Why do muslims hate democracy

[Sleeppy]

Response: And your own source says that the "mixture" has a difference in properties that separates the two waters. Therefore, the reference to mix in your evidence is being used synonymously as an actual barrier. Furthermore, the Qur'an does not say that they do not mix. It says that they do, and the meeting creates a barrier so the two waters do not overtake each other. Your own source states exactly that, thus proving the Qur'an is true. Debunked as usual.

Actually it says the barrier is not transgressed.. The Quran debunked itself.

 

[YmirGF]

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

I've been down this road a few times with Fatihah. He will rarely provide you with much in the way of details. For example, one area he is fabricating that is not in the Qur'an is that you have to conquer a nation. That's not the way the text reads. Fatihah apparently doesn't believe the so-called "challenge" can stand on its own, so he makes up additions to the challenge as he deems fit.

All the text says is to produce a text similar. It is a given that MUSLIM authorities must decide if you effort makes the grade, but considering they already view the Qur'an as perfect, it's not likely that any such authorities would actually seriously consider a challenger. Allah teases the reader at 4 or 5 junctures to bring a text like the Qur'an and flatly states that all such efforts will fail.

So, Muslims who take this so-called challenge seriously could never seriously consider a challenger as Allah has already said in the Qur'an that all challengers will fail. So, regardless what Fatihah claims, all you need do is pen a work that is comparable to the Qur'an, but even there, the Qur'an doesn't state how it is to compare. Some Muslims have argued to me that the challenge must be in Arabic, others say that any language may do, though I doubt Ancient Klingon would be acceptable.

To summarize, in most peoples minds, a true challenge is something that has an element of difficulty, even extreme difficulty, but is clearly attainable. The goal is also very clear, as are any instructions. There is usually no fine print to put any aspect of a challenge in doubt. Non-Muslims would never be credited with satisfactorily completing the challenge, even if the challenge was met or exceeded. In essence, there would always be some reason, however bizarre, why the challenge failed. Imho, the so-called "challenge" in the Qur'an cannot be taken seriously. One question that is ignored is why anyone would want to do this.

Last, think of the outrage over the cartoons of Muhammad. What do you think the reaction would be if some person actually exceeded the mushrooming expectations. My guess is that person would soon go into hiding.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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.

Response: And the sources provided by others refuted you, as they clearly state that the two waters mix and create a barrier that separates the two waters from overtaking each other. Debunked as usual.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Actually it says the barrier is not transgressed.. The Quran debunked itself.

Response: And your own evidence shows that the barrier is not transgressed. Debunked as usual.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Like what good beneficial can a theocracy have?
History has shown its the worst set of rule ever made. With democracy people can decide whats for the best. Equality for men and female, everyone has rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

Not saying all support this. But Islamic countries in middle east seem to be for theocracy, Sharia Laws etc.

Because Islam is an extremist ultra-right wing patriarchal political ideology. It's the same reason they hate girls having an education. Girls are meant to be reared to be subservient to men. Have sex whenever their man wants it. (no better or morally righteous than the lunatics in the full quiver cults).

Islam is a fiction religion. That's why terrorism promotes it across the world. Without competition the fiction reigns. That's the goal of Islam. Always has been. World domination.
Islam is not and never has been a religion of peace. It is terrorism. Period. Those who some call, "moderate" Muslims aren't faced with making the choices the Qur'an command of them in this nation so as to prove that.
Well, unless someone ventures to Dearborn Michigan. Then they can see Sharia in force. Wear a large cross and you'll see what "NO GO ZONE" means there. Religion of peace? Look at the exploded martyrs to the cultish cause. That's actually meant to say, 'cult of pieces'.



This , isn't peace: 2002 Mecca girls' school fire

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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.

Response: To the contrary, the fact that you continue to dodge the challenge makes one think that your line of questioning is just another attempt to justify your ducking and dodging of the challenge to do it yourself. The Qur'an challenge was presented in simple basic English, and understood by others. So your line of questioning that you somehow do not understand and need clarification of what is written in simple basic English is quite telling, as simple English needs no clarification.

So the solution is quite simple. The challenge was clearly stated in post 28 of the thread in simple basic English, yet you insist on clarification of this simple English. Therefore, all you need to state is which simple basic English words from the post you fail to comprehend. And if discovered that you fail to comprehend any of the simple English, then I simply cannot assist you.

 

[sojourner]

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.

The "challenge" is bogus, because the terms of the challenge do not recreate what Muhammed actually did.

About 620 c.e. or so, Muhammed left Mecca, due to rumors that the was going to be assassinated. He relocated in Medina. The following excerpt of what happened next is from the Wikipedia article on Muhammed:

Following the emigration, the people of Mecca seized property of Muslim emigrants to Mecca.[104] Economically uprooted with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with Mecca.[105][106][107] Muhammad delivered Quranic verses permitting Muslims to fight the Meccans (see sura Al-Hajj, Quran 22:39–40).[108] These attacks allowed the migrants to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working towards the ultimate goal of conquering Mecca.

So, Muhammed patently did not conquer a nation through words. Military force was used.












