The Only Solution to the Upheaval in Egypt Is!

[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/servlet/Satellite?cid=1158658493752&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE#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.