The Only Solution to the Upheaval in Egypt Is!

[ahmetsecer]

The Only Solution to the Upheaval in Egypt Is the Elimination of the Darwinist Mindset and the Establishment of Islamic Union

The uprising in Egypt, following on the heels of the events in Tunisia, shows that changes are going to take place in both the region and the Islamic world as a whole. It is an evident fact that the non-democratic regimes in several Islamic countries, not just Tunisia and Egypt, have for years repressed their peoples. These regimes’ unjust policies are also known to have inflicted hunger and poverty on their peoples. The need to alter this mindset, that prohibits the public from expressing its opinions, freely living by its faith and openly discussing Islam and that represses those who fail to heed these prohibitions by means of torture, imprisonment and even death is equally apparent.


However, this change cannot come about by way of street conflict, looting and violence. No change brought about through violence will bring the peace, security and well-being that people need and long for. Some partial successes and progress may be achieved, but permanent and satisfying solutions are impossible. A permanent and realistic solution is only possible by adhering to the path shown by Allah and our Prophet (saas).

For that reason, while our brothers living in Tunisia, Egypt and other Islamic countries express their legitimate grievances and strive for their fundamental human rights, they must do this in a manner compatible with the Qur’an and the Sunnah of our Prophet (saas). Allah will not bestow the desired success if the path revealed by Him and shown by our Prophet (saas) is ignored.

Another important matter that must not be forgotten in evaluating these events in the Arab world is the damage caused by the Darwinist materialist mindset with which the Arab world has been indoctrinated for the last 100 years or so.

Darwinism has inflicted terrible suffering on the Arab world

The events that began in Tunisia and spread to Egypt and the disorder and conflict that has begun in the Islamic world is a sign that we are living in a very significant time. Our Prophet (saas) has described in detail how such events will take place in the End Times. The anger stemming from Muslims being disunited and from some Muslims not adopting a conception of Islam based on love, peace and friendship has led Muslims to be fragmented among themselves.

The most important reason for this disorder and division is the survival in Tunisia and especially in Egypt of this Darwinist and materialist mindset that has been around for such a long time, and the resulting failure to live fully by the spirit of peace and love bestowed by the Qur’an. Darwinist education has for long been emphasized in Egypt and young people have been brought up to be Darwinists and materialists. The conference on evolution in Alexandria some 14 months ago and the Darwinist education that still persists there are clear proof of the scale of the Darwinist hypnosis in Egypt. (You can read a detailed piece on the subject here.) The oppression of Islamic communities and groups, the ban on freedom of religion, the lack of equality of income and the attacks on Christians are all the results of the Darwinist materialist mindset in question, a total violation of the moral values of the Qur’an. The way that recent protests that should have been democratic but have sometimes turned into aggression, looting and violence are the fruit of the same mindset.

Arab socialism, which is based on Darwinism, emerged as a movement that combined extreme nationalism and a fanatical third world leftism and was essentially supported by the old Soviet Union, as is well known. (For further detail on Arab socialism, see here.) Arab socialism combined a slightly milder version of Soviet-type communism with a strict Arab nationalism and first came to power in Egypt. Gamal Abdel Nasser, one of the military officers who overthrew the king of Egypt, exhibited a concept of power that soon came to inflict repression on Muslims. One of the main features of the Nasser regime, under which Islamic scholars such as Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Qutb and Hassan-al Banna were executed and thousands of Muslims were tortured and killed, is the way that it made Darwinist education obligatory. This led to generations described as Muslims on their identity documents but who had nothing to do with the true values of Islam. Young people brought up under Darwinist, materialist and socialist indoctrination turned out to be ruthless, selfish and violent, rather than displaying the love, compassion, reason and moderation commanded in the Qur’an. The result was whole masses of people who believed that the way to obtain their rights was through violence and conflict.

However, it must not be forgotten that the mindset that seeks conflict between Muslims and Christians and Jews is that of the dajjal. At this time, the End Times, when the corruption of the dajjal is most widespread, the greatest blow that can be dealt the dajjal is to put an end to the Darwinist, materialist mindset and seek Islamic Union.

So long as the fragmentation of Muslims persists and the Darwinist, materialist mindset does not come to an end, no protest or conflict in Egypt, nor any measure brought in to oppose them nor any other policy or prohibition will bring a solution with it. On the contrary, the Muslim populace has always suffered and been the loser because of such events. They have always led to the Muslim populace suffering and being oppressed. Therefore, the solution to oppression, suffering and injustice lies not in pouring onto the streets, fighting the police and army, looting museums and generally terrifying the civilian population, but in abandoning the Darwinist mindset and calling on Muslims to be brothers. Almighty Allah is sending Muslims an important message through such events, showing them the results of fragmentation and reminding them of the need to abandon the mindset that the Darwinist, materialist perspective brings with it.

Therefore, the Darwinist, materialist mindset has to be opposed through knowledge, learning and science if this conflict, pain, suffering and oppressive system is to come to an end. The best thing to that end is to concentrate on the scientific evidence that proves the fact of Creation, and to keep broadcasting the fact that Darwinism is the worst fraud in history and that it has only survived through fraud and deception, as well as the bloodshed, war, cruelty, instability, division and lovelessness for which it is responsible.

The theory of evolution, under the global protection of the Darwinist dictatorship, has been spread by the same dictatorial methods in Egypt, too, and Darwinist publications and the education system still operate under the influence of the Darwinist dictatorship. There must be an intellectual campaign against this, and the Muslim people of Egypt must be freed from the corruption of the dajjal. The Darwinist mindset that led to the slaughter of more than 350 million people in the time of the First and Second world wars in several countries is today the main reason for the strife, terror, wars, disagreements and anarchy in the world. This scourge of Darwinism must be put to an end as a matter of urgency, using intellectual methods, and the Egyptian public must be told of the spirit of peace and love bestowed by the moral values of the Qur’an. There is no doubt that the great majority of the Egyptian public live by the morals of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of our Prophet (saas) in the finest manner, but it is a matter of urgency for those still under the influence of Darwinism to be saved, as well.

The solution to problems is Islamic Union under the leadership of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh)

It is an obvious fact needing to be kept before the public eye that Darwinist, materialist and various bigoted and fanatical circles are trying to divide Muslims in particular and also to inculcate them with a spirit of hostility toward Christians and Jews. These circles have for years been conspiring against Muslim countries and populaces.

The only way of putting an end to this, to eliminating the influence of these circles and ensuring that Muslims can live in peace and union is the establishment of Islamic Union under Turkish leadership. It is essential that people insistently demand Turkish-Islamic Union rather than street protests and artificial solutions. To that end, the way of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) must constantly be kept on the agenda. If the spirit of union and unity of the Age of Bliss is to be rebuilt, then we must strive for Turkish-Islamic Union under Turkish leadership. Only through unity under the leadership of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh), as described by our Prophet (saas), can the whole Islamic world be liberated and live in peace, love and happiness, and at the same time can Christians and Jews also enjoy ease, peace, and security within that spirit of friendship.