You're welcome.




When do I get my prize? :takeabow:



[edit]: We can assume that turning all of the Arab "nation" to Islam happened over the course of at least hundreds of years. Through documented peaceful means, MLK has begun the task of turning many bigoted people to the perspective of equality -- using only words and nonviolent acts. We can assume that it will take a long time (not merely 50 years) before all discriminatory pockets in the US have been turned. The same with Ghandi. The same with Tutu and Mandela. The same with Romero. And Jesus, for that matter, 300 years prior to Muhammed.


But I'm equally sure that your quick and pat answer will be that my refusal to take up the challenge indicates the veracity of the Koran. But what I'm saying here is that it has already happened, championed by the individuals I've mentioned here.

 

[Harikrish]

Islam is followed by 1.4 billion Muslims. 800 million of the 1.4 billion Muslims are illiterate (6 out of 10 cannot read). So Islam is the religion for illiterates. Islam is also the religion that creates illiterates. Its founder Mohammad was an illiterate.

Are the current Islamists any better educated, who think they can run a government with Sharia law? They all run around with their face covered because they are too scared to reveal their hideous role in raping and killing innocent Muslims. Muslims don't hate democracy, they don't have a large enough educated electorate to participate in a democracy.

 

[idav]

I would hate democracy too if it threatened to limit my 30 year reign over some country to a mere 4 years.

 

[outhouse]

Islam is a fiction religion.

I didn't think you would ever get a frubal from me.

I stand corrected.

 

[outhouse]

Response: .

Dirka dirka Muhammad jihadi

 

[Al-Fatihah]

The "challenge" is bogus, because the terms of the challenge do not recreate what Muhammed actually did.

About 620 c.e. or so, Muhammed left Mecca, due to rumors that the was going to be assassinated. He relocated in Medina. The following excerpt of what happened next is from the Wikipedia article on Muhammed:

So, Muhammed patently did not conquer a nation through words. Military force was used.












You're welcome.




When do I get my prize? :takeabow:



[edit]: We can assume that turning all of the Arab "nation" to Islam happened over the course of at least hundreds of years. Through documented peaceful means, MLK has begun the task of turning many bigoted people to the perspective of equality -- using only words and nonviolent acts. We can assume that it will take a long time (not merely 50 years) before all discriminatory pockets in the US have been turned. The same with Ghandi. The same with Tutu and Mandela. The same with Romero. And Jesus, for that matter, 300 years prior to Muhammed.


But I'm equally sure that your quick and pat answer will be that my refusal to take up the challenge indicates the veracity of the Koran. But what I'm saying here is that it has already happened, championed by the individuals I've mentioned here.

Response: The use of military force does not change the fact that his followers were Muslims due to being inspired by the Qur'an. So your weak rebuttal fails to invalidate the challenge, while your ducking and dodging to answer it confirms your denial to the fact that the challenge proves the Qur'an is true.

As for the rest, not only does no source on the planet say that any individual you just named conquered and ruled a nation by inspiring followers with human-made speech that goes against their liking, nor can you quote and prove otherwise, but if asked of what proof you have that they did do it, your answer is "because a book says so". Such evidence is hearsay, while the Qur'an challenge is firsthand. Hearsay is not more credible than firsthand evidence. Thus you've failed three times in just one post, debunking yourself as usual and supporting the fact that the challenge proves the Qur'an is true. Thanks for the assistance.

 

[outhouse]

Response:.

OH!! I got you,, A Dirka dirka muhammad jihadi, muhammad jihadi jihad?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Response: To the contrary, the fact that you continue to dodge the challenge makes one think that your line of questioning is just another attempt to justify your ducking and dodging of the challenge to do it yourself. The Qur'an challenge was presented in simple basic English, and understood by others. So your line of questioning that you somehow do not understand and need clarification of what is written in simple basic English is quite telling, as simple English needs no clarification.

So the solution is quite simple. The challenge was clearly stated in post 28 of the thread in simple basic English, yet you insist on clarification of this simple English. Therefore, all you need to state is which simple basic English words from the post you fail to comprehend. And if discovered that you fail to comprehend any of the simple English, then I simply cannot assist you.

*scratches head*

My English is pretty decent, actually. But thanks for the offer of assistance. I humbly apologise if my insistence on you defining your terms is somewhat frustrating for you, but there's nothing unreasonable about requesting clarification before attempting to answer.

What is it you are claiming Muhammed did, so I might demonstrate this is not limited to him? Do I need to show you;

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 language

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

What you are arguing at the moment appears to be (c) from the list above, right? That Muhammed was able to take over a nation despite using unpopular language?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

*scratches head*

My English is pretty decent, actually. But thanks for the offer of assistance. I humbly apologise if my insistence on you defining your terms is somewhat frustrating for you, but there's nothing unreasonable about requesting clarification before attempting to answer.

What is it you are claiming Muhammed did, so I might demonstrate this is not limited to him? Do I need to show you;

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 language

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

What you are arguing at the moment appears to be (c) from the list above, right? That Muhammed was able to take over a nation despite using unpopular language?

