Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
YaHujja

Separation of Church and State

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If Iran was a state which was was comprised of a citizenry all of whom wanted to live under Islamic law as interpretted and applied would be fine by me. But this is not the case.

Many use the phrase "majority rules" but apply it inappropriately. It does not mean we won and the losers can kiss my ass. It means that the majority rules as long as it does not infringe on the rights of the minority. For instance the US Constitution defining as ststem of government protects the rights of the minority. It really is a wonderful document written in a way that says how to govern and does not with the minutia of law, As a result it is referred to as a "living document" and has been amended relatively few times in 220 years.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Namaste Satyaban,

Even with the problems America has (and what country doesn't?) I must agree with you. Many here would also like the church and state to be one, but luckily the Founding Fathers understood that this might happen and judiciously wrote amendments that safeguarded against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99,

I must disagree with you on a few points.

Drug usage is not a morals or legal problem it is a societal and a mental health problem.

Certainly a society needs some moral code to function,everyone but person's with mental problems are born with a concience and a sense of right from wrong. Atheist and agnostics certainly have morals.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are u smoking crack the US was forced to give those rights by many minority dying and they are trying at this time to take civil rights bill away. The foundind so-called father were racist and only considered blacks a 3/5 of a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There can never be a speration of Church and state, and I support a joint effort between the two, even in Christian countries. see all laws, in order to make them enforcable, must be based on social morals. this explains why in America, murder cases are relatively easy to prosecute compared to Drug cases. Everyone has a personal interest in seeing a murderer behind bars, but to a culture that does not forbid intoxication in its faith, it is hard to get jurrurs to send a guy to jail for ten years for a bag of pot.  The drug war has a hard time, cause when private citizens know of where someone gets drugs, they are in no hurry to help authorities. Police are the LAST line of Law enforcement, and really are only meant to be used to go above and beyond the capabilities of ordinary citizen. the citizens themselves are the main law enforcers. and we are ourselves, our OWN COP. I mean, if we as citezens Decided to loot and riot and then go on some killing , stealing, andparking meter exhausting spree, there would be little the police could do to stop us. So a societies religious beliefs are the foundations of its laws. so when Iman drops in a society.. law breaking increases. in America, the government CANNOT regulate morals, and we have seen sharp spikes in the crime rate as a result. this is why president Bush (before he became the great Muslim buster) declared that he would fund faith based programs. alot of people objected, but it is really smart, he basicaly said "hey if I cant tell you to have good morals(and thereby be good for America) then I will pay someone who can.

Without God, there is Morals, without morals, there is no chance of society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

salam, Brother,

yes, this is a very persuasive argument, particularily when you include the points of view on drugs and intoxication. very good points, indeed. even Mr. Bush's statement is of interest because it shows that, fundamentally, everyone needs a moral compass, whether they choose it or not. the problems arises in societies when people turn away from morality and ethics of religion and tend to create their own morals based on lifestyles of the rich and famous, which is clearly what is happening right now, all around the world. thank you for providing an argument that has made me think more carefully about my own.

khaijah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to claim that his view is of my own creation. but really it is just my take on a view expressed by Sayed MohammadHosayn tabataba'i in his book "Islamic Teachings" mixed with some stuff I learned in socialogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah) (salam)

Someone here observed, and very rightly, that atheists- those who do not espouse or practice any religion - also have morals.

This debate would go far, far afield, if one were to begin defining what morals and ethics are, how they come about, how they've become to be acknowledged as fullfledged philosophical categories - perhaps we could have an independent thread on that.

I have held the view, for many decades now, that one of the most iommoral things man can do is combine church and state.

Take Iraq for example. The majority population of Iraq is Shia. For the past 50 odd years Iraq has been ruled by non-Shias of one description or another. Imagine if the Akhwaan al Muslimoon had gotten to rule Iraq, and combined church and state there.

There also exists a sizable Jewish population in the US of A. Suppose a Jew coming to power out there and decreeing that henceforth "church" and state would be combined.

And what would happen in pluralistic societies such as Lebanon, where the numerical difference among communities is too small to afford any one community a preponderance.

The above are worldly arguments.

So far as Islaam is concerned, unless one subscribes to the intellectual high wire acts and contortions in logic of people such as Muhammad Ibne 'Abd al Wahhab, Hassan al Banaa, Syed Qutb and their latter day followers and admirers among the Shia, one cannot envisage a unification of church and state.

