Iran - Britain is the most treacherous

[Amadeus85]

I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system, but not far from ideal. The political power there comes from God(as Iranians believe), not from the people. The country reject the masonic rule of freedom of religion and the jacobin rule of division between state and "church". The iranian system is transcendental (as iranians believe) and that is why it has the promise of eternal existence, unlike democratic states.

 

[جوري]

I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system,

It is NOT an Islamic system. Shiites aren't recognized by main-stream Muslims of whom 85% are sunni, so how is it that you have drawn that conclusion? are you studied in Islamic jurisprudence?

all the best

 

[MSN]

I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system, but not far from ideal. The political power there comes from God(as Iranians believe), not from the people. The country reject the masonic rule of freedom of religion and the jacobin rule of division between state and "church". The iranian system is transcendental (as iranians believe) and that is why it has the promise of eternal existence, unlike democratic states.

Was that a joke?

 

[جوري]

No apparently they kid you not, just following the 'Andromeda' strain thread, I am rather amused at how many non-Muslims are experts on Islamic law..
sob7an Allah.. I oscillate between chuckles and guffaws whenever I read some of the posts on this forum!

 

[Amadeus85]

Was that a joke?

No, I didnt joke. Iranian system is not an islamic staate per se (Khalifa) but it is theocratic, authoritaric and anti-democratic, so then its close to ideal.

 

[MSN]

No, I didnt joke. Iranian system is not an islamic staate per se (Khalifa) but it is theocratic, authoritaric and anti-democratic, so then its close to ideal.

I'm sorry what??

 

[جوري]

No, I didnt joke. Iranian system is not an islamic staate per se (Khalifa) but it is theocratic, authoritaric and anti-democratic, so then its close to ideal.

Theocracy according to what law or religion? and what do you know about Islamic law vs laws of democracy?..
all democracy defines for you is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. and that is applicable in Islam, it doesn't begin to cover the basic laws in politics/economics/social structure/ inheritance. etc. It is a name for a constitution but it doesn't specify what laws govern under said democratic constitution!

I'd refrain from getting into subjects well beyond your sphere of expertise!

all the best

 

[Amadeus85]

Theocracy according to what law or religion? and what do you know about Islamic law vs laws of democracy?..
all democracy defines for you is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. and that is applicable in Islam, it doesn't begin to cover the basic laws in politics/economics/social structure/ inheritance. etc. It is a name for a constitution but it doesn't specify what laws govern under said democratic constitution!

I'd refrain from getting into subjects well beyond your sphere of expertise!

all the best

Purest, You only need to read my posts once again. All what I meant is that current system of Iran (be it shiite authoritarism or anything) has more value than for example dutch, swedish or american liberal democracy. Thats all.

 

[جوري]

Purest, You only need to read my posts once again. All what I meant is that current system of Iran (be it shiite authoritarism or anything) has more value than for example dutch, swedish or american liberal democracy. Thats all.

this is in fact what you wrote:

I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system,

and no their system has no value over any other system, given that they are not judging or living by what God dictates, so how can they be better? In fact they are as bad if not worst!

all the best

 

[MSN]

Purest, You only need to read my posts once again. All what I meant is that current system of Iran (be it shiite authoritarism or anything) has more value than for example dutch, swedish or american liberal democracy. Thats all.

Elaborate please...

 

[Zafran]

salaam

The Iranians have there view - but this whole idea of Theocracy isnt realy what Muslims think of when they think of Islamic governance - there is no such thing as Islamic "state" - very modern idea.

 

[Amadeus85]

Elaborate please...

This goes offtopic, but I will answer.
Explaining it to You, a muslim, is unusual for me, but the democratic system has so many bad sides, that its worth to sacrifice it for system which is closer to ideal (for me it would be a catholic state which may take various visions). The biggest mistake of democracy is the cut off from transcendency, and the division between state and "church"(religion). Since the world was created by God, people can't assume that the power in state comes from their decision. Since the people are weak sinful, in democracy they will choose bad things (like homosexual marriages, abortion, euthaniasia, multiculturalism). The Iranian system is not Khalifa of course, also because they are shiite, so I didnt make myself clear then. But it is still anti liberal and anti democratic, which woudlnt allow nihilism. It's based on religion, so it brings for the state the order of forcing morality and forbidding the immorality. That is at least how I see it.

