Trump Speak

[Zafran]

Voting for a Khalifah is not like voting in democracy at all.

Democracy is for the people, and by the people, voting in accordance to the people. This is shirk.

In an Islamic State (afaik) one votes according to the Qur'aan and the Sunnah - to see whom is best. Democracy is not like that. And democracy is not Islamic.

In democracy people vote according to their desires and what they think is best. Giving people sovereignty, while sovereignty is for Allah alone. And His :swt: Prophet :saws1: (afaik)

So you can not say voting for a Khalifah = democracy. It is not. Since we do not vote for a Khalifah according to our desires, but the Qur'aan, and laymen can not (afaik) appoint a khalifah.

Only those who are knowledgable in Qur'aan and Sunnah, and those who Judge according to the Qur'aan. In this regard, a Khalifah is appointed.

Who decides this exactly?

 

[fschmidt]

You don't believe America was immoral when it went to the Philippines slaughtered thousands upon thousands of the impoverished? Was it moral when it detained every day Japanese-Americans in concentration camps? Was it moral when it slaughtered a 100 000 people with the most powerful weapon in human history? Was it moral when the American colonisers sped across America, wiping out the indigenous people? Was it moral when it reduced black people to less than animals?

I do not believe any nation has been as thoroughly embroiled in human genocide, as much as the United States, from it's conception in the 18th century to the modern world. In the age of the media, a period of some 70 years, the US has been the primary propagator of the myth of "the bogeyman". Communism, Africans, Islam and so on. We're all out to get you. Yet you're chosen by God to protect us.

In terms of your last statement, I agree that it is extremely difficult, if not nigh on impossible to change the nature of an entire people but don't give it. What does evil do when good men are silent?

Every nation in history has killed outsiders. Islam too. The real test of morality is how members of a society treat each other, not outsiders. When members of a culture feel no moral obligation to each other, then that culture is finished.

I am not silent, I just don't my breath on lost causes. I support all moral groups including Islam and traditional Anabaptists. And I speak out in defense of these groups.

 

[fschmidt]

Hello. I dont know if you have ever done this before but could you please define your understanding of corruption of the society and why you consider the AMerican society today corrupt? What you find in most of Americans corrupt and makes you think impossible to live together? Regards..

Thanks to the current election, the modern American character is on full display. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are truly representative of today's American people. Do I really need to say more?

 

[Karl]

It makes sense that ruling should be only according to the Qur'aan, the literal 100% word of Allah.

So how is a khalifah appointed? I know that they are judged by the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, whether they are fit or not.

In no way is a Khalifah appointed according to the "will of the People" or desires, this is satanism, afaik.

So how is it? And how would one go about doing it today? Or do we have no choice but to wait for Madhi r.a. who will rule by the Qur'aan and the Sunnah 100% ?

Allah appoints the Khalifah not the people. In a nut shell if you have the power and wit to make it to the top then you are qualified to rule. This is a lot harder than being elected, because you have to be the best among men in your nation. You need the support of the people but not by what you say but what you do.

 

[M.I.A.]

..i just read in another thread that good people get good leaders and bad people get bad leaders.

badly paraphrased, also forgot which thread.. so that helps.

i think we need people that give the biggest slap possible with least bruising..

and so rightful leadership was established.


...because iv worked for you before.. :| (turn of phrase)

or is that not how things work?

to be the equivalent of Marshall mathers in all questions.. not literally but "as a reference point" quote fingers.

unfortunately you cant fake that sort of authority.


and god gives the biggest slaps..

which is the hardest things to learn

 

[introspective]

I am real.

I'll let you know when I send my absentee ballot so you can declare takfir on me. ^o)

There's something just very undemocratic the way the options are limited to these two candidates.

I too, thought Bernie was one of the decent politicians out there who wouldn't be bad as the President, really unfortunate he couldn't make it.

The problem with the American system is that a good leader* is allowed to serve two terms at most. Why not another term or several (FDR served three terms) if the citizens want that leader to continue to serve?

Otherwise, the prez elections and unnecessary hubbub surrounding it nowadays is starting to become a rackket and a circus.

Americans should really go after members of Congress, especially Senators. Senators are just hired hands for lobbyists. Here's a quote from a post in a forum I was partaking:

"...don't forget all the perks members of Congress have that you don't, such as a lifetime pension at about $60,000 with tons of additional benefits, transportation at public expense during their tenure, exemption from Obamacare with healthcare for free for them, their family, and staff, with free prescription fulfillment and delivery anytime, anywhere, up to 239 days off work a year, free parking at airports, multi-million dollar allowances, freedom from insider trading laws."