It is vitally important for Christians and Jews to be honored by the radiance of the Qur’an
What Muslims must do is to base their activities on the warm and peaceful spirit of the Qur’an, rid themselves of the conditioning and nonsense of bigots and seek to establish a climate of unity and security by embracing all Muslims, and at the same time Jews and Christians. They must tell people of the coming of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) and demand Turkish-Islamic Union everywhere and at every opportunity. Christians and Jews must not forget that they are under Muslims’ protection and entrusted to them. Muslims must call them to Islam with kindness and affection. It is vitally important for all Christians and Jews to achieve happiness and for them to become followers of the Prophet Muhammad (saas) and be honored by the radiance of the Qur’an. Since the Turkish-Islamic Union will also include them in its protection, the Islamic world must strive together for that purpose and treat Christians and Jews with love and affection. Writers, leading members of all communities and all Muslims, with or without means, must all spread the glad tidings of Turkish-Islamic Union and spread these tidings across the world. It is most urgent that they tell of the coming of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) and keep the subject constantly on the agenda. There is no doubt that Almighty Allah will never bestow success on those who oppose the way of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh). But those who demand and strive for his way will be victorious, and will enjoy the material and spiritual rule and victory promised by Almighty Allah.

It is wrong to say “What good can my efforts do?”


Almighty Allah created the whole universe to be metaphysical. Everything happens by the will of Almighty Allah, Lord of the worlds. Even if events appear to be dependent on natural causes, Allah actually creates those causes and they are all under His control. Therefore, even if conditions and means suggest the opposite, Allah has the power to change all conditions and environments in the manner that He wills and in a single moment. Muslims must never forget this fact.

Almighty Allah has told us that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) will appear in the climate of disorder and corruption in the End Times and will strive against that corruption that enfolds the world. By our Lord’s leave, the corruption of the dajjal will be eliminated from the world as a result of this activity by the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh), all superstitious systems will collapse and the world will witness a Golden Age that enjoys all the delights of the Age of Bliss and when the moral values of Islam spread right across the Earth. This holy victory at such a difficult time is promised by Allah in the Qur’an, and Allah’s promise will certainly come true.

The dimension and scale of corruption is no measure in this universe created to be metaphysical by Allah. Our Lord will respond to sincere prayer and heed the requests of all those who desire Turkish-Islamic Union. Any effort made for the sake of the coming of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh), no matter how small it may seem, will definitely be rewarded most finely by our Lord.

However, this must not be forgotten: Muslims must trust in Allah and believe that the solution, unity and happiness can come from Allah alone. They must honestly have faith that Allah will change everything in this metaphysical world and cause it to all work out for the best. If they say, “We can do it on our own and find our own solutions” then their pain and suffering will never end. They must submit to whatever our Almighty Lord ordains and sincerely believe that He will liberate the whole world by way of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh). That submission will open the door to an immaculate world of peace, security and brotherhood, not just for our brothers in Egypt, but for all Muslims.

[titus]

Considering the majority of Egyptians say they do not want Sharia I don't see how this is a viable solution.

[Zafran]

Considering the majority of Egyptians say they do not want Sharia I don't see how this is a viable solution.

Thats odd because the Gallop poll says otherwise.

[titus]

Have a link to that poll?

Here are links to polls I have seen that show otherwise.

Link

But doing some more research I see the polls that you refer to. Those polls also say that the majority want democracy, which won't exactly work with Sharia.

Who knows.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Zafran]

Have a link to that poll?

Here are links to polls I have seen that show otherwise.

Link

But doing some more research I see the polls that you refer to. Those polls also say that the majority want democracy, which won't exactly work with Sharia.

Who knows.

Yes it will democracy means the people have a voice and if they want sharia to be part of the law system (or atleats a source) then its democracy at work.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104731/mu...theocracy.aspx

The muslim brotherhood is not sharia.

[titus]

Democracy in which an authoritarian leader, or group of leaders, is elected is not really democracy either.

[Zafran]

Democracy in which an authoritarian leader, or group of leaders, is elected is not really democracy either.

what the????

If the people want to vote Person A in then thats democracy - it doesnt matter if anyone likes it or not. democracy is Not when one culture imposes there values on another like Iraq and afghanistan. Its actually when people have a say on who should run the country.

[Dagless]

what the????

If the people want to vote Person A in then thats democracy - it doesnt matter if anyone likes it or not. democracy is Not when one culture imposes there values on another like Iraq and afghanistan. Its actually when people have a say on who should run the country.

^This.
If the people vote someone or a group of people in then that's democracy. Good or bad makes no difference. Democracy is the choice.

[titus]

what the????

If the people want to vote Person A in then thats democracy - it doesnt matter if anyone likes it or not. democracy is Not when one culture imposes there values on another like Iraq and afghanistan. Its actually when people have a say on who should run the country.

Democracy is a system of government. It not simply voting one time then never again.

So, if the people vote for Sharia they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a dictatorship they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a king they are voting against democracy.

The people say they want democracy, but if they simply want to vote in a Sharia government or another autocratic leader then they do not want democracy, they simply want to vote one time.

Do you see the difference?

[جوري]

Considering the majority of Egyptians say they do not want Sharia I don't see how this is a viable solution.

please don't speak on the majority of Egyptians. 90% are Muslims and want shari3a law.. they're simply playing it low for the moment until this turbulent time is over!

all the best

[جوري]

Democracy is a system of government. It not simply voting one time then never again.

So, if the people vote for Sharia they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a dictatorship they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a king they are voting against democracy.

The people say they want democracy, but if they simply want to vote in a Sharia government or another autocratic leader then they do not want democracy, they simply want to vote one time.

Do you see the difference?

An Islamic shura system far supersede democracy for there is NO 50+1 usurping the opinion of 50-1.. and Islamic shura system means EVERYONE in the country gets a voice.. the law and democracy are two separate things!


No one sees the difference in what you're describing because let's face it, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.. and as an Egyptian and quite familiar with Egypt, I'd ask you again to refrain from speaking on their behalf!
all the best

[Cabdullahi]

What is democracy in the first place?

Someone define it for us.

[جوري]

these are the protesters at tahrir square feast your eyes on those who don't want sharia.

a picture is worth a thousand word isn't it?

[Zafran]

Democracy is a system of government. It not simply voting one time then never again.

So, if the people vote for Sharia they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a dictatorship they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a king they are voting against democracy.

The people say they want democracy, but if they simply want to vote in a Sharia government or another autocratic leader then they do not want democracy, they simply want to vote one time.

Do you see the difference?

Thats not democrcay at all and your understanding of sharia isnt sound. Democracy is having a say (fair elections) from the people to represent themselves - they can vote in anyone they like.

sharia is a law system like any other law system. Its seperate from the government - the government should be under the law. The rest about Kings and dictators is realy the choice of the people.

whats sharia government??

[جوري]

What is democracy in the first place?

Someone define it for us.

you should ask those in south Africa and Israel to define it for you.. they seem to believe that they're the true democratic places in the region..

:w:

[Zafran]

An Islamic shura system far supersede democracy for there is NO 50+1 usurping the opinion of 50-1.. and Islamic shura system means EVERYONE in the country gets a voice.. the law and democracy are two separate things!


