The Khilafah, is it a choice or required

[jb_1430]

What is the Khilafah?
The Caliphate as is termed in English is central to islam and an absolute basic necessity.
1. What is Dar al-Islam?

Dar al-Islam is the land where Islamic Law is implemented in all matters of life and ruling and whose security is maintained in the name of Islam even if its citizens are non-Muslims.

2. What is Dar al-Kufr?

Dar al-Kufr is the land where Kufr laws are implemented in matters of life and whose security is maintained in the name of Kufr even if all its citizens are Muslims. This is because the criterion of a region being Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr are the laws that are implemented there, and the security by which it is protected, the criterion is not the religion of its citizens.

3. Which Muslim Countries today are Dar al-Islam?

Out of the Muslim countries of today, there is not a single country or state where Islamic laws are exclusively implemented in ruling and life's affairs; therefore all of them are considered Dar al-Kufr although their citizens are Muslims.

4. What is The Muslims Duty towards His Country?

Islam makes it a duty upon all Muslims to work to change their countries from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, and this can be achieved by establishing the Islamic State i.e. the Khilafah, and by electing a Khaleefah and taking a bay'ah on him that he will rule by the Word of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) i.e. he will implement Islamic laws in the country where the Khilafah has been established. Then the Muslims should work with the Khilafah to combine the rest of the Islamic countries with it, hence the countries will become Dar al-Islam and they will then carry Islam to the world through invitation and jihad.

5. What is the Khilafah

The Khilafah is the global leadership for all the Muslims in the world. Its role is to establish the laws of the Islamic Shari‘ah and to carry the da‘wah of Islam to the world.

http://www.risala.org/content/view/89/32/



"invitation and Jihad" Convert or DIE! Pretty much incompatible with individuality, liberty, freedom, democracy and everything we value in the US.

[9sublime]

"invitation and Jihad" Convert or DIE! Pretty much incompatible with individuality, liberty, freedom, democracy and everything we value in the US.

I think this is a prime example of your rather one sided view of the Muslim word. I have Muslim friends who don't ever try to convert me, and have no desire to convert me, and embrace liberty, freedom and democracy.

[Coyote]

"invitation and Jihad" Convert or DIE! Pretty much incompatible with individuality, liberty, freedom, democracy and everything we value in the US.

Nothing in any of the Abrahamic faiths are compatable with individuallity, liberty, freedom, or democracy.

[jb_1430]

I think this is a prime example of your rather one sided view of the Muslim word. I have Muslim friends who don't ever try to convert me, and have no desire to convert me, and embrace liberty, freedom and democracy.

Weeell, had I offered this as something representative of all Muslims, as opposed to something representative of Hizb ut Tahrir, you might of had a point. I didnt, you dont.
Here is something representative from the University of Michigan.


In accordance with Islam, it is the duty of the Muslims world wide to elect a Khalifah. Such an appointment is seen as a duty (fard) similar to all other duties within Islam. The duty is seen as inevitable, and any divergence from the path is considered a grave sin, and therefore any neglect of this duty will be punished accordingly. The establishment of a Khilafah is seen as vital, because without it Islam cannot possibly be applied.
....Khilafah is one of the most important issues in Islam, many
versus in Quran and many Hadiths of the Prophet ordered Muslims
to establish such a system. Ruling by Islam is the most frequent
issue discussed in Quran after the belief and creed. Therefore,
Khilafah was discussed by many Muslim scholars, the following are
the definition of some of them to Khilafah.

Ibn Khaldoon defined it as: A representation, of the one
who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at
protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.

Al-Mawirdi defined it as: Succession of the Prophethood
aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).
....The establishment of Khilafah is an Islamic duty. There is
a consensus between Muslim scholars about this issue as Al-
Qurtubi said in his Tafseer.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/Belief/Khilafah/one.html




[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=1320

[Coyote]

...and more out-of-context quotes.

[jb_1430]

Nothing in any of the Abrahamic faiths are compatable with individuallity, liberty, freedom, or democracy.

I would argue Christianity spawned liberty, freedom and democracy. Hijacked by the Holy roman empire but again flourished in the Protestant reformation and put into practice in the US.

[jb_1430]

...and more out-of-context quotes.

All the context you could ever want is at the links I provided.

[Dr.Who]

Weeell, had I offered this as something representative of all Muslims, as opposed to something representative of Hizb ut Tahrir, you might of had a point. I didnt, you dont.
Here is something representative from the University of Michigan.




