Why do muslims hate democracy

[Rotcha]

Response: The originator of creation will naturally know what law is best for humankind than any person. So only through Allah's law can a person have the best rights. Not through democracy, which is subjective and can always change by just a vote.

By that logic we should make christianity the one ruling power here in Europe. Bring Monarchy and king back. Heresy for witchcraft, burn the witches! Cut of the hands of the thief!

Just like in middle east there is beheadings for being gay, death penalty for leaving islam and the best part. Kill woman for adultery, because obviously being raped in the secret counts as adultery... oh dear :sad4:

Theocracy certainly makes Frollo the good guy.

Democracy is of the devil apparently :rainbow1:

 

[Revoltingest]

I am a Vedantist raised in the Vedantic tradition, a Hindu by birth. I believe Hinduism will prevail. It was already predicted in the Bible.
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

What if some other religion prevails? Xians have shown that they're pretty good at
conquering other peoples when they put their mind to it. And they typically don't
think their book predicts that Hinduism will replace Xianity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: The one that is true has the authority, which is the Qur'an.

See... there is a slight problem there...

 

[Revoltingest]

Response: The one that is true has the authority, which is the Qur'an.

Why? You believe it, certainly, but what evidence
is there that it is true, & all the others are false?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

By that logic we should make christianity the one ruling power here in Europe. Bring Monarchy and king back. Heresy for witchcraft, burn the witches! Cut of the hands of the thief!

Just like in middle east there is beheadings for being gay, death penalty for leaving islam and the best part. Kill woman for adultery, because obviously being raped in the secret counts as adultery... oh dear :sad4:

Theocracy certainly makes Frollo the good guy.

Democracy is of the devil apparently :rainbow1:

Response: The logic is to follow the true religion.Only Islam fits the description.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

See... there is a slight problem there...

Response: Not at all.

 

[Rotcha]

Response: The logic is to follow the true religion.Only Islam fits the description.

But i believe christianity has the one true God. So i have the right to subjugate people who don't follow it.. right? Theocracy... anyone?

I guess the idea of religious freedom is just a myth in the islamic middle east.:sarcastic
Which democracy works so well to promote, if only one religion could respect others view and not be so selfish with theocracy, then that would be the best

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Why? You believe it, certainly, but what evidence
is there that it is true, & all the others are false?

Response: Unlike other religions which rely just on faith, Islam is based on observable and testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence. Therefore, the evidence is both scientific and valid. This evidence is found in the Qur'an challenge as stated below:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

“Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Qur’an and surely we will guard it from corruption”.


Here we have a test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur’an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur’an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur’an is without error, indecency, and immorality, and it is a guidance to righteousness. The question still remains as to who is the author? The Qur’an answers this question with the following test. The Qur’an states:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the a skeptic develops the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the Qur'an, let me further elaborate. The Qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, its intent is to inspire people to follow its teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something that is as inspirational as the Qur'an, for it is the inspiration of the Qur'an that is miraculous. And what is that miracle? The miracle is within the following:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough followers to help him/her/ them conquer and rule a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority and is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to help to conquer and rule a nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Try using a speech or literature that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation for you to rule and see what happens. The challenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer and rule the street that he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and fail miserably. No person will come close to achieving the challenge. Any individual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitness account from experience and observation that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to help him conquer and rule a nation in the same fashion. So since it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s to help conquer and rule a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, because they will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur’an is of divine origin as proven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that producing something like the Qur’an is humanly impossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagree, then take the challenge and prove differently.

 

[Revoltingest]

Response: Unlike other religions which rely just on faith, Islam is based on observable and testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence.

Other religions make the same claim, eg, Xian creationists.
But just as with Islam, the claims don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
It's more about starting with a religion, & then culling confirming tidbits
from science. I also note that Muslims cannot agree on evolution v creationism.
Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And as we see how Islam is practiced around the world, they cannot agree
even on morals & ethics. The question becomes, which Islam is the true one?

 

[Godobeyer]

- Freedom of sexual expression: women have the right to show their body and to wear provoking clothes.

I disagree with all your comment , but i am quote this to post a question about :

if the provoking clothes lead to rape her or harassment, who accuatly more blamed the provoked "man " or who provoking ?

is not when the women harassment men , when they provoke them ?

 

[Harikrish]

What if some other religion prevails? Xians have shown that they're pretty good at
conquering other peoples when they put their mind to it. And they typically don't
think their book predicts that Hinduism will replace Xianity.

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world and it has survived Roman invasion, Muslim invasion, British Invasion, Chinese invasion, Mongol invasion. The Hindus have preserved their religion and integrity. In other religions when people die they go to a faraway place like heaven or paradise. But Hindus return to earth through reincarnations which gives them the edge over other religions. There is a good chance most of the world will return as Hindus after they have tried other religions.

 

[Godobeyer]

I am not against the democraty .

I don't know why the democraty in Muslim world becomes as nightmare , its means civil war , and terrorism , and separation ....etc

even in non-Muslim country like Ukrania .

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: Not at all.

What arrogance. I will remember that next time people talk of Islamophobia.

 

[Rotcha]

Personally i think the idea called "Islam vs the west" should be replaced with.

Democracy vs Theocracy.

