Why do muslims hate democracy

[Al-Fatihah]

Cool. I completely disagree, but appreciate your response. As I mentioned earlier, these were my attempts at identifying the assumptions I think exist in the statement.

1. Assumes that Muhammed conquered anything using speech and literature alone.
2. Assumes it is humanly impossible to use speech and literature to 'conquer' anything.
3. Assumes that ability to 'conquer' anything is indicative of Allah, who has more power and authority than humans and was willing to intervene or inspire his followers to feats not otherwise possible for humans.

If you want to refer to these as 'facts' we can simply agree to disagree on that, since I'm actually not trying to be petty here.
Do you think those three statements are fair about your challenge, and the belief/fact/assumptions underpinning it?

Response: The three statements are actual facts, so there is no assumption.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to------Al-Fatihah<<<<<<<

I give you the first conflict between Islam and democracy, a Quran and Quran verses I'm going you other evidence in sequence
So you know Dink well and knows the others I speak from knowledge
Although I am not in need of this evidence because I live with the Muslims I know thinking well
​

Sixteen conflict between Islam and democracy


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Sixteen conflict between Islam and democracy

Between democracy and Islam oppose the system basis, assets and branches. If there is a similarity in some sections, this is not an excuse for the confused, because democracy Hamlet, and Islam faith. Note that the Islamic State has continued to apply the system of Islam over thirteen century of ...And did not use the word democracy, and not sense. And with the absence of Islam, people see a democratic system is offset by the authoritarian systems intelligence detective, it is natural that people prefer democracy over the authoritarian police state, all systems of Hamlet. We reject democracy does not mean we choose the absolutism of unjust, but detective we choose Islam, which is a mercy to the worlds of the merciful. These branches that they suspect people that Islam says to choose successor through elections and of allegiance, and democracy were choosing a Governor elected. As well as representatives of the people are being selected through ballots in Islam and democracy as well. In Islam, the nation and democracy accountable as well. Making shortsighted living democracy of Islam, or Islam is democratic. Below are summarized for each of the two systems, the conflict between them: 1) basis: democracy is: the word West, and the Western Naming Convention: (rule by the people for the people by people). The democratic system of Government and its people, emerged from the doctrine of the separation of religion from life (secularism), in order to get rid of the oppression of the rulers and churchmen, and control over the people in the name of religion so they say: "let Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God what is God 's." Democracy if the system comes from humans, and has nothing to do with religion. Thus, unrealistic description of democracy as a method or mechanism had nothing to do with beliefs and ideas, as traffic regulations and management systems; for democracy on the ground system emerged from the doctrine of the separation of religion from life, but some Western thinkers of democracy to a point of view on life. Either Islam is the religion that God sent down by the Prophet Muhammad r to organize the human relation with his creator and himself and other human beings. And man's relationship with his creator include beliefs, worship, and its relation to himself including ethics and impermissible foods and clothing, and its relationship with other human beings, including transactions and sanctions the principle of Islam to all of life. And Islam the only source and not human beings, based on the Islamic faith that don't separate between religion and the State, not between religion and life. The source of ideas and judgments and laws: Democracy does not care about the source of his ideas should be taken on faith, and the ideas of civilization and no judgements, no laws. As the democracy of the people, the sovereignty of the people, and the people who make laws, and has the power to legislate without God U. democracy if Kafr system; they make the governorship from the hands of the people, and gives them the power to legislate without God I, the re-opening of the legislation really God I alone without partner!. Islam requires its adherents to take everything the Prophet as a source of conscience and civilization and the rulings and laws, said the Almighty: (and what the Messenger comes to you and you take him, they finished and fear Allah that Allaah is severe in punishment), said: (And to judge between them by what Allah and do not follow under attack and forewarn them that they tempt you on some of what God has revealed to you), he said: (they want to refer to a juggernaut has been ordered to make amends by). He said: (not your Lord and don't they believe in until they judge you with trees including and then not find themselves embarrassed which I spent in recognition and surrender), said the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him: ((all the work does not have to hurry it is)), the basis of Islam is divine revelation, it makes the legislation of the right of the creator alone. It is no revelation, the only source of legislation. Therefore denied taking thought West or faith or civilization and capitalism and its laws.
​