[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=1320

This was a command given during a war. It is completely reasonable that during a war one would treat the enemy that way.

Find a verse that indicates this is how it should be for modern times.

[Dr.Who]

Nothing in any of the Abrahamic faiths are compatable with individuallity, liberty, freedom, or democracy.


This is just wrong.

[jb_1430]

This was a command given during a war. It is completely reasonable that during a war one would treat the enemy that way.

Find a verse that indicates this is how it should be for modern times.

Nothing in the verse indicates that it wouldnt apply today. And wars of conquest defined most of muhammad's writing career.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9sublime]

Once again though it depends on how much of their religious texts they choose to follow and how they choose to integrate it into their way of life.

[jb_1430]

Once again though it depends on how much of their religious texts they choose to follow and how they choose to integrate it into their way of life.

It is the Islamic F U N D A M E N T A L I S T who are currently of concern. The ones who adhere to the literal meaning of ALL the written doctrine of the Koran and Haddiths. You seem to point to the fact that all Muslims dont think alike, in response to most anything I have to say about Islam, as if it had any bearing on what I have said.


....The establishment of Khilafah is an Islamic duty. There is
a consensus between Muslim scholars about this issue as Al-
Qurtubi said in his Tafseer.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqma...lafah/one.html

[Coyote]

This is just wrong.

Not really. Think about it. Submission to authority divine and temperal. Submission to the word and justice of God. Authority and law do not come from man himself or from human societies. There is nothing to encourage and individual to think for himself - indeed, the opposite. Everything works towards submission to a non-elected authority. We are sheep with a shepherd.

[Coyote]

I would argue Christianity spawned liberty, freedom and democracy. Hijacked by the Holy roman empire but again flourished in the Protestant reformation and put into practice in the US.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but there is nothing in the Bible that in any way speaks of democracy.

[JavaBlack]

Muslims are the new Jews.
The arguments are pretty much the same when people attack the religion instead of the terror ideology we are really trying to fight.
People pull up historical and scriptural evidence to show the inevitability of evil within the religion and apply them to people living today, regardless of those people's true motivations and feelings.

One does not have to look hard in the OT to find that the Jews were only obligated to help themselves and had double standards even as far as genocide. For hundreds of years, conspiracy theorists and antisemites have used this info as a way to encourage the purging of Jews from populations and the misguided populist movements to divide countrymen.

Now the same BS is being used to villainize Muslims.

Our fight is with the radicals and tribals that want to destroy and control... We need the sane Muslims on our side. We need to stop lumping them altogether using the same crap people have used to attack the Jews for generations.

[jb_1430]

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but there is nothing in the Bible that in any way speaks of democracy.

Deuteronomy 1:13 Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you."

[Coyote]

Deuteronomy 1:13 Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you."

That's it?

Consider the following - against Democracy, where Jesus Christ will rule the earth as the "King of kings and Lord of lords"

"Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a Name inscribed which no one knows but Himself. He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the Name by which He is called is The Word of God . And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed Him on white horses . From His mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; He will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On His robe and on His thigh He has a Name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords" (Revelation 19:11-16 RSV)

[jb_1430]

Muslims are the new Jews.
The arguments are pretty much the same when people attack the religion instead of the terror ideology we are really trying to fight.
People pull up historical and scriptural evidence to show the inevitability of evil within the religion and apply them to people living today, regardless of those people's true motivations and feelings.



What politically correct bull shiite. The terror ideology is part of the religion. And Im not using the historical and scriptural evidence and applying it to the people of today. But instead have shown the Muslims today who are pulling up these scriptures and historical evidence to guide their actions today.



"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!"...
"Brothers and sisters, make no mistake. Make no mistake. The British government, the queen, the MPs in this country, they are enemies to you, enemies to Allah and enemies to the Muslims."...
Abu Saif is a member of the group Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation, which states its aim is to unify Muslims and establish the rule of Islamic law over the world.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503



This insistance that we not examine this doctrine that motivates this worldwide campaign of Islamic terrorism, to avoid offending the moderate muslims, only prolongs the moderates ability to avoid addressing the real issues within their religion.Allows them to continue to pretend the problem isnt there. Ensuring that Islam doesnt reform from within, but instead continues on as it has for 1400 years.

[jb_1430]

That's it?

Consider the following - against Democracy, where Jesus Christ will rule the earth as the "King of kings and Lord of lords"



One of many. I dont see how revelation's prophecies have any impact on the government to be applied today. If Jesus comes back, then you will have an arguement.