Which values do you think are better? What is one willing to support.

Freedom of religion, or one religion controlling a country.

Democracy: Freedom of speech: Can criticize everything they feel injustice even religion, environment, health, abuse and corruption.
Theocracy: Control what one can say in the media

Democracy: Legal court system founded on evidence of the vitcim, with a jury, judge and a lawyer.
Theocracy: Religious laws are the ones in charge of guilt or not guilt

I think that is what one should talk about, what are one willing to defend. The right of others to believe what they want, or to select a religion to subjugate people in a country. Will one be open minded and support religious freedom, that anyone can discuss who is right or who is wrong? = Truth. Or will one stick to theocratic ideas and die and fight until all are subjucated under that one religion.

I say, democracy may not be perfect, but its the best we got.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Response: Unlike other religions which rely just on faith, Islam is based on observable and testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence. Therefore, the evidence is both scientific and valid. This evidence is found in the Qur'an challenge as stated below:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

“Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Qur’an and surely we will guard it from corruption”.


Here we have a test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur’an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur’an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur’an is without error, indecency, and immorality, and it is a guidance to righteousness. The question still remains as to who is the author? The Qur’an answers this question with the following test. The Qur’an states:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the a skeptic develops the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the Qur'an, let me further elaborate. The Qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, its intent is to inspire people to follow its teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something that is as inspirational as the Qur'an, for it is the inspiration of the Qur'an that is miraculous. And what is that miracle? The miracle is within the following:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough followers to help him/her/ them conquer and rule a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority and is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to help to conquer and rule a nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Try using a speech or literature that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation for you to rule and see what happens. The challenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer and rule the street that he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and fail miserably. No person will come close to achieving the challenge. Any individual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitness account from experience and observation that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to help him conquer and rule a nation in the same fashion. So since it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s to help conquer and rule a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, because they will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur’an is of divine origin as proven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that producing something like the Qur’an is humanly impossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagree, then take the challenge and prove differently.

You think we should write a book that will incite our followers to conquer our own streets. You predict that the book will fail to do this. And you 'logically' conclude that this is proof of God?

So we should follow this God of conquest then? Why? Because might makes right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world and it has survived Roman invasion, Muslim invasion, British Invasion, Chinese invasion, Mongol invasion. The Hindus have preserved their religion and integrity. In other religions when people die they go to a faraway place like heaven or paradise. But Hindus return to earth through reincarnations which gives them the edge over other religions. There is a good chance most of the world will return as Hindus after they have tried other religions.

These are all things which an adherent can like about the faith.
But competing religions have things they like about their own.
I wouldn't want to be ruled by a theocracy just because it's
based on a religion which is old & well liked by its adherents.

 

[sandandfoam]

I say, democracy may not be perfect, but its the best we got.

For the most part I think 'democracy' is a con job. In America you can vote for a right wing party or you can vote for a right wing party. Where's the democracy in that? In the EU you can vote for whatever you want but you'll keep voting until the politicians get the answer they want. It all comes down to what Germany wants. It's a Tweedledum Tweedledee choice. Whatever way one votes the policies stay the same.
The Swiss have the only democracy that I can think of.

 

[Harikrish]

For the most part I think 'democracy' is a con job. In America you can vote for a right wing party or you can vote for a right wing party. Where's the democracy in that? In the EU you can vote for whatever you want but you'll keep voting until the politicians get the answer they want. It all comes down to what Germany wants. It's a Tweedledum Tweedledee choice. Whatever way one votes the policies stay the same.
The Swiss have the only democracy that I can think of.

If democracy is so effective why are Americans experiencing voter suppression? Why are billions being spent to buy elections? Why are they attacking a 2 time elected black president and voting down every policy legislation Obama introduces.

 

[Sleeppy]

Response: Unlike other religions which rely just on faith, Islam is based on observable and testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence. Therefore, the evidence is both scientific and valid. This evidence is found in the Qur'an challenge as stated below:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

“Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Qur’an and surely we will guard it from corruption”.


Here we have a test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur’an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur’an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur’an is without error, indecency, and immorality, and it is a guidance to righteousness. The question still remains as to who is the author? The Qur’an answers this question with the following test. The Qur’an states:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the a skeptic develops the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the Qur'an, let me further elaborate. The Qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, its intent is to inspire people to follow its teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something that is as inspirational as the Qur'an, for it is the inspiration of the Qur'an that is miraculous. And what is that miracle? The miracle is within the following:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough followers to help him/her/ them conquer and rule a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority and is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to help to conquer and rule a nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Try using a speech or literature that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation for you to rule and see what happens. The challenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer and rule the street that he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and fail miserably. No person will come close to achieving the challenge. Any individual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitness account from experience and observation that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to help him conquer and rule a nation in the same fashion. So since it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s to help conquer and rule a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, because they will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur’an is of divine origin as proven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that producing something like the Qur’an is humanly impossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagree, then take the challenge and prove differently.

Are you familiar with Hitler? John Smith? Justin Beiber?-- This is pretty idiotic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why are they attacking a 2 time elected black president and voting down every policy legislation Obama introduces.

Democracy.
Opposing Obama is one of the advantages.
We aren't required to support him just cuz he's black & elected.