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

This is the attitude of Islam towards democracy
It does not accept the rule of the people for himself
Do you find democracy in name
....................&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;
As the democracy of the people, the sovereignty of the people, and the people who make laws, and has the power to legislate without God U. democracy if Kafr system; they make the governorship from the hands of the people, and gives them the power to legislate without God I, the re-opening of the legislation really God I alone without partner!. Islam requires its adherents to take everything the Prophet as a source of conscience and civilization and the rulings and laws, said the Almighty: (and what the Messenger comes to you and you take him, they finished and fear Allah that Allaah is severe in punishment), he said: (and to judge between them by what Allah and do not follow under attack and forewarn them that they tempt you on some of what God has revealed to you), he said: (they want to refer to a juggernaut has been ordered to make amends by). He said: (RBC does not and don't they believe in so they judge you with trees including and then not find themselves embarrassed which I spent in recognition and surrender), said the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him: ((all the work does not have to hurry it is)), the basis of Islam is divine revelation, it makes the legislation of the right of the creator alone. It is no revelation, the only source of legislation. Therefore denied taking thought West or faith or civilization and capitalism and its laws. 2) happiness: happiness when the people of democracy and Western civilization, are getting as much as possible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As the democracy of the people, the sovereignty of the people, and the people who make laws, and has the power to legislate without God U. democracy if Kafr system; they make the governorship from the hands of the people, and gives them the power to legislate without God I, the re-opening of the legislation really God I alone without partner!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Response: The three statements are actual facts, so there is no assumption.

Again, we disagree, but at least I'm starting to get a clearer picture of your viewpoint now, so again, thank-you for responding.

On each of these three facts (happy to use your term whilst we're conversing) I'll ask a further question, if I may.

1. Muhammed conquered anything using speech and literature alone.

I don't really see it, but I'll admit my Middle Eastern history is weak. What was it that he conquered via speech and literature alone?

2. It is humanly impossible to use speech and literature to 'conquer' anything.

It entirely depends on the size of what it is you want to 'conquer' I would think. How would you compare the following people with consideration to your statement and in contrast to Muhammed?

• Mahatma Gandhi
• Dr Martin Luther King
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
• David Koresh

3. Ability to 'conquer' anything is indicative of Allah, who has more power and authority than humans and was willing to intervene or inspire his followers to feats not otherwise possible for humans.

Then why is it that you blame the Western powers, seemingly exclusively (although I've read few of your posts, and am basing that on this thread) for most of the troubles of Islamic nations, including both present lack of education in the Middle East (as compared to the OECD) and the fall of the Ottoman Empire?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Evidence from the Quran and sayings of Muhammad
............................
Almighty: (and what the Messenger comes to you and you take him, they finished and fear Allah that Allaah is severe in punishment), he said: (and to judge between them by what Allah and do not follow under attack and forewarn them that they tempt you on some of what God has revealed to you), he said: (they want to refer to a juggernaut has been ordered to make amends by). He said: (RBC does not and don't they believe in so they judge you with trees including and then not find themselves embarrassed which I spent in recognition and surrender), said the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him: ((all the work does not have to hurry it is)),

 

[outhouse]

The three statements are actual facts,.

:biglaugh:

a comedian

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Parrot speaks to save it from
SPG Agla
Because his mind was placed under anesthesia the verses of the Qur'an that descended from the bzenbil Board Archives
​

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Again, we disagree, but at least I'm starting to get a clearer picture of your viewpoint now, so again, thank-you for responding.

On each of these three facts (happy to use your term whilst we're conversing) I'll ask a further question, if I may.



I don't really see it, but I'll admit my Middle Eastern history is weak. What was it that he conquered via speech and literature alone?



It entirely depends on the size of what it is you want to 'conquer' I would think. How would you compare the following people with consideration to your statement and in contrast to Muhammed?

• Mahatma Gandhi
• Dr Martin Luther King
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
• David Koresh

Then why is it that you blame the Western powers, seemingly exclusively (although I've read few of your posts, and am basing that on this thread) for most of the troubles of Islamic nations, including both present lack of education in the Middle East (as compared to the OECD) and the fall of the Ottoman Empire?

Response: Once again, you have failed to answer the challenge, thus supporting the fact that the Qur'an is valid. Instead, you list a group of names implying that they answered the challenge. Yet if asked of what proof you have, your answer is "because a book says so" which is hearsay. While the Qur'an challenge is firsthand. Hearsay is not more credible than firsthand evidence, thus demonstrating the challenge remains valid. Furthermore, no source on the planet says that any individual you presented ever conquered and ruled a nation by inspiring followers with human-made speech that goes against their likening, nor can you quote and prove otherwise. So even your hearsay fails. Thus the Qur'an challenge remains valid.

As for the rest, no one is blaming the West. Rather, what is being demonstrated is that both Muslims and Western policies are responsible, not Islam.