 

[Zafran]

This goes offtopic, but I will answer.
Explaining it to You, a muslim, is unusual for me, but the democratic system has so many bad sides, that its worth to sacrifice it for system which is closer to ideal (for me it would be a catholic state which may take various visions). The biggest mistake of democracy is the cut off from transcendency, and the division between state and "church"(religion). Since the world was created by God, people can't assume that the power in state comes from their decision. Since the people are weak sinful, in democracy they will choose bad things (like homosexual marriages, abortion, euthaniasia, multiculturalism). The Iranian system is not Khalifa of course, also because they are shiite, so I didnt make myself clear then. But it is still anti liberal and anti democratic, which woudlnt allow nihilism. It's based on religion, so it brings for the state the order of forcing morality and forbidding the immorality. That is at least how I see it.

Once again i dont think you actually know what Multiculturalism is??? thats just a fact of life - where ever Islam (and any other religion) that spread around the world it had to deal with other cultures - the choices are simple

1 - You tolerate them
2 - You exile/supress or destroy them

Multiculturalism is not a choice - it has exisited ever since. Dealing with it is - you seem to want to eradicate it.

 

[alcurad]

democracy in Islam would be toned down however yuo look at it though, but theocracy is indeed unIslamic as it gets.

 

[Amadeus85]

Once again i dont think you actually know what Multiculturalism is??? thats just a fact of life - where ever Islam (and any other religion) that spread around the world it had to deal with other cultures - the choices are simple

1 - You tolerate them
2 - You exile/supress or destroy them

Multiculturalism is not a choice - it has exisited ever since. Dealing with it is - you seem to want to eradicate it.

No I dont agree, multiculturalism isn't just tolerating of religious and cultural minorities. Multiculturalism is agreeing that all cultures and religions are equal and neither is dominant. You are living in UK, so for brittish multiculturalist for example sikhism in UK is equal to anglicanism. Now I understand Your stance about that, as You are man from a minority in UK, so I dont expect anything else. But on the other hand, Your brothers and sisters from Pakistan, Somalia,Indonesia or Morocco (I dont know where Your family came from), reject totally multiculturalism. If You dont trust, try to convince them that hinduism or anglicaninsm in their countries are euqal to islam and their states should treat these all religions same way.

 

[Zafran]

democracy in Islam would be toned down however yuo look at it though, but theocracy is indeed unIslamic as it gets.

Thats true - the non muslims all think that Islamic governance is based on Theocracy - it well known that not how Muslims ever have viewed Islamic governance.

Democracy as you said will be toned down - but the only way Islamic governace can come in is by the majority wanting it - which is preety democratic.

 

[Zafran]

No I dont agree, multiculturalism isn't just tolerating of religious and cultural minorities. Multiculturalism is agreeing that all cultures and religions are equal and neither is dominant. You are living in UK, so for brittish multiculturalist for example sikhism in UK is equal to anglicanism. Now I understand Your stance about that, as You are man from a minority in UK, so I dont expect anything else. But on the other hand, Your brothers and sisters from Pakistan, Somalia,Indonesia or Morocco (I dont know where Your family came from), reject totally multiculturalism. If You dont trust, try to convince them that hinduism or anglicaninsm in their countries are euqal to islam and their states should treat these all religions same way.

Not true at all - Multiculturalism does not mean that all religions are equal beacsue it the UK the state religion is still seen atleast on paper christainty - however people can live the way they want. A christain believes his religion is right and better - a muslim his and a sikh his etc - non of this people think there religions are equal in the UK atleast the majority dont and thats why they are in their faiths.