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Edited by haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)  (salam)

Someone here observed, and very rightly, that atheists- those who do not espouse or practice any religion - also have morals.

This debate would go far, far afield, if one were to begin defining what morals and ethics are, how they come about, how they've become to be acknowledged as a fullfledged philosophical categories - perhaps we could have an independent thread on that.

I have held the view, for many decades now, that one of the most iommoral things man can do is combine church and state.

Take Iraq for example. The majority population of Iraq is Shia. For the past 50 odd years Iraq has een ruled by non-Shias of one description or another. Imagine if the Akhwaan al Muslimoon had gotten to rule Iraq, and combined church and  state there.

There also exists a sizable Jewish population in the US of A. Suppose a Jew coming to power out there and decreeing that henceforth "church" and state would be combined.

And what would happen in pluralistic societies such as Lebanon, where the numerical difference among communities is too small to afford any one community a preponderance.

The above are worldly arguments.

So far as Islaam is concerned, unless one subscribes to the intellectual high  wire acts and logical distortions of people such as Muhammad Ibn al Wahhab, Hassan al Banaa, Syed Qutb and their latter day followers and admirers among the Shia, one cannot envisage a unification of church and state.

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

athiest do not have any morals, they have IDEALS, there is a difference, Ideals are agreed by anyone to be good ideas, but they are philosophy, and in times of stress, they can be disreguarded. like fair treatment of POW's, to America it is an Ideal, and a great one, but to Muslims it is a moral, and morals are backed up. see when someone breaks an Ideal, there is no fear of punishment, because it was the person himself who decided that the ideal was good and nessasary in the first place, so who is going to punish us for breaking OUR RULES? but morals are dictated to us from an outside source, IE God, so we will not be as quick to break them. because we fear punishment. speeding is against our ideals, murder is against our morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
athiest do not have any morals, they have IDEALS, there is a difference, Ideals are agreed by anyone to be good ideas, but they are philosophy, and in times of stress, they can be disreguarded. like fair treatment of POW's, to America it is an Ideal, and a great one, but to Muslims it is a moral, and morals are backed up. see when someone breaks an Ideal, there is no fear of punishment, because it was the person himself who decided that the ideal was good and nessasary in the first place, so who is going to punish us for breaking OUR RULES? but morals are dictated to us from an outside source, IE God, so we will not be as quick to break them. because we fear punishment.  speeding is against our ideals, murder is against our morals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah) (salam)

Ever heard of the concept of collective conscience? Ever tried to get acquainted with the difference between belief and reason? Ever looked into the necessity of religion?

And ARE you trying to aver that the moral is not the ideal?

Haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am simply saying that Muslims hold morals in an absolute sence, they CANNOT be altered to fit the situation, Athiest have no reason to hold these Ideals, because if they dont believe in a judgement, than the ultimate necessity for their lives is to provide for their well being and what they percieve to be the best thing for those around them. I am not saying this lightly, My parrents are BOTH athiests. If there is no god, then I am my own final authority and what pleases or displeases me is trump to any other thing. Ideals are only concrete until they go against what is good for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I am simply saying that Muslims hold morals in an absolute sence, they CANNOT be altered to fit the situation,

2. Athiest have no reason to hold these Ideals, because if they dont believe in a judgement, than the ultimate necessity for their lives is to provide for their well being and what they percieve to be the best thing for those around them.  I am not saying this lightly, My parrents are BOTH athiests.

3. If there is no god, then I am my own final authority and what pleases or displeases me is trump to any other thing. Ideals are only concrete until they go against what is good for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Lieing, for example, is a moral issue. Anhorrence to lieing is absolute in every belief system, whether thiestic or athiestic. There are no two opinions about lieing. Its wrong, impermissible. Period.

2. I simply don't know where you got this from. The propensity to transgress boundaries is about equally distributed among those who believe in a final, metaphysical, suprahuman judgment, and those who not.

Believers in a merciful diety, would, apparently, have more temptation to transgress, in the belief that they may be forgiven etc. I personally know of some who insist upon transgressing simply because they believe their Allah is Rahmaan and Raheem.

3. Whether you do believe in a god, or believe in THE God, you still are the final arbiter regarding whether what you are doing is right by Him. It is your belief systems that guide you, not any law in cold print in statute books.