 

[outhouse]

To not answer direct polite questions, is a form of dishonesty

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Response: Once again, you have failed to answer the challenge, thus supporting the fact that the Qur'an is valid. Instead, you list a group of names implying that they answered the challenge. Yet if asked of what proof you have, your answer is "because a book says so" which is hearsay. While the Qur'an challenge is firsthand. Hearsay is not more credible than firsthand evidence, thus demonstrating the challenge remains valid. Furthermore, no source on the planet says that any individual you presented ever conquered and ruled a nation by inspiring followers with human-made speech that goes against their likening, nor can you quote and prove otherwise. So even your hearsay fails. Thus the Qur'an challenge remains valid.

As for the rest, no one is blaming the West. Rather, what is being demonstrated is that both Muslims and Western policies are responsible, not Islam.

Hey Fathi-.
I respect our minds
We do parrots say Amen
This from the Koran--rejects the concept of democracy
These words of Mohammed.
What is the difference between man and other creatures
Answer mind
​

 

[Shad]

Response: And your own statement refers to temperature, not sweet and salt water. Debunked by your own source. Furthermore, your own source says that the mixture causes homogenization. Meaning the properties of one sea is not transferred to the other, thus your own mention of "mixed" is proof of a barrier.

Now to embarrass you, from your own source.

"A halocline is most commonly confused with a thermocline - a thermocline is an area within a body of water that marks a drastic change in temperature".

Your reference is to a thermocline, which clearly states a drastic change in temperature. Since there is a change, then that means the water is no longer fresh or salt water, thus the mixture is a barrier. Additionally, the Qur'an refers to all clines. And every cline refers to homogenization, which is a CHANGE in properties. Thus it is a barrier, as it is neither fresh or salt water. Once again, your own source refutes you and proves the Qur'an is true.

Temperature does not dictate fresh and salt water. So your comment is in error. There is no between fresh and salt. There is fresh water, there is salt water. The amount of salt in the water can be divided up into brackish, saline and brine. All 3 are still salt water.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Temperature does not dictate fresh and salt water. So your comment is in error. There is no between fresh and salt. There is fresh water, there is salt water. The amount of salt in the water can be divided up into brackish, saline and brine. All 3 are still salt water.

Response: Nor did anyone say that temperature dictates fresh and salt water. So your rebuttal fails. And your failure to provide any proof that there is no barrier between the two waters refuted you further, thus failing to disprove the Qur'an.

 

[Shad]

Your reference is to a thermocline, which clearly states a drastic change in temperature. Since there is a change, then that means the water is no longer fresh or salt water, thus the mixture is a barrier

You did. You refutation is refuted by your own words. Also since water flows between oceans via currents there is no barrier. A barrier would block this exchange of water hence there is no real barrier.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Response: Once again, you have failed to answer the challenge, thus supporting the fact that the Qur'an is valid.

I didn't realise I needed to answer the challenge with each and every post. What I am trying to do is understand your terms so I might effectively answer. If it takes me more than one post, I apologize, but re-iterating that I am 'failing to answer the challenge' doesn't seem helpful for either of us, honestly.

Instead, you list a group of names implying that they answered the challenge.

I'm not implying that yet, but if I can get enough understanding of your point, I might do so, yes.

Yet if asked of what proof you have, your answer is "because a book says so" which is hearsay. While the Qur'an challenge is firsthand. Hearsay is not more credible than firsthand evidence, thus demonstrating the challenge remains valid.

:no:
Sorry, but this is just dancing around again. I am more than happy if you or any Muslim of your choice wants to come and take over my street as proof of the divine inspiration possible through the Qur'an. This would be first hand evidence. Until then, I guess we're both reliant on 'hearsay'.
You do understand the irony of you arguing that it's ME believing in something 'because a book says so', right? There is clear evidence of the behaviour of each of the 5 individuals I put forward, and I'm quite at a loss as to what it is you have an issue with, given all I did was offer up 5 names.

The five range from brave to deluded, so not like they're all similar anyway.

Furthermore, no source on the planet says that any individual you presented ever conquered and ruled a nation by inspiring followers with human-made speech that goes against their likening, nor can you quote and prove otherwise. So even your hearsay fails. Thus the Qur'an challenge remains valid.

You're moving goalposts. Let me understand this once more.
Are you now suggesting that Muhammed conquered and ruled a NATION with a divine book and inspired speech as his only weapons, and further that this speech went against their liking? I've never heard a Muslim claim that, so I am keen to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.

 

[Shad]

You're moving goalposts. Let me understand this once more.
Are you now suggesting that Muhammed conquered and ruled a NATION with a divine book and inspired speech as his only weapons, and further that this speech went against their liking? I've never heard a Muslim claim that, so I am keen to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.

Considering Mo had a number of wars against him and for his own expansion of Islam his words clearly failed.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

You did. You refutation is refuted by your own words. Also since water flows between oceans via currents there is no barrier. A barrier would block this exchange of water hence there is no real barrier.