No one sees the difference in what you're describing because let's face it, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.. and as an Egyptian and quite familiar with Egypt, I'd ask you again to refrain from speaking on their behalf!
all the best

salaam

Yep Law and democracy are 2 different things.

peace

[Cabdullahi]

Democracy is democracy when a western style government is chosen

??

[titus]

Thats not democrcay at all and your understanding of sharia isnt sound. Democracy is having a say (fair elections) from the people to represent themselves - they can vote in anyone they like.

sharia is a law system like any other law system. The rest about Kings and dictators is realy the choice of the people.

whats sharia governement??

For one thing there are different interpretations of what Sharia is. Different scholars would tell you different things about what Sharia is.

One thing I can tell you that under Sharia Muslims and non-Muslims would not have the same power to vote. Think about it, would you let Jews and Hindus and atheists vote on who is to be the Khalifah? That is not democracy.
Scholars would decide the laws. That is not democracy.
No non-Muslim could be the leader. That is not democracy.
The laws of Sharia treat Muslims different than non-Muslims. This is not democracy.
The Khalifa rules for life, along with scholars. This is not democracy.

[جوري]

For one thing there are different interpretations of what Sharia is. Different scholars would tell you different things about what Sharia is.

Really? perhaps you can show us how that differs from democrats vs. republicans, those who push for death penalty vs. those who believe in life imprisonment.. in fact even if there are minor nuances, the final decision should be a consensus not a group usurping or overthrowing the laws of another!

One thing I can tell you that under Sharia Muslims and non-Muslims would not have the same power to vote. Think about it, would you let Jews and Hindus and atheists vote on who is to be the Khalifah? That is not democracy.

They can indeed vote on the matters that matter to them!

Scholars would decide the laws. That is not democracy.

Who decides the laws in a 'democracy' 12 idiots from the street with no knowledge of the law?

No non-Muslim could be the leader. That is not democracy.

That isn't an exception to sharia'a would a country like America ever have a Muslim president? democracy isn't built on the exception!

The laws of Sharia treat Muslims different than non-Muslims. This is not democracy.

In fact Non-Muslims are treated far better under sharia'a law than Muslims under so-called democracy..

here is what the so-called only democracy in the middle east has given us:

The Khalifa rules for life, along with scholars. This is not democracy.

The khalifa rules for as long as his appointed term as chosen by the people!

all the best

[Zafran]

For one thing there are different interpretations of what Sharia is. Different scholars would tell you different things about what Sharia is.

One thing I can tell you that under Sharia Muslims and non-Muslims would not have the same power to vote. Think about it, would you let Jews and Hindus and atheists vote on who is to be the Khalifah? That is not democracy.
Scholars would decide the laws. That is not democracy.
No non-Muslim could be the leader. That is not democracy.
The laws of Sharia treat Muslims different than non-Muslims. This is not democracy.
The Khalifa rules for life, along with scholars. This is not democracy.

It wouldnt matter if Jews or christains can vote as they are the minority - they would have very little impact in a democracy anyway - they will have there own courts and sytem of governance anyway.
The Majlis ashura would decide the laws similar to the "parliment" (this has nothing to do with democracy) as the law and democracy are 2 different things
He could if he was willing to uphold the sharia and protect the people - but that would be up to the people like a democracy
Nothing to do with democracy - the minority will be able to govern themselves and handle there own affairs anway - they should be protected by the government and the law.
No idea where you got this idea from. The khalifa rules as long as he upholds the rights of the people and the law.

[titus]

They can indeed vote on the matters that matter to them!

Give me one example of non-Muslims voting alongside Muslims on something under a true sharia government.

The Majlis ashura would decide the laws similar to the "parliment" (this has nothing to do with democracy) as the law and democracy are 2 different things

No, in a democracy the people elect those that create the laws. That is what parliaments and congresses do, they create laws. If the laws are created by people who are not elected then it is not a democracy.

He could if he was willing to uphold the sharia and protect the people - but that would be up to the people like a democracy

Are you seriously arguing that a non-Muslim could be khalifa? That is just completely absurd.

Nothing to do with democracy - the minority will be able to govern themselves and handle there own affairs anway - they should be protected by the government and the law.

Yeah, separate but equal. Sharia meet Jim Crow.

No idea where you got this idea from. The khalifa rules as long as he upholds the rights of the people and the law.

Tell me when a khalifa was removed from power for not upholding the rights of the people and the law.

In fact Non-Muslims are treated far better under sharia'a law than Muslims under so-called democracy..

Really? Would you rather be a Jew in Spain in the 1400's or in the United States or Europe in 2010? Would you rather be a Hindu in the UK or a Hindu under Muslim rule?

And if you really didn't like the treatment of Muslims under "so-called democracy" then you wouldn't live in the United States.

[جوري]

Give me one example of non-Muslims voting alongside Muslims on something under a true sharia government.

Are there any examples of Sharia govt. right now for us to take a live example?

No, in a democracy the people elect those that create the laws. That is what parliaments and congresses do, they create laws. If the laws are created by people who are not elected then it is not a democracy.

You 'amend' not create laws, the constitution is a done deal such as sharia law, whatever new conditions arise are to be convened upon in a similar fashion using the fundamentals!

Are you seriously arguing that a non-Muslim could be khalifa? That is just completely absurd.

Are you seriously arguing that a Muslim can be president in the west? That is just completely absurd!

Yeah, separate but equal. Sharia meet Jim Crow.

I have no idea what this drivel means!

Tell me when a khalifa was removed from power for not upholding the rights of the people and the law.

When a true khilafah is established and a khalif doesn't uphold the rights we can have this conversation !

Really? Would you rather be a Jew in Spain in the 1400's or in the United States or Europe in 2010? Would you rather be a Hindu in the UK or a Hindu under Muslim rule?

I'd rather be a Muslim ALWAYS insha'Allah..

And if you really didn't like the treatment of Muslims under "so-called democracy" then you wouldn't live in the United States.

It is a matter of lesser of two evils rather than like or love!

all the best

[titus]

Are there any examples of Sharia govt. right now for us to take a live example?

No, but you have centuries of history to look back on.

You 'amend' not create laws, the constitution is a done deal such as sharia law, whatever new conditions arise are to be convened upon in a similar fashion using the fundamentals!

Wrong. Parliaments create new laws all the time.

Are you seriously arguing that a Muslim can be president in the west? That is just completely absurd!

The same would have been said about a black man or a woman in the past. There are no laws not allowing a Muslim to be president.

Will you argue that a non-Muslim can be khalifa?

Yeah, separate but equal. Sharia meet Jim Crow.

I have no idea what this drivel means!

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

When a true khilafah is established and a khalif doesn't uphold the rights we can have this conversation !

I repeat: You have centuries of history to look at and find me an example.

I'd rather be a Muslim ALWAYS insha'Allah..

Let me rephrase the question then, since you are avoiding answering it:

Would you rather be treated like a Jew in Spain in the 1400's or like one in the United States or Europe in 2010? Would you rather be treated like a Hindu in the UK or a Hindu under Muslim rule?