A.] Because the decision to beleive in HIM is singularly your own.

B.]. If you are a Shia, the decision whether to do Ijtehaad, Ihteyaat or Taqleed is again your own.

C.] In case you choose to do Taqleed, contrary to perpetuated myth, the decision again will be enirely your own.

I know some here will jump up and say no, it is not your decision, you have to ask the Ahle Khubra or follow the recommendation of the Ahle Khubra. But again, it simply boils down to your preference among the Ahle Khubra. If there happen to be 2000 such, you aren't going to go around asking ALL of them. You'll exercise choice . . .

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Edited by haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are u smoking crack the US was forced to give those rights by many minority dying and they are trying at this time to take civil rights bill away. The foundind so-called father were racist and only considered blacks a 3/5 of a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jalal27,

Aren't you one of the posters who makes statements with little understanding and false statements, who when asked about same does not respond.

I will certainly respond to this after you respond to my previous questions.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
athiest do not have any morals, they have IDEALS, there is a difference, Ideals are agreed by anyone to be good ideas, but they are philosophy, and in times of stress, they can be disreguarded. like fair treatment of POW's, to America it is an Ideal, and a great one, but to Muslims it is a moral, and morals are backed up. see when someone breaks an Ideal, there is no fear of punishment, because it was the person himself who decided that the ideal was good and nessasary in the first place, so who is going to punish us for breaking OUR RULES? but morals are dictated to us from an outside source, IE God, so we will not be as quick to break them. because we fear punishment.  speeding is against our ideals, murder is against our morals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Semantics Semantics!

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)  (salam)

Someone here observed, and very rightly, that atheists- those who do not espouse or practice any religion - also have morals.

This debate would go far, far afield, if one were to begin defining what morals and ethics are, how they come about, how they've become to be acknowledged as  fullfledged philosophical categories - perhaps we could have an independent thread on that.

I have held the view, for many decades now, that one of the most iommoral things man can do is combine church and state.

Take Iraq for example. The majority population of Iraq is Shia. For the past 50 odd years Iraq has been ruled by non-Shias of one description or another. Imagine if the Akhwaan al Muslimoon had gotten to rule Iraq, and combined church and  state there.

There also exists a sizable Jewish population in the US of A. Suppose a Jew coming to power out there and decreeing that henceforth "church" and state would be combined.

And what would happen in pluralistic societies such as Lebanon, where the numerical difference among communities is too small to afford any one community a preponderance.

The above are worldly arguments.

So far as Islaam is concerned, unless one subscribes to the intellectual high  wire acts and logical distortions of people such as Muhammad Ibn al Wahhab, Hassan al Banaa, Syed Qutb and their latter day followers and admirers among the Shia, one cannot envisage a unification of church and state.

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very well put. I am in complete agreement. :) I wish I could have put it writing as well as you have.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)  (salam)

Someone here observed, and very rightly, that atheists- those who do not espouse or practice any religion - also have morals.

This debate would go far, far afield, if one were to begin defining what morals and ethics are, how they come about, how they've become to be acknowledged as  fullfledged philosophical categories - perhaps we could have an independent thread on that.

I have held the view, for many decades now, that one of the most iommoral things man can do is combine church and state.

Take Iraq for example. The majority population of Iraq is Shia. For the past 50 odd years Iraq has been ruled by non-Shias of one description or another. Imagine if the Akhwaan al Muslimoon had gotten to rule Iraq, and combined church and  state there.

There also exists a sizable Jewish population in the US of A. Suppose a Jew coming to power out there and decreeing that henceforth "church" and state would be combined.

And what would happen in pluralistic societies such as Lebanon, where the numerical difference among communities is too small to afford any one community a preponderance.

The above are worldly arguments.

So far as Islaam is concerned, unless one subscribes to the intellectual high  wire acts and logical distortions of people such as Muhammad Ibn al Wahhab, Hassan al Banaa, Syed Qutb and their latter day followers and admirers among the Shia, one cannot envisage a unification of church and state.

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very well put. I am in complete agreement. :) I wish I could have put it writing as well as you have.

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings

You mentioned semantics somewhere here. Well there's an error in my post quoted above, which I've noted, and which perhaps I'll be able to edit and correct.