Response: Once again, the Qur'an challenge is presented in post 28 in simple basic English. So if you need assistance is understanding simple English, then there is nothing I can do for you, as you clearly speak a different language. One cannot simplify what is already in its simplest from.

So I will repeat:

Step 1. Try using a speech or literature that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people, which has been made up by a person/s.

Step 2. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, for you to rule.

It's that simple. You can include whatever you like in the process. Whether by force , marching, singing, war, etc. It does not matter. As long as steps one and two is involved.

This is simple English. So to respond by saying you still need clarification after this is invalid. Thus there is no need to continue.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've been down this road a few times with Fatihah. He will rarely provide you with much in the way of details. For example, one area he is fabricating that is not in the Qur'an is that you have to conquer a nation. That's not the way the text reads. Fatihah apparently doesn't believe the so-called "challenge" can stand on its own, so he makes up additions to the challenge as he deems fit.

Yep, I noticed. The original challenge isn't particularly compelling unless you're already convinced in the divinity of the Qur'an, so I agree with him. The challenge can't stand on it's own.

All the text says is to produce a text similar. It is a given that MUSLIM authorities must decide if you effort makes the grade, but considering they already view the Qur'an as perfect, it's not likely that any such authorities would actually seriously consider a challenger. Allah teases the reader at 4 or 5 junctures to bring a text like the Qur'an and flatly states that all such efforts will fail.

So, Muslims who take this so-called challenge seriously could never seriously consider a challenger as Allah has already said in the Qur'an that all challengers will fail. So, regardless what Fatihah claims, all you need do is pen a work that is comparable to the Qur'an, but even there, the Qur'an doesn't state how it is to compare. Some Muslims have argued to me that the challenge must be in Arabic, others say that any language may do, though I doubt Ancient Klingon would be acceptable.

To summarize, in most peoples minds, a true challenge is something that has an element of difficulty, even extreme difficulty, but is clearly attainable. The goal is also very clear, as are any instructions. There is usually no fine print to put any aspect of a challenge in doubt. Non-Muslims would never be credited with satisfactorily completing the challenge, even if the challenge was met or exceeded. In essence, there would always be some reason, however bizarre, why the challenge failed. Imho, the so-called "challenge" in the Qur'an cannot be taken seriously. One question that is ignored is why anyone would want to do this.

The point isn't to invite challengers. It's to provide a shield AGAINST challengers, in my opinion.

Anyways, I defer to a smarter man than me to respond...

Last, think of the outrage over the cartoons of Muhammad. What do you think the reaction would be if some person actually exceeded the mushrooming expectations. My guess is that person would soon go into hiding.

People exceed it all the time, but I guess what you mean is deliberately, or that they might actually make the claim.
I agree. It's informative. People seem to be holding on far too tightly to the 'truth' in these cases. I'm not quite sure why they feel the need to. This thread is a perfect example. Fatihah rote repeats his point without straying too far from it, lest he is presented with something his list of responses doesn't cover (I guess).

If it's truth, it's truth. Follow the trail and see where it leads. But anyway...I don't know his background or how he's come to the place he has, so perhaps I'm judging him unfairly.

 

[YmirGF]

*scratches head*

My English is pretty decent, actually. But thanks for the offer of assistance. I humbly apologise if my insistence on you defining your terms is somewhat frustrating for you, but there's nothing unreasonable about requesting clarification before attempting to answer.

What is it you are claiming Muhammed did, so I might demonstrate this is not limited to him? Do I need to show you;

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 language

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

What you are arguing at the moment appears to be (c) from the list above, right? That Muhammed was able to take over a nation despite using unpopular language?

Part of the problem here, Lewis, is that you are trying to be reasonable. The so-called "challenge" is a challenge only in name. It is not a serious challenge. Again, a genuine challenge is something that has VERY CLEAR instructions and goals. Neither are particularly clear with the so-called "challenge" in the Qur'an. Hence, you will have Fatihah nimbly moving the goal posts the moment you figure something out.

 

[outhouse]

[youtube]WBwP3LO7NAU[/youtube]
The Dirka Dirka song - YouTube

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Part of the problem here, Lewis, is that you are trying to be reasonable. The so-called "challenge" is a challenge only in name. It is not a serious challenge. Again, a genuine challenge is something that has VERY CLEAR instructions and goals. Neither are particularly clear with the so-called "challenge" in the Qur'an. Hence, you will have Fatihah nimbly moving the goal posts the moment you figure something out.

Yup...I am 99.9% certain of the same (although I'd question 'nimbly')
But it's fine. Honestly. If I get frustrated, I'll leave the thread. Who knows, maybe we're both wrong and he actually tries to converse.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know if you have ever heard of Ayaan Hirsi. She's one of the greatest people on Earth, I admire her so much.

What I am saying is what she says. I defend women's rights and practicing religion must always be compatible with fundamental human rights.
A woman has the right to marry whoever she wants, . she has the right to wear whatever she wants and she has the right to express their femininity however she wants.

This doesn't prevent her from being a Muslim