[جوري]

No, but you have centuries of history to look back on.

And it has unfolded exactly as was decreed!

"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership, which will remain for as long as Allah wills, and then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood." Then he kept silent. (Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273))

Wrong. Parliaments create new laws all the time.

Laws aren't born ex nihilo they're born of the human condition which hasn't changed for thousands of years!

The same would have been said about a black man or a woman in the past. There are no laws not allowing a Muslim to be president.

:lol: yeah come speak to me when morons don't stand outside a stretch of squares blocks from the WTC protesting the building of a 'Mosque'

Will you argue that a non-Muslim can be khalifa?

Will you argue that a Muslim can rule America? Again, no constitution is based on the exception!

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

Then why engage in worthless rhetoric?

I repeat: You have centuries of history to look at and find me an example.

See paragraph one .. and indeed it was the Islamic world not the christian west that was a beacon for freedom and enlightenment to the world 'looking back at centuries!

Let me rephrase the question then, since you are avoiding answering it:

Would you rather be treated like a Jew in Spain in the 1400's or like one in the United States or Europe in 2010? Would you rather be treated like a Hindu in the UK or a Hindu under Muslim rule?

rephrasing doesn't make it any less credible. I'd not be a Hindu or a Jew, and I'd always rather be under Islamic rule and Islamic law, than one of biting oppression!


all the best

[titus]

Will you argue that a Muslim can rule America? Again, no constitution is based on the exception!

Yes, most certainly.

And it has unfolded exactly as was decreed!

Avoiding the question? The answer is "no example of non-Muslims voting under Sharia exists in history"

Laws aren't born ex nihilo they're born of the human condition which hasn't changed for thousands of years!

Avoiding the point. The truth is that parliaments do continually create new laws.

Then why engage in worthless rhetoric?

Because those who read the post and actually do know what the terms "separate but equal" and "Jim Crow" refer to will understand my point. I don't intend to dumb down my responses so that you can understand them.

See paragraph one .. and indeed it was the Islamic world not the christian west that was a beacon for freedom and enlightenment to the world 'looking back at centuries!

You avoid the answer again. The truth is that religious minorities are treated better, as a whole, in the West today than they ever were under Sharia. In a democracy they are equals. Under Sharia they are inherently inferiors.

[جوري]

Yes, most certainly.

Then you're delusional and further proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.. google 'Obama is a Muslim' and see the kind of vitriol that surrounds that!

Avoiding the question? The answer is "no example of non-Muslims voting under Sharia exists in history"

voting for what? perhaps you can bring us an example where non-muslims wanted to vote for something and were denied it!

Avoiding the point. The truth is that parliaments do continually create new laws.

Not avoiding the point at all making a statement of truth, something that is painfully difficult for you to grasp!

Because those who read the post and actually do know what the terms "separate but equal" and "Jim Crow" refer to will understand my point. I don't intend to dumb down my responses so that you can understand them.

I don't think your responses can get any dumber quite frankly.

You avoid the answer again. The truth is that religious minorities are treated better, as a whole, in the West today than they ever were under Sharia. In a democracy they are equals. Under Sharia they are inherently inferiors.

Yeah, tell that to my friend who was thrown out of a store for being Muslim, or the other that was almost mowed down for wearing a hijab. Under sharia law an army arose for one woman that was humiliated by a jeweler when she called upon the khalif to protect her honor.. under 'democracy' of the west you can be held in cells without trial apparently.

please give it a rest!

[GuestFellow]

Democracy is a system of government. It not simply voting one time then never again.

So, if the people vote for Sharia they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a dictatorship they are voting against democracy. If they vote for a king they are voting against democracy.

The people say they want democracy, but if they simply want to vote in a Sharia government or another autocratic leader then they do not want democracy, they simply want to vote one time.

Do you see the difference?

Democracy is such a bizarre system. You can use this system to end democracy itself and introduce a completely different system.

Yes, most certainly.

In theory yes, but in reality, no. It is like communism, a theory that sounds nice but difficult to put into practice.

[titus]

Then you're delusional and further proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.. google 'Obama is a Muslim' and see the kind of vitriol that surrounds that!

If your question is whether or not a Muslim could be elected president this year then you are correct, I don't see that happening. If you are talking about whether or not a Muslim could be elected president under our system then the answer is most certainly.

And this topic is about systems.

voting for what? perhaps you can bring us an example where non-muslims wanted to vote for something and were denied it!

Back when the Jizya was higher than the tax on Muslims I am sure they would have loved to vote to change that, but since they were not allowed any say in the situation it did not matter. That is just one example of many.

Yeah, tell that to my friend who was thrown out of a store for being Muslim, or the other that was almost mowed down for wearing a hijab. Under sharia law an army arose for one woman that was humiliated by a jeweler when she called upon the khalif to protect her honor.. under 'democracy' of the west you can be held in cells without trial apparently.

Yes, tell us how Sharia treats minorities well. Ask the 4,000 Jews that were slaughtered in Granada, Spain in 1066. Ask all the others Jews who were told at the time to convert or die. You want to compare that to being kicked out of a store? (which, by the way, may be liable for a civil suit under US law).

[M.I.A.]

If your question is whether or not a Muslim could be elected president this year then you are correct, I don't see that happening. If you are talking about whether or not a Muslim could be elected president under our system then the answer is most certainly.

And this topic is about systems.



Back when the Jizya was higher than the tax on Muslims I am sure they would have loved to vote to change that, but since they were not allowed any say in the situation it did not matter. That is just one example of many.



Yes, tell us how Sharia treats minorities well. Ask the 4,000 Jews that were slaughtered in Granada, Spain in 1066. Ask all the others Jews who were told at the time to convert or die. You want to compare that to being kicked out of a store? (which, by the way, may be liable for a civil suit under US law).

how much higher was the jizya?
you do know that muslims give a percentage for zakat aswell.

anyway i pay taxes as it is, although i dont earn much.

[GuestFellow]

Yes, tell us how Sharia treats minorities well. Ask the 4,000 Jews that were slaughtered in Granada, Spain in 1066. Ask all the others Jews who were told at the time to convert or die.

Source?

=)

[titus]

Wikipedia Article

You can also look up any biography of Maimonides, or do any research on the Almohad Caliphate and their treatment of non-muslims.

[جوري]

If your question is whether or not a Muslim could be elected president this year then you are correct, I don't see that happening. If you are talking about whether or not a Muslim could be elected president under our system then the answer is most certainly.

In other words you're creating a very unlikely hypothetical yet asking me to list facts about another hypothetical?

And this topic is about systems.

Yes indeed remind yourself of the topic at hand so you can stay the course!

Back when the Jizya was higher than the tax on Muslims I am sure they would have loved to vote to change that, but since they were not allowed any say in the situation it did not matter. That is just one example of many.

Go ahead and show me where Jizyah was higher than tax and charity that Muslims have paid plus of their lives for protecting the rights of non-Muslims!

Yes, tell us how Sharia treats minorities well. Ask the 4,000 Jews that were slaughtered in Granada, Spain in 1066. Ask all the others Jews who were told at the time to convert or die. You want to compare that to being kicked out of a store? (which, by the way, may be liable for a civil suit under US law).