The emboldened words should by rights be contortions in logic

Keep well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I have very good understanding of civil rights movment. As I am black and it is my history. That stated are are going to pretend that 3/5 compromise never occured or that civil right act is being voted on to be recsinded or that people had to die to obtain the right of the so called living will also that Fouding father were slave owners . P.S I can not always respond everday cause I am not a student I have a job and life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)  (salam)

There also exists a sizable Jewish population in the US of A. Suppose a Jew coming to power out there and decreeing that henceforth "church" and state would be combined.

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

asalam,

have you ever read Paul Findley's book, "The Dare to Speak Out: People and Insistutions Confront Israel's Lobby" ? it's a very well written book by a former congressman (Christian) who is a longtime champion for Arab and Muslim rights. i think you would find that quite fascinating, depressing, maddening, out right offensive. and in the end, it would shed light on the above statement you have made. Just because it has not been decreed, does not mean that it doesn't exsist to quite an extent.

khadijah. :Hijabi:

ps. and i ask that no one accuse me of being anti-Jewish, that would be a unfounded and rather moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asalam,

have you ever read Paul Findley's book, "The Dare to Speak Out: People and Insistutions Confront Israel's Lobby" ? it's a very well written book by a former congressman (Christian) who is a longtime champion for Arab and Muslim rights. i think you would find that quite fascinating, depressing, maddening, out right offensive. and in the end, it would shed light on the above statement you have made. Just because it has not been decreed, does not mean that it doesn't exsist to quite an extent.

khadijah.  :Hijabi:

ps. and i ask that no one accuse me of being anti-Jewish, that would be a unfounded and rather moot point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah) (salam)

Sis

You make Findley's book sound very interesting, and I'll certainly try to locate it and read it.

I am aware that the Israeli and the Zionist lobbies are quite active in the US.

By the way, I differentiate between Jews, Israelis and Zionists, and hold them to be three quite discrete entities.

Not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Jews are Zionists, though you can, of course find a Jew who may also be an Israeli and a Zionist.

Zionism, I hold to be a political malignancy, much like Nazism, Fascism, Hindutva, Wahhabism, Qutbism, etc etc.

And yes, where being an elder brother, I'd encourage you no end to be an anti-Zionist, I can simply recommend to be anti-Jew only to the extent ordained by the last and final revealed Book.

Wassalaam

haazirmoula

Edited by haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)  (salam)

Sis

You make Findley's book sound very interesting, and I'll certainly try to locate it and read it.

I am aware that the Israeli and the Zionist lobbies are quite active in the US.

By the way, I differentiate between Jews, Israelis and Zionists, and hold them to be three quite discrete entities.

Not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Jews are Zionists, though you can, of course find a Jew who may also be an Israeli and a Zionist.

Zionism, I hold to be a political malignancy, much like Nazism, Fascism, Hindutva, Wahhabism, Qutbism, etc etc.

And yes, where being an elder brother, I'd encourage you no end to be an anti-Zionist, I can simply recommend to be anti-Jew only to the extent ordained by the last and final revealed Book.

Wassalaam

haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salam,

thank you for the advice. i am an anti-Zionist to no end, to be sure! the more i learn about their activities throughout the world, the more appalled, scared and even depressed i become. i really hope you can find Findley's book. i know amazon carries it.... it is outstanding!! but i am not anti-Jew in any way, really. i just focus on being the best Muslimah i can be, though i may not alway succeed, i pray to Allah (swt) that He gives me the stregnth to persevere. Ameen.

khadijah. :Hijabi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Lieing, for example, is a moral issue. Anhorrence to lieing is absolute in every belief system, whether thiestic or athiestic. There are no two opinions about lieing. Its wrong, impermissible. Period.

2. I simply don't know where you got this from. The propensity to transgress boundaries is about equally distributed among those who believe in a final, metaphysical, suprahuman judgment, and those who not.

Believers in a merciful diety, would, apparently, have more temptation to transgress, in the belief that they may be forgiven etc. I personally know of some who insist upon transgressing simply because they believe their Allah is Rahmaan and Raheem.

3. Whether you do believe in a god, or believe in THE God, you still are the final arbiter regarding whether what you are doing is right by Him. It is your belief systems that guide you, not any law in cold print in statute books.

A.] Because the decision to beleive in HIM is singularly your own.