[Coyote]

One of many. I dont see how revelation's prophecies have any impact on the government to be applied today. If Jesus comes back, then you will have an arguement.

Here is an interesting article on democracy and Christianity:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/democracy/failure_of_democracy.htm

[JavaBlack]

What politically correct bull shiite. The terror ideology is part of the religion. And Im not using the historical and scriptural evidence and applying it to the people of today. But instead have shown the Muslims today who are pulling up these scriptures and historical evidence to guide their actions today.
You are taking what violent fundies do today, using history and scripture to back yourself up (completely unnecessary if today's info is enough), and applying it to ALL MUSLIMS. So if a Muslim speaks against violence... well I don't know... Are you the "It's not enough" type or the "they have to lie to infidels" type? Either way I've met your type before. The obsession with scripture leads me to guess you are the second type.



This insistance that we not examine this doctrine that motivates this worldwide campaign of Islamic terrorism, to avoid offending the moderate muslims, only prolongs the moderates ability to avoid addressing the real issues within their religion.Allows them to continue to pretend the problem isnt there. Ensuring that Islam doesnt reform from within, but instead continues on as it has for 1400 years.

Muslims will reform from within when they feel like it. All your blabbering does is encourage them NOT to by throwing them in the same bundle as the enemy. Islamophobes do not accept any reform nor any moderate stance as legitimate, but simply as cover-ups for extremism.
You claim that the evil is inherent to the scripture WHICH MAKES REFORM IMPOSSIBLE.
Setting impossible criteria does not incite change.
Reality is what reforms religion ultimately, not the encouragement of division by self-ordained theocrats of religions they don't even belong to. Reform will come when Muslims reinterpret their own texts, not when you attempt to point out how they are unambiguously evil.
There's no problem with analyzing a religion or scriptures... but when you use your analysis in a way that simply increases division along religious lines, do not decieve yourself into thinking you are helping along reform.

[jb_1430]

Here is an interesting article on democracy and Christianity:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/democracy/failure_of_democracy.htm


Seems like quite a stretch to interpret "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" as describing a Democracy. More like anarchy and lawlessness.

[Coyote]

Seems like quite a stretch to interpret "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" as describing a Democracy. More like anarchy and lawlessness.

Less of a stretch then your one thin line.

[jb_1430]

Less of a stretch then your one thin line.

Ohh Im not saying Christianity created democracy. Just that it was a framework from which Democracy could be created.


I Peter 2:
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: .....16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=2&version=31



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

[jb_1430]

You are taking what violent fundies do today, using history and scripture to back yourself up (completely unnecessary if today's info is enough), and applying it to ALL MUSLIMS.

And you are delusional. YOU merely interpret any criticism of their doctrine as criticism of "ALL MUSLIMS". Perhaps, more of a reflection of your inability to separate the doctrine, from those who claim to be followers.

[Coyote]

And you are delusional. YOU merely interpret any criticism of their doctrine as criticism of "ALL MUSLIMS". Perhaps, more of a reflection of your inability to separate the doctrine, from those who claim to be followers.

You ARE critisizing all muslims because you imply their doctrine is fundamentally flawed and not open to interpretation.

[Coyote]

Ohh Im not saying Christianity created democracy. Just that it was a framework from which Democracy could be created.

That is just as big a stretch considering there is much more in the bible that goes against democracy then one line that allows them to choose their own leader.

Oddly enough....there are those that think Islam contains the framework from which Democracy could be created...


Most people would be shocked if they were told that the Quran supports the eight principles of western democracy as outlined in Today’s Ism’s by William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman. Yet that is the thesis of this paper. What currently passes for Islam as practiced by the majority of Muslims is a form of religious dogma in contradiction to the teachings of the Quran.....http://www.submission.org/democracy.html

[jb_1430]

You ARE critisizing all muslims because you imply their doctrine is fundamentally flawed and not open to interpretation.

So there you have it. In your world their doctrine is immune from criticism. No flaws can be identified because we might offend the Muslims.
Sooo are you concerned with hurting their feelings, or are you concerned they might all go jihad on our a s s ?