Response: Yet we still see you fail to provide any source that says there is no barrier between both waters, thus debunking yourself as usual.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I didn't realise I needed to answer the challenge with each and every post. What I am trying to do is understand your terms so I might effectively answer. If it takes me more than one post, I apologize, but re-iterating that I am 'failing to answer the challenge' doesn't seem helpful for either of us, honestly.



I'm not implying that yet, but if I can get enough understanding of your point, I might do so, yes.



:no:
Sorry, but this is just dancing around again. I am more than happy if you or any Muslim of your choice wants to come and take over my street as proof of the divine inspiration possible through the Qur'an. This would be first hand evidence. Until then, I guess we're both reliant on 'hearsay'.
You do understand the irony of you arguing that it's ME believing in something 'because a book says so', right? There is clear evidence of the behaviour of each of the 5 individuals I put forward, and I'm quite at a loss as to what it is you have an issue with, given all I did was offer up 5 names.

The five range from brave to deluded, so not like they're all similar anyway.



You're moving goalposts. Let me understand this once more.
Are you now suggesting that Muhammed conquered and ruled a NATION with a divine book and inspired speech as his only weapons, and further that this speech went against their liking? I've never heard a Muslim claim that, so I am keen to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.

Response: And you still fail to answer the challenge, thus supporting the fact that the Qur'an is true. And nothing in the challenge states that only the Qur'an was used.

 

[Shad]

Response: Yet we still see you fail to provide any source that says there is no barrier between both waters, thus debunking yourself as usual.

The sources have already been provided by others. To debunk a source one must refute it, not make an assertion. Layers are not barriers. Barriers prevew a thing from happening. However since water mixes between layers these are not barriers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Response: And you still fail to answer the challenge, thus supporting the fact that the Qur'an is true. And nothing in the challenge states that only the Qur'an was used.

One might think you have a vested interest in not allowing people to answer the challenge.
As I clearly stated in my post, I was not trying to 'answer the challenge' in every post I make.
I'm trying to clarify terms. I'm not sure what motivation you would have for not allowing me to do so.

Anyway...I see two versions of what you're asking;

1) The original challenge was to take over my street or whatever. This is clearly impractical, and not something I want to do. Nor is it something achievable in the time frames of this thread.

I would assume that you could take over a street, given the inspiration of faith?

2) Given that I'm not going to try and take over my street, I pondered what you saw as the basis of this challenge. Hence my earlier questions about assumptions (which you saw as facts). Agreed to see them as facts for the sake of this thread. That all being the case, what sort of person would I be putting forth for logical comparison?

a) Someone who took over a nation without violence.
b) Someone who took over a nation without violence, and by using unpopular language.
c) Someone who took over a nation whilst using unpopular language, regardless of whether they used violence.
d) Someone who took over something/anything without resorting to violence.
e) Someone who took over something/anything without violence, and by using unpopular language.
f) Someone who took over something/anything whilst using unpopular langauge

Or whatever other option you choose, to be honest. Just spell it out, so there is actually an agreed 'fact' to disprove.

 

[Shad]

Response: They could not reform because they were oppressed by the West and the adaptation of secular systems was employed by the West. So again, you make my point. No source on the planet says that any Muslim empire sought to adopt a secular system prior to the conquest of the West. Not one. Nor can you provide one. The systems came about from deceptive propaganda and divide and conquer tactics by the West in order for the West to set up the Muslim Puppets they needed in order to maintain control of the region. Demonstrating once again that the political, economical, and social systems are not Islamic and have nothing to do with Islam. They are systems, plotted, perpetuated, and propagated successfully by the West. Not Islam.

They tried to reform. France, Russia and England actually tried to enforce reforms in treaties. The Tanzimat reform used secular ideas. These reforms were not rejected by Europe but by Abdulamid II after he agreed to it. His predecessor was removed from power for supporting the same reforms. It is the backlash of Muslims which caused these reforms to fail. Also Abdulamid II tried to reestablish Pan-Islamism as the state ideology leading to the Armenian Genocide under his rule.

The source you do not think exists is in fact in the Tanzimat Reforms. Perhaps you should read the documentation of the reforms. Your own ignorance of the reforms is not a defense. Also the reforms started in 1837 before the Empire lost the majority of it's territory in wars to European nations. Two Sultans supported the reforms, Mahmud II and Abdulmecid I. History proves you are in fact wrong but that never stopped you before. There is actually a series of a Sultans supporting reform only to have his successors oppose it. This show the internal conflict over reforms which hindered the Empire's ability to compete with Europe. Internal conflicts which on one side were secularist and the other Islamist.