*subjective to interpretation

 

[Born_Believer]

Every nation in history has killed outsiders. Islam too. The real test of morality is how members of a society treat each other, not outsiders. When members of a culture feel no moral obligation to each other, then that culture is finished.

I am not silent, I just don't my breath on lost causes. I support all moral groups including Islam and traditional Anabaptists. And I speak out in defense of these groups.

That is not the test for morality, if you think it is then you are only fooling yourself into allowing your nation to commit genocide, standing by the wayside and saying, "oh well, it happens".

Plus, I'd be happy for you to post, with real historical evidence, at which stage Prophet Muhammad PBUH and the 4 rightly guided Khalifah that followed, committed genocide.

Now, I think my original question was, when was the US of A, ever a moral nation?

 

[AnnaK]

Now, I think my original question was, when was the US of A, ever a moral nation?

We do have morals you know. When we invaded counties like Iraq and Afghanistan (I don't support the invasions at all, but bare with me) it was to relinquish what we viewed as a lack of morals. We did it to get rid of "terror" (though I bet citizens of countries would have a different view), and we stayed because women aren't treated as people when they're refused basic education, literacy, and things we hold as basic human rights.

Whenever we do things in other countries, it's because of the idea that we think we can make a difference. Do I think we approach things wrong? Absolutely. We may act in a totalitarian matter at times (Thanks Bush), but we do it out of moral beliefs.

The United States of America, albeit with its terrible treatment of minorities, does try its best to do the morally correct thing. We aren't evil people with no morals. We have lots of morals, and although we may not enact things perfectly, we do still have a strong moral code and principle.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

That's like breaking into a house of a person who has unmarried teenage daughters, raping them, and then telling the parents, "I thought I was doing good. I thought they were being repressed, denied their basic human rights, etc. so I just raped them as a favour to all of you. To let them experience the nice things in life. I was just granting them freedom. Liberating them. Why are you blaming me?"

That is America.

 

[cooterhein]

When I hear Trump speak, or see what he does on Twitter, I think of a child who happens to be in a man's body (but still with the tiny child hands). He seems intellectually rudderless. What I envision him doing to the office of the President is similar to this. Imagine a balloon that is filled with air but not tied off. You pinch it off, hold it up high for a moment, and then release it. Now watch it fly chaotically around the room. That is Trump's brain, as suggested by what routinely comes out of his mouth. And that's what we would be doing to the country with him in charge.

This is really not a political criticism, although that's a problem too. It's psychological. I wouldn't say the same thing about Romney, or Pence, or McCain, there's a range of ideologies there but they're all known for being level, staid politicians and speakers. The ideas of these three men run a pretty good range across the spectrum, the point is that all three of them can explain themselves in a way that's not suggestive of a mental issue.

When I see Clinton speak, it's entirely different from Trump. When I hear Hillary speak extemporaneously, I hear someone who is well informed and trying to be coherent, but also paranoid about saying something unpopular and egregiously so. But when I hear Trump speaking extemporaneously, I all too frequently hear someone who is being prompted by his own misstatements to complete a thought in a way that he hadn't planned for ahead of time. Which is to say that the thing he's now saying, doesn't reflect anything that he believed or even thought about before. But he's saying it now, because the last phrase he spoke just launched him there.

It's as though he's speaking in verse, and he's forced again and again to complete a rhyme. "I once met a man in Antietam," he might say. Now he's got to complete the thought, so "He sure was a nice European." He didn't know he was going to say European, or whatever else he might choose to rhyme with, but now he's going to the mat to defend that choice. The thing is though, he's not just riffing limericks for fun. He's applying this same sort of mentality to questions of policy, to matters of international importance, and to some crucial moral issues. It's the rhyme of ignorance, and error, and bombast.

Now, the failure of the media (in the US at least) is how almost no one (in the actual media) talks about how unbelievably empty of content, and of thought, his rhetoric is. He has said so many strange, incoherent, and dangerously crazy things that the US media seems strangely inured to it.

I do live in the United States. I plan to vote. I don't particularly like Hillary, and I'll be voting third party, but Trump is the last person I would want to see as POTUS. Even if Hillary were truly close to death, even if I knew she wouldn't make it through December and get sworn in, I would prefer President Kaine to President Trump. If it came down to a choice between Donald Trump and anyone else in the field, I would take anyone else in the field. Johnson, Bernie, Carson, Stein, Carly, Chafee, I would take any of them. If you give me a choice between Donald Trump and a completely random citizen, I would say let's take door number 2, we're going to roll the dice. And yes, I know there are so, so many terrible people in the United States who really should not be President. But even in that scenario, I think the odds are pretty good that we'd still get someone who's less frightening than Trump and less potentially dangerous.