[JavaBlack]

You ARE critisizing all muslims because you imply their doctrine is fundamentally flawed and not open to interpretation.
Coyote summarized my response in fewer words than I would have used.

jb, how can you expect reform when you are claiming that the basis of the religion is inherently corrupt and you will not accept any reinterpretation of it... despite the fact that many Muslims have offered them?
You expect nothing less than a total denouncement of scriptures and of the Muhammed figure rather than a reinterpretation... This is not reform. This is destruction of the religion... And if that is your goal, why should any Muslim listen to you?
You do more harm than good when you deny the sincerity of Muslims that try to interpret Islam as a religion of peace. These are the Muslims that should be encouraged. They are the ones who can reform Islam... not you and not me.

[Coyote]

So there you have it. In your world their doctrine is immune from criticism. No flaws can be identified because we might offend the Muslims.
Sooo are you concerned with hurting their feelings, or are you concerned they might all go jihad on our a s s ?

Where did I say that?

[jb_1430]

How about you read my words instead of pondering the meaning of the blank space between the lines. Most of what you attribute to me, below, is a product of your own imagination.
Sounds like you recognize the need for reform but dont like me pointing that fact out. You want us to congratulate the moderates for not blowing us up, instead of criiticizing those who do. Odd.



Coyote summarized my response in fewer words than I would have used.

jb, how can you expect reform when you are claiming that the basis of the religion is inherently corrupt and you will not accept any reinterpretation of it... despite the fact that many Muslims have offered them?
You expect nothing less than a total denouncement of scriptures and of the Muhammed figure rather than a reinterpretation... This is not reform. This is destruction of the religion... And if that is your goal, why should any Muslim listen to you?
You do more harm than good when you deny the sincerity of Muslims that try to interpret Islam as a religion of peace. These are the Muslims that should be encouraged. They are the ones who can reform Islam... not you and not me.

[jb_1430]

Oddly enough....there are those that think Islam contains the framework from which Democracy could be created...



And some who do not.

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi-
It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:NhvLBDn02mkJ:www.streetdawah.com/books/DEMOCRACY-%2520%2520A%2520RELIGION.pdf+%22democracy:+a+relig ion%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

[9sublime]

Man would have come accross democracy without religion, and a truely secular democracy would be better anyway.

[Coyote]

And some who do not.

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi-
It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:NhvLBDn02mkJ:www.streetdawah.com/books/DEMOCRACY-%2520%2520A%2520RELIGION.pdf+%22democracy:+a+relig ion%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Basically, all this proves is neither the Bible nor the Quran legitimately promote democracy in any valid way. As I said, none of the Abrahamic faiths, taken literaly - set the stage for a democracy.

[jb_1430]

Basically, all this proves is neither the Bible nor the Quran legitimately promote democracy in any valid way. As I said, none of the Abrahamic faiths, taken literaly - set the stage for a democracy.

History would seem to indicate otherwise.

[Coyote]

History would seem to indicate otherwise.


Not really. The great democracies of past and present have not been based in Christianity but rather in secular ideals and/or the ideals of the Enlightenment. The great Christian empires have been monarchies.

It's the ability to take religion OUT of government and law that allows democracy to flourish. Christians may have a line saying "render unto ceasar" yada yada yada but they don't really believe that means a secular government and they don't really feel that means the Bible isn't law. That is evident in history and in the current actions of the so-called Christian Right.

[mustardayonnaise]

Ohh Im not saying Christianity created democracy. Just that it was a framework from which Democracy could be created.

Funny, when the Greeks had a functioning democracy 500 years before Jesus was even born.

[jb_1430]

??? you seem to equate secularism with Democracy


Not really. The great democracies of past and present have not been based in Christianity but rather in secular ideals and/or the ideals of the Enlightenment. The great Christian empires have been monarchies.

It's the ability to take religion OUT of government and law that allows democracy to flourish. Christians may have a line saying "render unto ceasar" yada yada yada but they don't really believe that means a secular government and they don't really feel that means the Bible isn't law. That is evident in history and in the current actions of the so-called Christian Right.

[jb_1430]

??? you seem to equate secularism with Democracy

In an 1829 letter to James Madison, Noah Webster declared: “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government....and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253, emp. added). The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, maintained; “Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation” (1893, 4:52, emp. added). George Washington proclaimed to the entire nation in his farewell address that religion and morality are the indispensable supports of political prosperity, the great pillars of human happiness, and a necessary spring of popular government (1796).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/308





Not really. The great democracies of past and present have not been based in Christianity but rather in secular ideals and/or the ideals of the Enlightenment. The great Christian empires have been monarchies.