B.]. If you are a Shia, the decision whether to do Ijtehaad, Ihteyaat or Taqleed is again your own.

C.] In case you choose to do Taqleed, contrary to perpetuated myth, the decision again will be enirely your own.

I know some here will jump up and say no, it is not your decision, you have to ask the Ahle Khubra or follow the recommendation of the Ahle Khubra. But again, it simply boils down to your preference among the Ahle Khubra. If there happen to be 2000 such, you aren't going to go around asking ALL of them. You'll exercise choice . . .

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first of all, thank you for arranging my words for me. now

1. lying is an ideal and abhorence is not universal EVEN in ISLAM, where if we are in extreme danger, we are permitted to lie for safety sake.

2.I did not say anything about propensity to transgress bouindries, I said that there is no outside reason to keeping with morals for athiest like there are Muslims. our reason is god and the fear of his punishment. please dont try to argue that athiests believe in God as much as we do. that woiuld be dumb.

3. I would have to respectfully disagree. I do choose to abide by Islamic law, however, if I had my absolute choice, I would live a different, less restricted life, if I had no belief in the afterlife, I could find no reason not to drinkl a bottle of whine, whose health bennifits have been proven. so I would drink it, but I know I can enjoy better things in heaven Insha Allah.

Lastly, it may APPEAR that I do not see your point, I do, and to some extent I agree with you, on a certain level. My father (the athiest)has a very high charachter, and I could only hope to have the enduring qualities he has. I am not trying to depict athiests as rude, horrible, destructive people. I am simply saying that Muslims, Christians, and Jews have a much BIGGER reason to firmly stick to their morals. people often wonder why so many Jews were able to be rounded up by the nazis, why didnt they just deny being a jew? well there ya go! or bilal, who could have saved himself so much pain by saying one nice thing about the gods of makkah, and if he was athiest, please dont tell me that he wouldnt have done so, it would have beem insane not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first of all, thank you for arranging my words for me. now

1. lying is an ideal and abhorence is not universal EVEN in ISLAM, where if we are in extreme danger, we are permitted to lie for safety sake.

2.I did not say anything about propensity to transgress bouindries, I said that there is no outside reason to  keeping with morals for athiest like there are Muslims. our reason is god and the fear of his punishment. please dont try to argue that athiests believe in God as much as we do. that woiuld be dumb.

3.  I would have to respectfully disagree. I do choose to abide by Islamic law, however, if I had my absolute choice, I would live a different, less restricted life, if I had  no belief in the afterlife, I could find no reason not to drinkl a bottle of whine, whose health bennifits have been proven. so I would drink it, but I know I can enjoy better things in heaven Insha Allah.

4. Lastly, it may APPEAR that I do not see your point, I do, and to some extent I agree with you, on a certain level. My father (the athiest)has a very high charachter, and I could only hope to have the enduring qualities he has. I am not trying to depict athiests as rude, horrible, destructive people. I am simply saying that Muslims, Christians, and Jews have a much BIGGER reason to firmly stick to their morals. people often wonder why so many Jews were able to be rounded up by the nazis, why didnt they just deny being a jew? well there ya go! or bilal, who could have saved himself so much pain by saying one nice thing about the gods of makkah, and if he was athiest, please dont tell me that he wouldnt have done so, it would have beem insane not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Exceptions prove the rule. In themselves they don't constitute rules.

2. How about this. Offering salaat because Allah is the One who merits praise and thankfulness or offering salaat because because one may encounter hellfire if one does not? In the first case, the reason comes from within, from the believer's relationship and perception / concept of Allah. In the second case it is fear . . .

3. A comment here would be judgmental. I refrain from judging people.

4. Hitler wasn't nasty only to the Jews. Communists, Catholics, Partisans and Resistance members in Nazi occupied Europe all suffered. Its just that the Holocaust got the publicity it deserved and other such atrocities, whether during WW2 or afterwards elsewhere didn't get that much concerted media exposure.

What about the Partition and the massacres that accompanied it when Britain granted dominion status to India and Pakistan. What about the atrocities committed by Idi Amin in Uganda and Mobuto Sese Seku in Zaire. What about the atrocities committed by the Pakistan Army in 1971 in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh? What about the atrocities committed by the US of A in Viet Nam? What about the atrocities committed by Pol Pot in Cambodia? The atrocities in Chile during Pinochet's dictatorship?