 

[fschmidt]

That is not the test for morality, if you think it is then you are only fooling yourself into allowing your nation to commit genocide, standing by the wayside and saying, "oh well, it happens".

The Old Testament full of genocide inluding the flood in Noah's time, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Midianites, Joshua's conquests, etc. The emphasis in both the Old Testament and in the Quran is one how to treat members of one's own religious community, not on how to treat outsiders. So I think both Moses's and Muhammad's morality is closer to mine than to yours.

Plus, I'd be happy for you to post, with real historical evidence, at which stage Prophet Muhammad PBUH and the 4 rightly guided Khalifah that followed, committed genocide.

I said "Islam" generally, not just early Islam. Early Islam was an unusually moral and tolerant religion.

Now, I think my original question was, when was the US of A, ever a moral nation?

Given that we define morality differently, I don't think we can discuss this.

 

[Born_Believer]

The Old Testament full of genocide inluding the flood in Noah's time, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Midianites, Joshua's conquests, etc. The emphasis in both the Old Testament and in the Quran is one how to treat members of one's own religious community, not on how to treat outsiders. So I think both Moses's and Muhammad's morality is closer to mine than to yours.


I said "Islam" generally, not just early Islam. Early Islam was an unusually moral and tolerant religion.


Given that we define morality differently, I don't think we can discuss this.

I wanted to give an example of the best of us, not the worst or mediocre, which is what I'd look for in any society or religion.

And you would be very surprised by the Quran and the many verses centered around providing justice to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

With regards to morality, just label a period when you think America was moral and we can go from there.

 

[Born_Believer]

We do have morals you know. When we invaded counties like Iraq and Afghanistan (I don't support the invasions at all, but bare with me) it was to relinquish what we viewed as a lack of morals. We did it to get rid of "terror" (though I bet citizens of countries would have a different view), and we stayed because women aren't treated as people when they're refused basic education, literacy, and things we hold as basic human rights.

Whenever we do things in other countries, it's because of the idea that we think we can make a difference. Do I think we approach things wrong? Absolutely. We may act in a totalitarian matter at times (Thanks Bush), but we do it out of moral beliefs.

The United States of America, albeit with its terrible treatment of minorities, does try its best to do the morally correct thing. We aren't evil people with no morals. We have lots of morals, and although we may not enact things perfectly, we do still have a strong moral code and principle.

Honestly, that sounds like a political campaign speech.

First off, I'm not saying there's 0 morals in the US. Of course not, there are bound to be good people, moral people, abhorred by the violence wrought by their government. I know some personally. So I have never doubted that. But on a national level, with regards to international laws (which the US continuously flaunts and never gets punished for), with regards to foreign policy, with regards to social and health care, with regards o minorities and so on. It's a despicable government and, on that basis, an immoral nation.

I won't go into the nuances of the wars you quoted but if you think the US went into either Afghanistan and Iraq on a moral basis, to free the people as you claim, then you must be very naive. Seriously. This is the same storyline the US used to invade the Phillipines a hundred years previously. It's the same story they used to invade Somalia and so on and so forth.

Just sticking with Afghanistan, who were they liberating exactly? The same women their bombs blew up and their soldiers tortured? Didn't the US claim it's primary reason for attacking Afghanistan was the aftermath of 9/11, the attack itself and ultimately Bin Laden? When the Taliban pushed forward with negotiations, even sending a delegation to Washington (a member of which was interviewed on Fox of all channels), why did the US refuse to meet with them and discuss a peaceful resolution? The US has always been the aggressor, the murderer of innocents.

In the modern world, with all the resources at your finger tips, I'm always surprised and often worried by those who still support the CIA fueled, media propagated narrative that the US was in some sort of righteous war.

 

[cooterhein]

With regards to morality, just label a period when you think America was moral and we can go from there.

I would suggest the Marshall Plan.

I'd also point to the currency crisis which led to the necessity of the Berlin Airlift. Post World War II, the Allies (and Germany) wanted to reform the unstable and devalued Reichsmark. Russia wanted no such reform, because they wanted Germany to be weak and stay trapped in an endless recession. On purpose. This sort of attitude is understandable, after you've fought a bitter enemy for quite some time, but that is not what I would call the moral high ground.