It's the ability to take religion OUT of government and law that allows democracy to flourish. Christians may have a line saying "render unto ceasar" yada yada yada but they don't really believe that means a secular government and they don't really feel that means the Bible isn't law. That is evident in history and in the current actions of the so-called Christian Right.

[JavaBlack]

Sounds like you recognize the need for reform but dont like me pointing that fact out. You want us to congratulate the moderates for not blowing us up, instead of criiticizing those who do. Odd.
The two are not mutually exclusive... In fact in order for the latter to work, the former must be included.
Rhetoric has a lot of importance, especially when covering issues of culture and religion. It is extremely important to box our enemies into as small a box as possible so that others will be our allies or at least stay out of it.
Attacking the religion itself does not accomplish this.
In order to bring change, you must propose an alternative that is acceptable to the masses, has support from some leaders of the masses, and that can conceivably work. Without alternatives, we cannot expect the status quo to change. And if we create alternatives that are not acceptable to the people who must live under them, we are making more enemies.

So in short, yes, we do need to praise and support the people who don't blow us up... otherwise our criticism of those who do accomplishes nothing.
Standing against something is pointless if you stand for nothing (or nothing feasible).

[Coyote]

??? you seem to equate secularism with Democracy

Indeed, and a bunch of out of context quotes (some of which do not even have a direct bearing on democracy) doesn't change that - all they do is express the religous opinions of some of the nations founders. I can throw up a handful of quotes that say the opposite and have just as little meaning by themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not think there are any examples historically or modern, of a democracy based upon religious values and religious law. Even Israel is secular in it's courts and legal system.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

[JavaBlack]

In order to be stabilized a democracy must have ways for the minority to address the government and be heard (it's even more devestating when a very large group is illegitimized as in many Middle Eastern countries). Otherwise they have no course but to resort to violence. It's basically the same reason a democracy needs a middle class. Moderation is necessary for a stable democracy... and compromise.
But of course our nation didn't start out that way. Thankfully we had a system and liberal culture that allowed us to address these problems without a full-out revoultion (except perhaps the issue of states seceding).
But that basically comes out to say that even a religious democracy must be de facto secular.
The Shariah Law of Indonesis is likely to be ditched for the segregation it is given time. Muslims there lack the rights that non-Muslims have... and sooner or later they'll notice and call for change.
Pakistan has already done much to get rid of these laws (by a dictator, true, but one with popular support at the time) and Turkey finds them laughable. Even the religious party of Turkey finds it ridiculous (but this did not stop the Turkish military from overreacting to their last election).
Two of the largest and most religious democracies on the planet have secular governments. In the US case it is due to liberal culture. In India it is due to diversity in religion and support for secularism in the popular Gandhian philosophy. The BJP (Hindu nationalists) won only one election over the entire history of India... The secular Congress Party dominates.

So a nation mustn't necessarily be secular to be a democracy... ut it will be secular in the long run.

[jb_1430]

Well I guess, had I argued that Democracy was "based upon religious values and religious law" you would of had a point. Christianity doesnt dictate a theocracy as the proper form of government. Quite the opposite.



Indeed, and a bunch of out of context quotes (some of which do not even have a direct bearing on democracy) doesn't change that - all they do is express the religous opinions of some of the nations founders. I can throw up a handful of quotes that say the opposite and have just as little meaning by themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not think there are any examples historically or modern, of a democracy based upon religious values and religious law. Even Israel is secular in it's courts and legal system.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

[Coyote]

Well I guess, had I argued that Democracy was "based upon religious values and religious law" you would of had a point. Christianity doesnt dictate a theocracy as the proper form of government. Quite the opposite.

There is nothing in Christianity that dictates a democracy.

[jb_1430]

There is nothing in Christianity that dictates a democracy.


Well I guess, had I argued that Christianity dictates a democracy, you would of had a point.

[Coyote]

Well I guess, had I argued that Christianity dictates a democracy, you would of had a point.

Your statement: "... doesnt dictate a theocracy as the proper form of government. Quite the opposite." implies such.\

Did you have a different implication in mind?

References to relationships among people and people, people and god in the bible are heirarchical, unquestionable, hardly democratic.

[jb_1430]

Your statement: "... doesnt dictate a theocracy as the proper form of government. Quite the opposite." implies such.\

Did you have a different implication in mind?



Democracy is not the absence of theocracy.