I don't know if Corporal Adolf Hitler was an athiest. I do know that the murderers who massacred innocent men, women, and children at the time of Partition, on either side, were believers. So were the Pakistani armymen and their Al-Badr and Al-Shams Mawdudiite helpers in East Pakistan. Idi Amin was a Muslim. Pol Pot was probably an athiest. Augostinho Pinochet of Chile is a catholic. The US of A soldiers in Viet Nam were God-fearing Christians.

I don't think the beliefs of all these believers deterred any of them from acting the way they did.

By the way, I fear we are getting farthar and farthar away from the original topic, Separation of Church and State

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haazimoula,

Once again a most excellent post.

Getting back to the topic.

It is the nature of gov't to lie and politicians also. As a result theocracies are a pervesion of both gov't and religion.

Peace my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haazimoula,

Once again a most excellent post.

Getting back to the topic.

It is the nature of gov't to lie and politicians also. As a result theocracies are a pervesion of both gov't and religion.

Peace my friend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings

Governments as we have come to know them. If you have had the chance to go through "The General was a Spy" by General von Gehlen, a General in the Reichswehr who defected to the Allies in 1945 and later was instrumental in setting the intelligence arm of the Bundeswehr.

He asserts that for the Soviet Union, diplomacy did not mean duplicity, and that the Soviet Government would do exactly what it would say it would do.

Peace

Haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu Alaykum,

In modern day, western societies,

do you support separation of church and state?

Do you find Religion to be crucial to an

ethically and morally healthy society?

Reply :

Do you think the separation or

secularisation of religion is any

indication that a religion is moving forward

[as suggested by `modern day, western societies]

I think that this is a successful ploy of

democracy to gain a foothold on the world

and an attempt to make religion run and

hide inside the caves.

Democracy succeeded with kristians.

Do not let it happen to Islam.

Kristians are humbled by democracy

because theirs was not a complete religion,

whereas Islam is a complete religion.

We do not allow another contractor to

run a Muslim state, unlike kristian states

who do not have a set of codes [hukums]

designed to administer a state.

Then again, is all this `democracy' thing

an attempt to make Islam

`western-society-friendly' just as dr.amina's

attempt to make Islam `feminist-friendly'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings

Governments as we have come to know them. If you have had the chance to go through "The General was a Spy" by General von Gehlen, a General in the Reichswehr who defected to the Allies in 1945 and later was instrumental in setting the intelligence arm of the Bundeswehr.

He asserts that for the Soviet Union, diplomacy did not mean duplicity, and that the Soviet Government would do exactly what it would say it would do.

Peace

Haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They lied frequently. They used deception in an attempt to hide real conditions in the USSR. The crushed a popular rejection of their puppet gov't and said they were invited in. They put disidents in mental institutions and said they were insane when they were not. Because it has been so long ago I would have to crack open some books to bring up their many instances. They set up a puppet gov't in Afg and said they were invited in when they invaded.

I believe the same type of thing would have happened to Iran because the USSR wanted a warm water port.

It is the nature of gov'ts to lie because they always have multiple relations and must do so because they see it in their best interests. They try to pass off this disinformation with finesse but the USSR was rather ham fisted.

Peace my friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Exceptions prove the rule. In themselves they don't constitute rules.

2. How about this. Offering salaat because Allah is the One who merits praise and thankfulness or offering salaat because because one may encounter hellfire if one does not? In the first case, the reason comes from within, from the believer's relationship and perception / concept of Allah. In the second case it is fear . . .

3. A comment here would be judgmental. I refrain from judging people.

4. Hitler wasn't nasty only to the Jews. Communists, Catholics, Partisans and Resistance members in Nazi occupied Europe all suffered. Its just that the Holocaust got the publicity it deserved and other such atrocities, whether during WW2 or afterwards elsewhere didn't get that much concerted media exposure.

What about the Partition and the massacres that accompanied it when Britain granted dominion status to India and Pakistan. What about the atrocities committed by Idi Amin in Uganda and Mobuto Sese Seku in Zaire. What about the atrocities committed by the Pakistan Army in 1971 in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh? What about the atrocities committed by the US of A in Viet Nam? What about the atrocities committed by Pol Pot in Cambodia? The atrocities in Chile during Pinochet's dictatorship?