Yeah go ahead and bring us a historically accurate source to said claims.. I don't compare it to a Muslim life lost in Gitmo, Abu gharib or Afghanistan, or palestine under the so-called democratic west since one appears to be a fact and the other your active imagination and that of other dhaleen like your person!

all the best

[جوري]

Wikipedia Article

You can also look up any biography of Maimonides, or do any research on the Almohad Caliphate and their treatment of non-muslims.

Oh yes, faithful wiki, the fools guide to scholarship.. btw where did Maimonides settle and write his book against Muslims? was it in the christian or secular west?

[جوري]

many deliberately choose to ignore is that of the Muslim presence in southern Spain for nearly eight centuries. Described as Islam's Golden Age, this was a time when the Islamic civilization flourished. It was centuries ahead of northern Europe in the way arts and sciences were encouraged and in the way cities and towns were advanced well beyond anything in Germany, France, or England at the same time.

During this Golden Age, the rights of Christians and Jews were respected and honored, and many of them rose to high positions at court. When the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella reconquered southern Spain, Muslims and Jews were either forced to convert to Christianity or were put to death. Mosques and synagogues were desecrated and destroyed. The excesses of the Spanish Inquisition had begun.

Read more: http://mdarik.islamonline.net/servle...#ixzz1DbL44upy

[GuestFellow]

Yes, tell us how Sharia treats minorities well. Ask the 4,000 Jews that were slaughtered in Granada, Spain in 1066. Ask all the others Jews who were told at the time to convert or die. You want to compare that to being kicked out of a store? (which, by the way, may be liable for a civil suit under US law).

I should make myself clear. Find me evidence where the Sharia permits the slaughter of religious/ethnic minorities and are allowed to force non-Muslims to convert?

Wikipedia Article

You can also look up any biography of Maimonides, or do any research on the Almohad Caliphate and their treatment of non-muslims.

Wiki? Not a reliable source. No references too. Where does it mention about forcing Jews to convert?

Lewis even mentions this:

Lewis continues: "Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq's and massacres such as that in Granada in 1066 are of rare occurrence in Islamic history.

[titus]

Vale,

You and others seem to have been taught that life was paradise under Muslim rule for non-Muslims. This was not the case.

Yes, life was better for Jews under Muslim rule than under Christian rule 1000 years ago. It was, at the time, the lesser of two evils. (similar to how you describe being a Muslim and living in the United States now). It was not paradise, not even close.

Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims were, by law, second class citizens. They inherently had less rights and less freedoms than Muslims. While exception did occur, for the most part non-Muslims were not allowed to hold public office of any kind and had no say in how they were governed.

Learn the real history. If you do you will understand the mass exodus of non-Muslims when any country implements Sharia.

Also read about Jim Crow, Vales, since you have already stated you don't know what it means. It concerns the treatment of blacks in the United States decades ago, and the laws that claimed to make them equal, yet in reality made them second class citizens with less rights than white. It has many parallels to non-Muslims under Sharia.

Sharia is great if you are a devout Muslim. It is heaven on Earth for them. Do not delude yourself, though, into believing that the same is true, or ever has been true, for non-Muslims under the same system.

[titus]

Wiki? Not a reliable source. No references too. Where does it mention about forcing Jews to convert?

Bernard Lewis is one of the sources. What other source, which I can find on the internet and not in my library, would you find acceptable? Are there any sources for Muslim history on the internet that you would acknowledge?

[GuestFellow]

Bernard Lewis is one of the sources.What other source, which I can find on the internet and not in my library, would you find acceptable? Are there any sources for Muslim history on the internet that you would acknowledge?

In general I dislike sources from the Internet. I usually prefer books. There was nothing in that article to suggest that Jews were forced to convert. Anyway, address my post:

Find me evidence where the Sharia permits the slaughter of religious/ethnic minorities and are allowed to force non-Muslims to convert?

[جوري]

Vale,

You and others seem to have been taught that life was paradise under Muslim rule for non-Muslims. This was not the case.

Yes, life was better for Jews under Muslim rule than under Christian rule 1000 years ago. It was, at the time, the lesser of two evils. (similar to how you describe being a Muslim and living in the United States now). It was not paradise, not even close.

Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims were, by law, second class citizens. They inherently had less rights and less freedoms than Muslims. While exception did occur, for the most part non-Muslims were not allowed to hold public office of any kind and had no say in how they were governed.

Learn the real history. If you do you will understand the mass exodus of non-Muslims when any country implements Sharia.

Also read about Jim Crow, Vales, since you have already stated you don't know what it means. It concerns the treatment of blacks in the United States decades ago, and the laws that claimed to make them equal, yet in reality made them second class citizens with less rights than white. It has many parallels to non-Muslims under Sharia.

Sharia is great if you are a devout Muslim. It is heaven on Earth for them. Do not delude yourself, though, into believing that the same is true, or ever has been true, for non-Muslims under the same system.

I never said it was paradise, in fact I have quoted a hadith quite to the contrary, of you'd bothered read anything anyone writes at all. However I prefer to indeed live under Islamic law, for the law itself is just rulers come and go, some good some not so good.. that is history, it is history as made by the people. The perfect law has nothing to do with how some carry out the law. All in all the Muslim world has proven itself a beacon regardless, Islam had a history of 800 years in Spain, one incident whether occurred as described or not will not put a dent in that..

and finally it really isn't up to you to tinkle your pearls on how the people of Egypt ought to run their govt. or to speculate on their wants.. fact is all dictatorship currently in the middle east is a result of a secular system not an Islamic one..

want to talk about getting an education, I suggest you enroll yourself in some basic courses preferably of logic and the politics of nations before arguing with us on our understanding of our religion!

all the best

[M.I.A.]

Vale,

You and others seem to have been taught that life was paradise under Muslim rule for non-Muslims. This was not the case.

Yes, life was better for Jews under Muslim rule than under Christian rule 1000 years ago. It was, at the time, the lesser of two evils. (similar to how you describe being a Muslim and living in the United States now). It was not paradise, not even close.

Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims were, by law, second class citizens. They inherently had less rights and less freedoms than Muslims. While exception did occur, for the most part non-Muslims were not allowed to hold public office of any kind and had no say in how they were governed.

Learn the real history. If you do you will understand the mass exodus of non-Muslims when any country implements Sharia.

Also read about Jim Crow, Vales, since you have already stated you don't know what it means. It concerns the treatment of blacks in the United States decades ago, and the laws that claimed to make them equal, yet in reality made them second class citizens with less rights than white. It has many parallels to non-Muslims under Sharia.

Sharia is great if you are a devout Muslim. It is heaven on Earth for them. Do not delude yourself, though, into believing that the same is true, or ever has been true, for non-Muslims under the same system.

that treatment is not confined to history, the media often make in jokes and spiteful racist comments.. clever editing leave only implied racism, and most of the population are not paranoid.
..likening that to treatment of muslims by non muslims is absurd, i mean by muslims of non-muslims under sharia law.

why look at history when you have already stated on the present, now we can all go shouting "if allah so wills" and maybe we should.. forget oppression and injustice and just do what we are told..see who we serve.

public office..
america got a black president finally, unfortunately the rumours of him being muslim were exactly that.

