DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Qxsumehj** · 04-15-2012, 03:31 AM

Even if it involves aggressively stopping rioter/people unhappy with regime by bombing/killing them, until they cease or until they cease to exist?
rights according to who? western liberty or muslim "liberty"?
If it is a dictator ship they will emphasis their own brand of what they perceive sharia/islam to be. Imagine if the coup is done by the qaddiyanis!

Only Allah and his messenger know better

One example of democracy, pakistan is a good example of why it doesn't work. You now have an elite of shia/murtad politicians who skillfully manipulate the dumb masses with grand promises of food, work and entertainment. And the masses are all duped into following them, any concerns for following allah's law and making it paramount, don't really come into consideration, except to be used as another tool to manipulate people into voting for these same corrupt politicians. This doesnt work, democracy only encourages this kind of pandering which leads directly to corrupt leaders. Even in the west, its basically taken for granted that politicians in a democracy are corrupt by default (so why change?).

You need a system where the leader isn't beholden to the masses, monarchy is infinitely superior in this regard. A religious monarchy is very stable and has higher sanction, as opposed to a democracy where sanction only comes from the whims and desires of the masses, making it inherently unstable. This is why we muslims shouldn't rebel against their monarchs in the middle east, because the alternative is far worse.

There seems to be this underlying assumption that if muslims adopt the political system of parliamentary democacy from westerners, muslims will some how become modern, rich, peaceful and progress. This is a false assumption. You won't be rich like white people by becoming democratic, whites won't allow it since they control the world economy, for you to become rich would be to their detriment. And you won't be free either, you'll be ruled by corrupt demagogues like Zardari. Modernism is nothing but following them down the lizards hole, as the hadith says.

The method of selection will ultimately lead to the extent to which the leader is accepted by the ummah. False. You have no basis to say that a democracy will lead to a leader who wants religion to prevail being elected. History shows it is just the opposite. It will lead to the selection of the leader who is the most charismatic and promises people the most 'stuff'. Just like in America or Australia, people vote for the guy who they'd like the have a beer with. It will be the same. Religious considerations may hover around at the start, but eventually they will be pushed aside in favour of the nafs of the mob. The vast majority of people are easily swayed by promises of worldly gain, indeed, its what most people care about first and foremost, in fact if there is a leader that will promise them all this, and 'appear' religious then so much the better, for him. Muslims these days don't care enough about their religion, or know enough about it, to be trusted to elect a 'good man'. I can't think of any country in the muslim world that could be, ever. Because such a selection process inevitably tends towards the lowest common denominator, it causes decay over time, til you get to the point where they are in Europe and america, where religion has no part in 'daily life' and people are even hostile to it being in public.

Anyone know anything about the french revolution? Their motto was liberty, equality and fraternity. Look how well that turned out. It destroyed the old order, religion, everything good and sacred in favor of what? Mass killings, poverty, chaos. This is the product of democracy. Don't be fooled by europe's current stablity. Muslim countries aren't capable of that level of stablity with a democracy, since its all predicated on prosperity, which you don't and won't have. You'll be like pakistan, chaotic, violent, corrupt. Or libya, which we never hear of now. It's gone from something civilised to a war torn somalia. And the rebels were dumb enough to sign over the control over the offshore oilfields in return for NATO air support. The war wasn't even over yet, and french and british special forces were on the ground securing oil supplies, and tankers were sighted off short taking oil.

But muslims these days wont listen to this, they want their nafs satisfied, so they will rebel against their legitimate rulers and install 'democracies' and descend into chaos.

04-15-2012, 03:31 AM	#33
Qxsumehj Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 427 Senior Member	Even if it involves aggressively stopping rioter/people unhappy with regime by bombing/killing them, until they cease or until they cease to exist? rights according to who? western liberty or muslim "liberty"? If it is a dictator ship they will emphasis their own brand of what they perceive sharia/islam to be. Imagine if the coup is done by the qaddiyanis! Only Allah and his messenger know better One example of democracy, pakistan is a good example of why it doesn't work. You now have an elite of shia/murtad politicians who skillfully manipulate the dumb masses with grand promises of food, work and entertainment. And the masses are all duped into following them, any concerns for following allah's law and making it paramount, don't really come into consideration, except to be used as another tool to manipulate people into voting for these same corrupt politicians. This doesnt work, democracy only encourages this kind of pandering which leads directly to corrupt leaders. Even in the west, its basically taken for granted that politicians in a democracy are corrupt by default (so why change?). You need a system where the leader isn't beholden to the masses, monarchy is infinitely superior in this regard. A religious monarchy is very stable and has higher sanction, as opposed to a democracy where sanction only comes from the whims and desires of the masses, making it inherently unstable. This is why we muslims shouldn't rebel against their monarchs in the middle east, because the alternative is far worse. There seems to be this underlying assumption that if muslims adopt the political system of parliamentary democacy from westerners, muslims will some how become modern, rich, peaceful and progress. This is a false assumption. You won't be rich like white people by becoming democratic, whites won't allow it since they control the world economy, for you to become rich would be to their detriment. And you won't be free either, you'll be ruled by corrupt demagogues like Zardari. Modernism is nothing but following them down the lizards hole, as the hadith says. The method of selection will ultimately lead to the extent to which the leader is accepted by the ummah. False. You have no basis to say that a democracy will lead to a leader who wants religion to prevail being elected. History shows it is just the opposite. It will lead to the selection of the leader who is the most charismatic and promises people the most 'stuff'. Just like in America or Australia, people vote for the guy who they'd like the have a beer with. It will be the same. Religious considerations may hover around at the start, but eventually they will be pushed aside in favour of the nafs of the mob. The vast majority of people are easily swayed by promises of worldly gain, indeed, its what most people care about first and foremost, in fact if there is a leader that will promise them all this, and 'appear' religious then so much the better, for him. Muslims these days don't care enough about their religion, or know enough about it, to be trusted to elect a 'good man'. I can't think of any country in the muslim world that could be, ever. Because such a selection process inevitably tends towards the lowest common denominator, it causes decay over time, til you get to the point where they are in Europe and america, where religion has no part in 'daily life' and people are even hostile to it being in public. Anyone know anything about the french revolution? Their motto was liberty, equality and fraternity. Look how well that turned out. It destroyed the old order, religion, everything good and sacred in favor of what? Mass killings, poverty, chaos. This is the product of democracy. Don't be fooled by europe's current stablity. Muslim countries aren't capable of that level of stablity with a democracy, since its all predicated on prosperity, which you don't and won't have. You'll be like pakistan, chaotic, violent, corrupt. Or libya, which we never hear of now. It's gone from something civilised to a war torn somalia. And the rebels were dumb enough to sign over the control over the offshore oilfields in return for NATO air support. The war wasn't even over yet, and french and british special forces were on the ground securing oil supplies, and tankers were sighted off short taking oil. But muslims these days wont listen to this, they want their nafs satisfied, so they will rebel against their legitimate rulers and install 'democracies' and descend into chaos.
	Quote