I don't know if Corporal Adolf Hitler was an athiest. I do know that the murderers who massacred innocent men, women, and children at the time of Partition, on either side, were believers. So were the Pakistani armymen and their Al-Badr and Al-Shams Mawdudiite helpers in East Pakistan. Idi Amin was a Muslim. Pol Pot was probably an athiest. Augostinho Pinochet of Chile is a catholic. The US of A soldiers in Viet Nam were God-fearing Christians.

I don't think the beliefs of all these believers deterred any of them from acting the way they did.

By the way, I fear we are getting farthar and farthar away from the original topic, Separation of Church and State

Wassalaam

!. that is completely beside the point, and an artfull way of evading an answer without admitting defeat

2. Athiest as a rule do not offer alot of salat, so this is a poor example of how even athiests have inner morals

3. you are wise not to judge, I cant argfue with this point, although you mere mention of the reason to avoid comment is in itself a way of Hiding an acusation of weak morals, which I do not think I have, I simply believe that Allah is the source of my salvation, not my "inner spirit"

4.your point here is completely non topical, if you want to talk about the holocaust, then lets start a new topic, I have researched it, and although I am not a facist at all, have thrice read Mein kompf (My struggle) by Hitler. the point I made had nothing to do with who the Nazi's didn't like, it had to do with the Jews reaction, which WAS markedly different from that of Communists for instance. If you read the US Special Forces MAnual from the JFK special warfare school (which is available on line or at many bookstores) there is s section detailing the fall of berllin, and attributes much of the sucess of the russian advancement to the so called "communist partisans" which had a much better resistance than the jews (who I will admit, spuradicaly did resist, as in warsaw) and look at the freanch resistence) The jews were more resigned to accept fate as they saw it, and were not going to hide who they were. plus the communist factions, as well as gays, were before the nazi rise to power, very active in promoting their views or lifestyle.

the whole last paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with anything, first of all, there were two examples of Muslims, Idi Amin, and the pakistanis, neither of which were known for being Muslim, which, contrary to popular belief, means more than having a Muslim name. Hitler was an occultist and mocked Christianity in his ceremonies, believed only in the power of the SS sort of the Nazi "jedi") pol pot was indeed an athiest, which proves my point, and pinochet was not a practicing catholic (reffer back to my note on people who are only a religion in name, they are in fact agnostic or athiest, and do not count as believers) and the US was a poor example because though patton did say in wwII (a true example of Christian morals) "there are no athiest in fox holes" he did not take into account, the future. In vietnam, MOST soldiers used drugs heavily, and a large percentage completely lost faith in the existence in God (I mentioned My dad was athiest, as well as my uncle, they grew up christian, wanna guess when they became athiest... yep, vietnam) and in general Most of the soldiers did not hold ANY Actual belief system at all. so they were far from the "god fearing Christians"you falsely tried to make them out to be.

in future posts, please first of all, post things that have to do with what we are talking about, and secondly only if YOU FEEL Like it, try not to prove my pooints for me, as in the last remarks there, but if you feel you want to, I certainly need the help, there can be no doubt that you are educated in these matters, and since the FACTS in this matter only serve to re enforce MY point, feel free to back me up as much as you want. you do have an education on this subject it seems, which I appriciate, and contrary to my Agressive attitude (to say the least right?), I do appriciate a good debate, which you have more than given me. I do have one theory yet to test though, if you are willing to be honest (dont say what you think will prove me wrong, fear Allah and speak the truth).

here goes:

do you regularly wear hijab when outside the home at anytime?

I WOULD BE FOOLISH NOT TO MENTION THIS: ALL OF YOUR EXAMPLES AT THE END HAD ONE THING IN COMMON, THEY WERE ALL DONE BY PEOPLE WHO PRACTICED A SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! OOPS!

PS, A BETTER EXAMPLE FOR YOU TO USE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TALIBAN, FOR BELIEVERS BEING BARBARIANS, BUT EVEN THIS CAN BE ARGUED.

Edited by god_has_99_names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I DO find Religion to be crucial to an ethically and morally healthy society, but I don't trust politicians to dictate it for me.  I support seperation of Religion and State, because I believe that power corrupts those who enjoy it.  I hope to someday be proven wrong, but I think there are no honest politicians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly! While there have been great statesmen they are few and far between. The few honest people serve at the local level but even they become corrupted as they rise through the political maze.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99,

I have made my thoughts on this thread known and I don't want to intryde on your debate with Haarzirmoula but I am a 56yr old veteran of the US Army and your statement about soldiers of that era having no belief system is flat out not true.