[R Khan]

Look no further than the Security Council to see how "Democratic" - Democracy really is, believe me it's not as nice as they claim it to be. Democracy is really "power-politics", nothing more or less.

Even my politics teacher has to agree.

[Ramadhan]

these are the protesters at tahrir square feast your eyes on those who don't want sharia.

a picture is worth a thousand word isn't it?

I am running out of rep, but I just love this picture.

In one picture, it shows what muslim is: submission to God,
as opposed to those who submit themselves to democracy, for example.

[Lynx]

OP should stop posting.

Anyway,
Self Determination is a beautiful thing. I hope Egypt succeeds in its quest to overthrow its unwanted leaders.

[Ramadhan]

Self Determination is a beautiful thing.

Isn't it interesting to note that in the example of USA, the people elect their government who in turn tried so hard to enforce a certain system of governments in many other countries, at the expense of the self determination of those countries' citizens.

I hope Egypt succeeds in its quest to overthrow its unwanted leaders.

It seems the VP is stepping up, which is none better, as he is publicly loved by Israel more than they love Mubarak.

[جوري]

OP should stop posting.

Or perhaps you should stop reading his posts, as many of us enjoyed his article!

all the best

[جوري]

did you guys hear that turd woosley on CNN speak against sharia law, how a terrible system it is and how it is oppressive to women and homos? pls. try to write CNN not to speak on behalf of Muslim women, last thing we need is a stinking **** like that ass telling us what is and what isn't terrible ugh...

insha'Allah an Islamic state will rise ameen ya rabb

[titus]

Find me evidence where the Sharia permits the slaughter of religious/ethnic minorities and are allowed to force non-Muslims to convert?

It doesn't, that I am aware of, any more than democracy allows unlimited incarceration without charges. Such things occur within any system, and any system is only as good as the people that run it.

That being said it makes me uneasy when people argue for a system in which people of different religions are treated differently under the law and one religion is made superior. That is a recipe for inequality and history backs up that that is the practice.

While many democracies, including and especially the USA, have a sordid history of practicing true equality, the system allows it and indeed strives for it. That is not the case with Sharia. Inequality is an inherent part of Sharia.

[جوري]

It doesn't, that I am aware of, any more than democracy allows unlimited incarceration without charges. Such things occur within any system, and any system is only as good as the people that run it.

That being said it makes me uneasy when people argue for a system in which people of different religions are treated differently under the law and one religion is made superior. That is a recipe for inequality and history backs up that that is the practice.

While many democracies, including and especially the USA, have a sordid history of practicing true equality, the system allows it and indeed strives for it. That is not the case with Sharia. Inequality is an inherent part of Sharia.

You know what Sharia'a allows and doesn't allow because you're studied in Islamic law? can we please see your credentials? If you don't have them then kindly shut your bazoo!

[titus]

I have a degree in History and have studied how it was applied. I have also read some of the writings of some modern Islamic scholars and there is not agreement on how Sharia should be applied. There is disagreement on everything from how apostates should be punished to whether or not religious minorities should be allowed to build places of worship to what the limits of slavery should be.

The fact is that there is no consensus of what Sharia is supposed to be and what it is not supposed to be.

If you want to argue that I am wrong and that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal under Sharia then please give it a shot.

[جوري]

I have a degree in History and have studied how it was applied. I have also read some of the writings of some modern Islamic scholars and there is not agreement on how Sharia should be applied. There is disagreement on everything from how apostates should be punished to whether or not religious minorities should be allowed to build places of worship to what the limits of slavery should be. The fact is that there is no consensus of what Sharia is supposed to be and what it is not supposed to be. If you want to argue that I am wrong and that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal under Sharia then please give it a shot.

A degree in history doesn't grant you a degree in Islamic jurisprudence by proxy. Judicial matters are just that, matters left for judges no different than any other court system. So again, until such a time we see that you've spent your due time in Al-Azhar or another reputable institution teaching Islamic law.. please refrain from commenting on matters you don't know...

[Zafran]

I have a degree in History and have studied how it was applied. I have also read some of the writings of some modern Islamic scholars and there is not agreement on how Sharia should be applied. There is disagreement on everything from how apostates should be punished to whether or not religious minorities should be allowed to build places of worship to what the limits of slavery should be.

The fact is that there is no consensus of what Sharia is supposed to be and what it is not supposed to be.

If you want to argue that I am wrong and that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal under Sharia then please give it a shot.

sorry to tell you but practicing muslims are living under the sharia - I bet you didnt know that. There is a concensus what sharia is and why it is given to humanity.

I agree there are differences on things you listed except the last one on slavery which every muslim agrees thats its abolished atleast within the law.

[titus]

A degree in history doesn't grant you a degree in Islamic jurisprudence by proxy.

Neither does being a Muslim. Or do you have such a degree in Islamic jurisprudence? If not then, according to your own post, you should not be posting on the subject.

Or only non-Muslims not allowed to talk about Sharia?

Does that mean that only people with a degree in constitutional law may comment on Democracy?

Does that mean that if I watch a football game that I am not allowed to comment on the play of the quarterback because I didn't play in the NFL or go to referee school?

Your contention is ridiculous.

[جوري]

Neither does being a Muslim. Or do you have such a degree in Islamic jurisprudence? If not then, according to your own post, you should not be posting on the subject.

Or only non-Muslims not allowed to talk about Sharia?

Does that mean that only people with a degree in constitutional law may comment on Democracy?

Does that mean that if I watch a football game that I am not allowed to comment on the play of the quarterback because I didn't play in the NFL or go to referee school?

Your contention is ridiculous.

Indeed anyone who has no knowledge of a subject can't discuss it least of which with such negative undertones. People can't read an article about total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and argue that it is barbaric and kills someone career as a woman. If you have no knowledge as to why such a procedure is performed and the thought process behind it then you have no business commenting about it!

football games are right up your ally though. there is no art or science to that, just a bunch of like minded losers humping each other so knock yourself out, but the law and science aren't a game for amateurs!

all the best

[titus]

I agree there are differences on things you listed except the last one on slavery which every muslim agrees thats its abolished atleast within the law.

There are scholars that don't agree that slavery is abolished. There are many other things that scholars disagree on when it comes to Sharia.

sorry to tell you but practicing muslims are living under the sharia - I bet you didnt know that.

The question is are there any non-Muslims living under Shaira? As I said I am sure that Sharia is great for practicing Muslims. It is the non-Muslims and non-practicing Muslims that have to worry. Unfortunately those that want Sharia in Egypt would force it upon the non-Muslims.

[titus]

Indeed anyone who has no knowledge of a subject can't discuss it least of which with such negative undertones. People can't read an article about total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and argue that it is barbaric and kills someone career as a woman. If you have no knowledge as to why such a procedure is performed and the thought process behind it then you have no business commenting about it!

You have convinced me. I won't discuss medical issues with you because I am undereducated in that field, and you don't discuss history since you are undereducated in that field.