So Russia blockaded East Berlin, and the Allies got everything there via cargo plane. Food, milk, coffee, coal, gasoline, other necessities. Russia could have technically disrupted this, but they decided not to because they didn't want more war. The blockade didn't really work, and Germany was able to rebuild its economy, no thanks to Russia's involvement and mostly thanks to the Allies in general and the US in particular.

I realize you didn't ask me, so [MENTION=30692]fschmidt[/MENTION], feel free to give a different example or make some comments about this one if you want.

 

[Karl]

That's like breaking into a house of a person who has unmarried teenage daughters, raping them, and then telling the parents, "I thought I was doing good. I thought they were being repressed, denied their basic human rights, etc. so I just raped them as a favour to all of you. To let them experience the nice things in life. I was just granting them freedom. Liberating them. Why are you blaming me?"

That is America.

Of course we know the brigands are not that stupid. Their propaganda is pathetic but seems to work for the apathetic American masses. But they do have a meltdown when a brigand comes home in a body bag. That is why the need for drones. Genocide to the others but no American casualties.

 

[Born_Believer]

I would suggest the Marshall Plan.

I'd also point to the currency crisis which led to the necessity of the Berlin Airlift. Post World War II, the Allies (and Germany) wanted to reform the unstable and devalued Reichsmark. Russia wanted no such reform, because they wanted Germany to be weak and stay trapped in an endless recession. On purpose. This sort of attitude is understandable, after you've fought a bitter enemy for quite some time, but that is not what I would call the moral high ground.

So Russia blockaded East Berlin, and the Allies got everything there via cargo plane. Food, milk, coffee, coal, gasoline, other necessities. Russia could have technically disrupted this, but they decided not to because they didn't want more war. The blockade didn't really work, and Germany was able to rebuild its economy, no thanks to Russia's involvement and mostly thanks to the Allies in general and the US in particular.

I realize you didn't ask me, so @fschmidt , feel free to give a different example or make some comments about this one if you want.

You're quoting isolated incidents from a highly biased historical view point. But let's say I agree with the post war Germany narrative, the same America that was allowing Germans food, was blocking blacks in their own country from using the same damn toilets as them. How is that moral? The US' involvement in Germany was not moralistic, it was purely financial, to create a buffer between east and west and a pro US society. I could go on and on about more of what was happening in the US at the time, for example the abuse of Japanese nationals and the propagation of a private and entirely unfair healthcare system.

 

[cooterhein]

You're quoting isolated incidents from a highly biased historical view point. But let's say I agree with the post war Germany narrative, the same America that was allowing Germans food, was blocking blacks in their own country from using the same damn toilets as them. How is that moral?

Jim Crow laws certainly were not moral, and I did give an example from a time period where that was still in effect. I don't wish to hijack this line of discussion and take it away from fschmidt; I thought I had something potentially useful to share but after reading your initial post more attentively I can see you were looking for a span of time where everything was pretty well locked in. This is something that relates more exclusively to foreign policy and not domestic, and it's not what you were looking for after all. That's my fault, and I'll see if fschmidt would like to come back to this.

The US' involvement in Germany was not moralistic, it was purely financial, to create a buffer between east and west and a pro US society.

To this specific point, I must disagree. There's no reason why it can't be both. I'm going to give you a link to look at, it includes a rather extensive quotation of George C. Marshall speaking at Harvard University about his plan and the reasons for going through with it.
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/democrac/57.htm
Now, this is a source that does explicitly acknowledge that the plan satisfied those who demanded realpolitik and for whom that was their exclusive driving force, but it also says it satisfied the generous and idealistic point of view as well. It's like I'm telling you, why can't it be both? Now, please do me a favor and take a look at what Marshall has to say for himself, then tell me where he seems to be coming from. Do you really think he's lying and putting on a show? Do you think he's lying about his sense of morality, when the Only real motivator is money and power? Come on, it's not as if he's delivering propaganda to the general public. He's explaining something in a good bit of detail at Harvard. He's talking to brilliant people who will politely pick him apart, and this is the type of judgment to which he is submitting his ideas. So with that in mind, kindly take a look at what he actually has to say.

I could go on and on about more of what was happening in the US at the time, for example the abuse of Japanese nationals and the propagation of a private and entirely unfair healthcare system.

These are all very good points, and none of those other things speak well of the US during this period of time. I did give an example from a time period that was not very good in a lot of other ways, and now I have a better idea of the sort of thing you were looking for. It's not the 40's and 50's.