BTW I thought hijab was worn by women.

Pease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not mean to characterix\ze ALL soldiers as being thugs and drug addicts, in\deed that would not even fairly describe those I know who fought, what I tried to say is that the Soldiers of the vietnasm era were far different from the ALL VOLUNTEER army of the WWII era. and so problems were much more widespread. I think it would be stupid to say that MOST soldiers were GOOD CHRISTIANS" because this flat out isnt true. I dont know a single vet (all of whom I do respect) who would describe their actions as being those in line with Christian beliefs. so to say that our men were Practicing Christians acting upon their faith would be a sad mistake. but Again, my respect to you and your comrades in arms who bravely fought. A war in which you dont believe, is the hardest to fight, and it takes more courage to fight for someone elses ideals than to fight for your own.

Oh and I wanted to add. I assumed that haarzirmoula was a girl, My appologies to him if I have offended. but Actualy no, All Muslims wear hijab. Hijab simply means modesty and it is the dress code for men and women, though men have a different dress code, I find fewer Muslim men follow hijab than women.

Edited by god_has_99_names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99,

The US Army was not an all volunteer force in WWII. There was a high percentage of enlistments but there was also a draft. The end result was that practicly every ablebodied man wound up in service to this country. Those who did not serve ib the military workrd in some way to support the war effort. Where as in Viet Nam there were many draftees such as myself and those who joined to avoid the draft.

There were deferments of different kinds such as if one was a college student. I took a semester off and was cobbled up. These deferments created a rather poor demographic representation of the citizenry.

I could not believe how John Kerry was vilified for his service. He volunteered for a second tour and acted couragiously. Meddles such as the Bronze Star had to be earned.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah my dads got a bronze star, he was an artillary forward observer, but stationed with 9th infantry in the mekong delta. yeah I completely agree. the debate over JK's service was stupid, people wanted to debate over how bravely he served, ignoring the bravery it took to board a plane for vietnam in the first place. certainly more courage than many Americans have. and I know there was a draft in wwII as well as all the way back to the Civil war, but these drafts in WWII were not on near the scale that they were in vietnam, because it was a very obvious cause and it was deemed highly un manly not to serve. I still maintain that the US Army during vietnam in no way represented an Amry of Christians, but I would like to break away from the subject to briefly say again:

I cannot possibly Say enough to propperly thank you for your service to your country. Me, and My Generation, and Every Generation Certainly owe you a debt of graditude for the sacrafice you made. in Todays time, to see someone put a "pause" on their youth in order to undertake the Very "elder" responsability of defending Freedom and democracy, would be unimaginable. so quite simply. thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99,

I deeply appreciate your kind words and I am sure your father is a much braver man than I.

One of the tragedies of war is that the older people create the circumstances and it is the young who make the sacrifice. If there was an international reality that only people forty years of age and over could fight wars there would be none.

When I see the ages of the kids, I say kids but I guess they become men quickly, that the US is losing I am sure it is the same or worse for the other side(?).

It is past this old man's bed time.

Peace to you my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99,

The US Army was not an all volunteer force in WWII. There was a high percentage of enlistments but there was also a draft.

you are correct. The largest all volunteer army of the WW II was the Indian army. In fact Indians ended up winning more VCs (victoria crosses , the highest in the british army) than the brits themselves.

Where as in Viet Nam there were many draftees such as myself and those who joined to avoid the draft.

There were deferments of different kinds such as if one was a college student. I took a semester off and was cobbled up.

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

where were u posted? did u see action?

just saw the movie "platoon" after a long time. i was still moved to tears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to go even further off-topic, but I remember seeing "Full Metal Jacket" when it first came out on video, way-back-when. I'd sure like to see that one again. (Yah, in case u all didn't know, I'm a movie nut, LOL)... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are correct. The largest  all volunteer army of the WW II was the Indian army. In fact Indians ended up winning more VCs (victoria crosses , the highest in the british army) than the brits themselves.

where were u posted? did u see action?

just saw the movie "platoon" after a long time. i was still moved to tears.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Satyam,

I would prefer to get back to the topic, but I have killed no one that I know of.

Peace

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...