[جوري]

The question is are there any non-Muslims living under Shaira? As I said I am sure that Sharia is great for practicing Muslims. It is the non-Muslims and non-practicing Muslims that have to worry. Unfortunately those that want Sharia in Egypt would force it upon the non-Muslims.

same can be said for capitalism or communism.. if there are capitalists or communists living it and practicing I am sure they would be happy not so for the rest of those who don't agree with tenets of such a systems..
Egypt is 90% Muslim, I believe that is more than 50+1 forcing 50-1 to live under their command. Again I am not sure how difficult this is for someone like you to grasp perhaps it pays to repeat NO CONSTITUTION RUNS ON THE EXCEPTION!

[جوري]

You have convinced me. I won't discuss medical issues with you because I am undereducated in that field, and you don't discuss history since you are undereducated in that field.

I have minored in history and art history as well chemistry in under-grad and my father has a PhD in history and political science and I have lived in that environment as well in Egypt for quite a period and familiar with the region and am a Muslims so frankly I don't see any room for you to discuss anything here except football!

all the best

[titus]

Egypt is 90% Muslim, I believe that is more than 50+1 forcing 50-1 to live under their command. Again I am not sure how difficult this is for someone like you to grasp perhaps it pays to repeat NO CONSTITUTION RUNS ON THE EXCEPTION!

I don't believe in oppression of the minority by the majority simply because they are the majority.

Would you support the US taking away the rights of Muslims to vote in the US? After all, they are a minority. They make up even less of the US population than non-muslims do in Egypt and we wouldn't want to run on the exception, would we?

Might as well take the vote away from black people too and not allow them to hold public office since they are the minority. After all, wouldn't want those minorities to have too much of a say in how things are done. We can't run on the exception!

[Insecured soul]

insha'Allah an Islamic state will rise ameen ya rabb

This would be a dream in 21st century where the entire worlds enemy is islam and its shariah, but allah gives victory to as-sabiruun and allah is ever powerful and wise.

[جوري]

I don't believe in oppression of the minority by the majority simply because they are the majority.

Would you support the US taking away the rights of Muslims to vote in the US? After all, they are a minority. They make up even less of the US population than non-muslims do in Egypt and we wouldn't want to run on the exception, would we?

Might as well take the vote away from black people too and not allow them to hold public office since they are the minority. After all, wouldn't want those minorities to have too much of a say in how things are done. We can't run on the exception!

again you speak of oppression and we wonder where you get those little factoids from?
Again, Non-Muslims can vote on matters concerning them, and secondly I don't vote at all in the U.S and don't care if the U.S took away that 'privilege' from Muslims for two reasons.
1- I'd be voting for a non-Islamic system and I don't agree with that
2- the minute you vote they call you for jury duty which is another malignancy of the silly system that lifts under-educated idiots from the street again unversed in the law to decide the fate of others..

You really are losing credibility here and all your appeals at emotionality aren't working simply because your premise is flawed. and it is flawed because you're ignorant of sharia!

and you're right this state doesn't run on the exception. You see it permissible for a man to bed 50 women and have a hundred out of wedlock but make it illegal to wed more than one wife to give identity and inheritance to the ba stard children.. so try to apply that logic believe me there are many situations where it is applicable if you'd just stretch your neurons a nanometer!

[جوري]

This would be a dream in 21st century where the entire worlds enemy is islam and its shariah, but allah gives victory to as-sabiruun and allah is ever powerful and wise.

sooner or later it will happen insha'Allah.. I can't say it will happen now but when Allah swt wills it will come to pass:

"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership, which will remain for as long as Allah wills, and then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood." Then he kept silent. (Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273))


I think we're definitely in the area of biting oppression -- so hopefully there is light at the end of this insha'Allah

and Allah swt knows best

:w:

[titus]

Again, Non-Muslims can vote on matters concerning them

Historically Sharia has shown that non-Muslims, with the extremely rare exception, cannot even hold public office, much less vote. Even Muslims, under Sharia, have hardly ever voted on anything. Power was in the hands of a few, not the populace.

If there is to be voting, especially among non-Muslims, it would be a new form of Sharia that has never existed before.

[جوري]

Historically Sharia has shown that non-Muslims, with the extremely rare exception, cannot even hold public office, much less vote. Even Muslims, under Sharia, have hardly ever voted on anything. Power was in the hands of a few, not the populace. If there is to be voting, especially among non-Muslims, it would be a new form of Sharia that has never existed before.

historically the non-Muslims were happy with the way things are run and thus had no complaints else they were welcome to leave where it was more free and enlightening, you know 'Europe the dark ages' of course!

[titus]

Yes, Europe during the dark ages was horrible and Islamic rule was superior at the time.

That was 1,000 years ago, though. The world has changed a lot since then. What was the best back then would not be so today.

If Egypt was to implement Sharia I can guarantee you that there would be a mass exodus away from there by non-Muslims, just as there has been a mass exodus of non-Muslims from Muslim countries for the last 80+ years. The difference between now and 1000 years ago is that there does exist a better alternative now and that is the modern West. Egypt can also be a welcoming nation to non-Muslims, but not if they implement a system in which non-Muslims are treated as inferior to Muslims, and that is implicit under Sharia.

[جوري]

Yes, Europe during the dark ages was horrible and Islamic rule was superior at the time.

That was 1,000 years ago, though. The world has changed a lot since then. What was the best back then would not be so today.

If Egypt was to implement Sharia I can guarantee you that there would be a mass exodus away from there by non-Muslims, just as there has been a mass exodus of non-Muslims from Muslim countries for the last 80+ years. The difference between now and 1000 years ago is that there does exist a better alternative now and that is the modern West. Egypt can also be a welcoming nation to non-Muslims, but not if they implement a system in which non-Muslims are treated as inferior to Muslims, and that is implicit under Sharia.

ummmmm they're welcome to their mass exodus... any mass exodus that has happened in the past 80+ yrs didn't occur because of sharia law.. it occurred because secularism doesn't work in Muslim lands (period)..

btw here is a story of one Iraqi Jew and why he and many like him were forced yes forced to flee, Iraq, Egypt, etc

http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupatio..._iraqjews.html

You want to speak of how inferior non-Muslims would be treated then sign up for the Daniel pipes forum or go loan your opinion to the turds on CNN and fox.. they seem to like you know secrets that the rest of us aren't familiar with!

all the best

[Lynx]

Isn't it interesting to note that in the example of USA, the people elect their government who in turn tried so hard to enforce a certain system of governments in many other countries, at the expense of the self determination of those countries' citizens.

sad but true.

It seems the VP is stepping up, which is none better, as he is publicly loved by Israel more than they love Mubarak.

x(

[GuestFellow]

It doesn't

Then do not make claims if you are not able to back them up with sources.

[titus]

Then do not make claims if you are not able to back them up with sources.

Sharia doesn't "allow" massacres any more than democracy does. That doesn't mean that either form of government does not have a history of such things.

And considering that we are conversing on the internet, yet you won't accept sources from the internet, I am not quite sure how you want me to supply you with sources.