Furthermore Muslims throughout the world had most of the time tolerated many faiths

- spain - Jews and christains were tolerated
- India - even Hindus were tolerated under the Mughals
- coptic christains in Egypt

I can go on and on to Indonesia and even Morroco where minorities are still there and tolerated.

The only time europe actually had tolernace is in the modern times (right now) and when europe was ran by pagans - other then that i cant think of any other tolerant dealing with minorities or any other faiths?

so do you believe that all other faiths should be exiled or eradicated?

 

[alcurad]

more or less, Ijma'/general agreement is already a aprt of our religious lexicon, still not applied though

methinks multiculturalism has extreme and weak stances towards it, the weak one is what zafran is advocating. as in don't persecute them as long as their practices don't break the law, but then the law is based on broad themes drawn primarily from religious/moral sources.
so we do 'impose' in a sense our religon, but then not too unreasonably, murder is forbidden in Islam, I'd say it's so for the rest of the world's religions/moral systems too.

Iran is not exactly a theocracy though, on the other hand the idea in strongly present in their religious thought.

 

[Zafran]

more or less, Ijma'/general agreement is already a aprt of our religious lexicon, still not applied though

methinks multiculturalism has extreme and weak stances towards it, the weak one is what zafran is advocating. as in don't persecute them as long as their practices don't break the law, but then the law is based on broad themes drawn primarily from religious/moral sources.
so we do 'impose' in a sense our religon, but then not too unreasonably, murder is forbidden in Islam, I'd say it's so for the rest of the world's religions/moral systems too.

Iran is not exactly a theocracy though, on the other hand the idea in strongly present in their religious thought.

salaam

Your right about the IJma and people not applying it (which they should)

Furthermore it is possible for non muslims to implement there laws which do not conflict with the larger laws eg murder as you said which most religions agree with anyway.

Islamic governaces imposes itself as much as any other system of governance does.

 

[Amadeus85]

Not true at all - Multiculturalism does not mean that all religions are equal beacsue it the UK the state religion is still seen atleast on paper christainty - however people can live the way they want. A christain believes his religion is right and better - a muslim his and a sikh his etc - non of this people think there religions are equal in the UK atleast the majority dont and thats why they are in their faiths.

It completely doesnt matter what ordinary people think. What counts is that the state treats all religions in UK (in Spain, France, Holland) as equal. It means that no religion has priveliges and that all religions are equally supported by the state (or none is supported like in France). So multiculturalism ignores the 1000 years european tradition, its anti nature, and poisonous for Europe. And to be precise, I only blame europeans for that, because it was done by our own hands. I just want to persuade You, that You think about multiculturalism in wrong way. Multiculturalism is not a simple tolerance. Its a project which deliberately lies that England, Italy, France etc, are countries where there is no one dominating culture, but that the culture of hindus, muslims, jews and sikhs is as important and crucial as the culture of anglicanism,catholicism or protestantism.

Furthermore Muslims throughout the world had most of the time tolerated many faiths

- spain - Jews and christains were tolerated
- India - even Hindus were tolerated under the Mughals
- coptic christains in Egypt

I can go on and on to Indonesia and even Morroco where minorities are still there and tolerated.

Multiculturalism is not about tolerance. Tolerance is something natural and accepted. But look, the states of Egypt, Morocco and Pakistan don't promote other religions than islam. The states of these countries don't treat other religions equally to islam. And thats completely fine, thats natural and sane. All what I want to point is that the europeans lost the sane way and promote multiculturalism.

The only time europe actually had tolernace is in the modern times (right now) and when europe was ran by pagans - other then that i cant think of any other tolerant dealing with minorities or any other faiths?

In the old good times, before 1789, 1918 or the 60's in XX century(depends on what country we talk about), the religious minorities in Europe were treated very much as the dhimmis were treated in Khalifa. Which means that no one extreminated them, but they had to accept the christian character of the country. So they of course couldnt promote their faiths and run high posts in the state.

so do you believe that all other faiths should be exiled or eradicated?

No, read what I wrote upper.