I'll admit, your challenge is more fun.
I dunno if that's intentional or not, but it's almost thread inspiring, to be honest.

As for the rest, I'm not concerned with what or how others are inspired by the Qur'an or why they follow. My responsibility is to deliver the message of Islam and provide its proof.

Lucky. I was worried there you were going to have a conversation not on your own terms.
I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that not all Muslims are inspired by the message of the Qur'an then. Kinda matches what I've seen about every ideology, religious or otherwise, I've ever come across.

Perhaps there are other elements at play than the 'inspiration' of the Qur'an? Perhaps it has always been the case? Perhaps Occam's Razor would suggest it's certain, in fact?

Anyhow, you want to discuss this or anything else, I'm here. Not a fan of ring-fenced and self-serving discussions, but I'll persevere for a while if you have interest.

 

[sojourner]

Response: And the same source says the definition of elect is to be chosen deliberately, singled out, and selected and says it is synonymous to the word appoint. So appoint and elect means the same thing. Debunked by your own source and making my point as usual. Thanks.

Problem is, it's the thesaurus, not the dictionary that lists "appoint" as a synonym for "elect." As we all know, a thesaurus is an imprecise source. It makes suggestions for alternate terms that may work, depending on the context. In the particular context, the two terms are not synonymous. It's the definitions we're after, for purposes of the argument, and the definitions indicate a difference, made all the more cogent by the context.

Your attempt to blur the distinction by substituting a "suggestion" for a definition is infantile, at best.