[GuestFellow]

Sharia doesn't "allow" massacres any more than democracy does. That doesn't mean that either form of government does not have a history of such things.

Yes, tell us how Sharia treats minorities well. Ask the 4,000 Jews that were slaughtered in Granada, Spain in 1066. Ask all the others Jews who were told at the time to convert or die. You want to compare that to being kicked out of a store? (which, by the way, may be liable for a civil suit under US law).

I got the impression that you said it was permissible within the Sharia to kill non non-Muslims and force them to convert to Islam. Historically, some Muslims have done terrible things, but it does not mean the Sharia permits these unlawful activities...

And considering that we are conversing on the internet, yet you won't accept sources from the internet, I am not quite sure how you want me to supply you with sources.

I said I dislike Internet sources, I never said I will not accept them. The wiki article was irrelevant, since we are discussing about the system of the Sharia.

For someone with a degree in History, I was hoping you would present better sources.

[titus]

Here is another source:

Jewish Virtual Library

Also Bernard Lewis has written about it, along with many Jewish scholars including

BBC Report on Islam in Spain

It should also be noted that nowhere have I found any sources that deny the massacre took place.

[GuestFellow]

^ Better sources.

[titus]

Are you saying those sources are better, or are you saying you still require better sources?

[GuestFellow]

^ I meant they are good sources.

[Zafran]

Here is another source:

Jewish Virtual Library

Also Bernard Lewis has written about it, along with many Jewish scholars including

BBC Report on Islam in Spain

It should also be noted that nowhere have I found any sources that deny the massacre took place.

and??? Tamerlane massacred a lot of people it happend get over it - few acts in history are not the general rule and never have been (you being a history degree holder should know that!) - on a wider scale the muslims have been incredibly tolerant - Christians and Jews have been living in the mid east for centuries - the same cannot be said about Europe about Muslims or even Jews - the wider picture is that they have been persecuted or not even allowed to live there.

Tolerance is a modern thing for the europeans whilst china, India, the mid east have a history of different faiths living togather for centuries.

But we can be like you and Judge america on the "ground zero" contreversy or all of europe on the burkha or the minerat ban - I think you'll agree that would be unfair.

[Zafran]

Yes, Europe during the dark ages was horrible and Islamic rule was superior at the time.

That was 1,000 years ago, though. The world has changed a lot since then. What was the best back then would not be so today.

If Egypt was to implement Sharia I can guarantee you that there would be a mass exodus away from there by non-Muslims, just as there has been a mass exodus of non-Muslims from Muslim countries for the last 80+ years. The difference between now and 1000 years ago is that there does exist a better alternative now and that is the modern West. Egypt can also be a welcoming nation to non-Muslims, but not if they implement a system in which non-Muslims are treated as inferior to Muslims, and that is implicit under Sharia.

do you think that non muslims are being treated fairly in Egypt Now??? The "modern west" is not the best alternative it helps keep Mubarak in power for goodness sake - another thing is that people are anti immigration atleast in europe they are and they wont be happy with 20 million copts coming in. (so much for tolernace)

Sharia doesnt mean mass exodus I find hard to believe that the copts will leave Egypt when they have been living there under various conditions for centuries.

the copts would probably be treated better they would be allowed to have there own courts - cant say the same for the "modern west".

[Trumble]

Away from the history lessons, it seems Mubarak has now actually gone, folks.BBC

[GuestFellow]

^ Good for the Egyptians. *Throws confetti.*

[titus]

few acts in history are not the general rule and never have been (you being a history degree holder should know that!) - on a wider scale the muslims have been incredibly tolerant .

As I said, at the time there is no doubt that a religious minority was treated much better under Muslim rule than in Europe.

- Christians and Jews have been living in the mid east for centuries - the same cannot be said about Europe about Muslims or even Jews - the wider picture is that they have been persecuted or not even allowed to live there

If you look at the last 100 years, though, you will see a large exodus of Jews and other religious minorities away from Muslim majority nations and towards Europe. Part of this is economic, but part is also because there is more tolerance elsewhere.

But we can be like you and Judge america on the "ground zero" contreversy or all of europe on the burkha or the minerat ban - I think you'll agree that would be unfair.

True. I also don't want anyone to think that I believe democracies are automatically tolerant. History shows otherwise, especially American history. The tolerance of a democracy depends solely upon the willingness of the majority to not oppress the minority.

The issue that I have with Sharia, both in theory and in historical practice, is that when you give control to one religion and you equate the state with that religion then you automatically create a subclass that consists of people who do not follow that religion. If you look at history you will see that even though Christians and Jews were tolerated under Muslim rule they were second class citizens and never as a group were they seen as anything close to equals. In the US the law states that the law cannot differentiate between religions. I know in practice that is not always the case in public life (i.e. the Ground Zero Mosque debacle, harassment of Muslims, etc.), but at least these are not the actions of the government but of individuals.

The "modern west" is not the best alternative it helps keep Mubarak in power for goodness sake

Don't confuse a countries religious tolerance with foreign policy. They are two different issues.

Sharia doesnt mean mass exodus I find hard to believe that the copts will leave Egypt when they have been living there under various conditions for centuries.

It depends on whose version of Sharia is implemented. There are Islamic "scholars" that are popular that say that under Sharia no other religions are allowed to build places of worship. If a tolerant version of Sharia is implemented then yes, they will stay. If a not so tolerant version is implemented you will see many leave for freedom elsewhere.

the copts would probably be treated better they would be allowed to have there own courts - cant say the same for the "modern west".

But under Sharia, if there is a conflict between a Copt and a Muslim which court do they go to? Will a Muslim decide or a Copt? What court would atheists or Hindus use? Would every religion have to set up their own courts?

Do you believe that a policy of "separate but equal" is feasible? Because I have yet to find an instance in history where it was a success.

[M.I.A.]

True. I also don't want anyone to think that I believe democracies are automatically tolerant. History shows otherwise, especially American history. The tolerance of a democracy depends solely upon the willingness of the majority to not oppress the minority.

The issue that I have with Sharia, both in theory and in historical practice, is that when you give control to one religion and you equate the state with that religion then you automatically create a subclass that consists of people who do not follow that religion. If you look at history you will see that even though Christians and Jews were tolerated under Muslim rule they were second class citizens and never as a group were they seen as anything close to equals. In the US the law states that the law cannot differentiate between religions. I know in practice that is not always the case in public life (i.e. the Ground Zero Mosque debacle, harassment of Muslims, etc.), but at least these are not the actions of the government but of individuals.

yep, that is the case
humanity is not perfect..it never can be, but when you have a people who do not cause war at the slightest of error in action or spoken word then you might begin on the path towards that society.

convincing people of our sincerity even in error of action or spoken word is a very difficult proposition..
real tolerance is rediculously hard to achieve.

its a trust thing really, tolerance of differences is strengthened by trust.. mistakes are forgiven if you have spent time with somebody and know them.. yeah i did that but i didnt mean to and you know me better than that..or that is exactly the sort of thing you normally do but i know you are a good person.

kinda like the wife kicking you under the table just as you are about to make that joke you find really funny.

so back to religion then.