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

**c6vkuNRg** · 12-27-2011, 05:18 PM

Brother, it appears because you do not know what Islam says on the issue, you have allowed for some of the concepts of kufr to shape your viewpoint.

For example, 'because democracy in theory calls for accountability and transparency in governance, and these appear to be good and just, then democracy is permissible and good too'. Yes?

But in reality, the Islamic ruling system contains accountability and transparency without incorporating the political structures of democracy. The Prophet (saw) was profoundly scrupulous in governance. And the khulafa rashidoon exemplified the Prophet's (saaw) model by providing transparency and accountability in governance to a level which contemporary western civil governments simply fail to even approach.

Or 'because socialism supports egalatarian concepts of communal ownership which seems just and good, and Islam supports justice and good, then Islam supports socialism'. Yes?

In reality, Islam has unique and distinct definitions of ownership- such as natural resources are public property- which renders the revenue from natural sources for public use. However, that does NOT mean that socialism's definitions of ownership necessarily apply. Rather, Islam exists separate and distinct from these kufr ideologies.

Similarities do not imply compatibility. A lion and a horse both have four legs. That does not mean they are of the same species.

My position was clear. I do not support your black and white dichotomy. There is no uniform position on what these terms means. Its quite broad and from atheist to a muslim each person has different meaning to it when it comes to details. So you argument : A supports democracy, democracy is kufr, therefore A is kafir; fails because democracy is broad and diverse in meaning and not necessarily Kufr. Why not come to straight clear terms and instead prove that A supports man as supreme over Shari'a or man made law as supreme over sharia, etc ? Rather than putting words into peoples mouth or into the constitution?

Brother, why attack ideologies of Muslims while being silent on kufr ideologies which have plagued the Muslim world for generations? You take no position on socialism? Or secularism?
This telegraphs your inclinations.
This is common flawed argument famous in the salafi camp. You presuppose without any basis that I don't oppose kufr. More importantly, my opposition or non opposition in no way leads to legality of innovating nonsensical ideologies onto Islam leading to takfir and killing and then turning 180 degree around when their own salafi supporter becomes guilty by the same innovated ideology. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

12-27-2011, 05:18 PM	#1
c6vkuNRg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	Brother, it appears because you do not know what Islam says on the issue, you have allowed for some of the concepts of kufr to shape your viewpoint. For example, 'because democracy in theory calls for accountability and transparency in governance, and these appear to be good and just, then democracy is permissible and good too'. Yes? But in reality, the Islamic ruling system contains accountability and transparency without incorporating the political structures of democracy. The Prophet (saw) was profoundly scrupulous in governance. And the khulafa rashidoon exemplified the Prophet's (saaw) model by providing transparency and accountability in governance to a level which contemporary western civil governments simply fail to even approach. Or 'because socialism supports egalatarian concepts of communal ownership which seems just and good, and Islam supports justice and good, then Islam supports socialism'. Yes? In reality, Islam has unique and distinct definitions of ownership- such as natural resources are public property- which renders the revenue from natural sources for public use. However, that does NOT mean that socialism's definitions of ownership necessarily apply. Rather, Islam exists separate and distinct from these kufr ideologies. Similarities do not imply compatibility. A lion and a horse both have four legs. That does not mean they are of the same species. My position was clear. I do not support your black and white dichotomy. There is no uniform position on what these terms means. Its quite broad and from atheist to a muslim each person has different meaning to it when it comes to details. So you argument : A supports democracy, democracy is kufr, therefore A is kafir; fails because democracy is broad and diverse in meaning and not necessarily Kufr. Why not come to straight clear terms and instead prove that A supports man as supreme over Shari'a or man made law as supreme over sharia, etc ? Rather than putting words into peoples mouth or into the constitution? Brother, why attack ideologies of Muslims while being silent on kufr ideologies which have plagued the Muslim world for generations? You take no position on socialism? Or secularism? This telegraphs your inclinations. This is common flawed argument famous in the salafi camp. You presuppose without any basis that I don't oppose kufr. More importantly, my opposition or non opposition in no way leads to legality of innovating nonsensical ideologies onto Islam leading to takfir and killing and then turning 180 degree around when their own salafi supporter becomes guilty by the same innovated ideology. Its hypocrisy at its finest.
	Quote