[jb_1430]

It is extremely important to box our enemies into as small a box as possible so that others will be our allies or at least stay out of it.
Attacking the religion itself does not accomplish this.
In order to bring change, you must propose an alternative that is acceptable to the masses, has support from some leaders of the masses, and that can conceivably work. Without alternatives, we cannot expect the status quo to change. And if we create alternatives that are not acceptable to the people who must live under them, we are making more enemies.


Support for suicide bombings against civilians has fallen sharply across the Muslim world since 2002, a major survey has suggested.

In Lebanon, Bangladesh, Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, the proportion of Muslims who support suicide bombing has declined by half or more since 2002.

There is also declining support among Muslims for Osama Bin Laden. In Jordan, just 20% express a lot or some confidence in Bin Laden, down from 56% four years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6914959.stm


I suspect, had we complied with every demand in Al Qaeda's 1998 fatwa, following 9/11, support for terrorism and Bin laden would have doubled, as opposed to being cut in half over the last 5 years. Maybe, when dealing with people who wish you dead, Machiavelli was right. It is better to be feared than loved.

[Coyote]

Support for suicide bombings against civilians has fallen sharply across the Muslim world since 2002, a major survey has suggested.

In Lebanon, Bangladesh, Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, the proportion of Muslims who support suicide bombing has declined by half or more since 2002.

There is also declining support among Muslims for Osama Bin Laden. In Jordan, just 20% express a lot or some confidence in Bin Laden, down from 56% four years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6914959.stm


I suspect, had we complied with every demand in Al Qaeda's 1998 fatwa, following 9/11, support for terrorism and Bin laden would have doubled, as opposed to being cut in half over the last 5 years. Maybe, when dealing with people who wish you dead, Machiavelli was right. It is better to be feared than loved.

You are assuming that support rises and falls with America's actions. It might just be that muslims are sick of violence and bloodshed and terrorism and that they are seeing the truth of what these terrorists are really doing to their religion. Considering that it has increased horrendously in Afghanistan and Iraq...I would say our policy makes little difference.

[Dr.Who]

Basically, all this proves is neither the Bible nor the Quran legitimately promote democracy in any valid way. As I said, none of the Abrahamic faiths, taken literaly - set the stage for a democracy.

I think our founding fathers took a lot of ideas from the bible when they created our democracy but any government could have done so. The Bible could be applicable in any government system and does not promote any one to the best of my knowledge.

For example Jesus clearly expects that people will give to the poor voluntarily but if they choose to live communally there would be nothing un-Biblical about that.

[Coyote]

I think our founding fathers took a lot of ideas from the bible when they created our democracy but any government could have done so. The Bible could be applicable in any government system and does not promote any one to the best of my knowledge.

For example Jesus clearly expects that people will give to the poor voluntarily but if they choose to live communally there would be nothing un-Biblical about that.

Actually, the founding father's took nothing from the bible - most of their ideas came from studying the Greeks, for example, as well as the great thinkers and ideas from the Enlightenment.

[jb_1430]

Actually, the founding father's took nothing from the bible - most of their ideas came from studying the Greeks, for example, as well as the great thinkers and ideas from the Enlightenment.

Ever read Locke's 'Reasonableness of Christianity'?

[Dr.Who]

Actually, the founding father's took nothing from the bible - most of their ideas came from studying the Greeks, for example, as well as the great thinkers and ideas from the Enlightenment.


Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive.

http://www.therefinersfire.org/more_evil_bible.htm

"Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted.

Here is what he actually said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

The following year, 1776, he wrote this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator ".

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role.

It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1320483/posts

All one has to do to see the influence of the Bible on our founding documents is to count the number of times that God is referenced in them and remember that it is none other than the Christian God that is being referenced.

E.G. "The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that mankind is created and that the Creator God bestows the rights. That means, that no man can take them away, and that government, instituted by God, is to protect those rights. By implication, government cannot deprive a person of those rights absent due process of law. Thus, God gave mankind free will, and a function of government is to protect the electorates exercise of free will. That is a Christian concept."

"Benjamin Franklin, considered a deist by many, said, "He who shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world." And Thomas Jefferson, also considered a deist, said, "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." Jefferson is even quoted as having said, "I am a Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

George Washington, the father of our nation said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

James Madison, the fourth president and the Father of the Constitution said,

The future and success of America is not in this Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."



http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage19.html

These are the very same men who believed in a separation of church and state, I.e. the state should not mess with the church and there should be no state established church. But just because the state was not to establish a church did not mean it could not promote religiosity.

Things have changed a lot since then. A stricter separation is not all bad.

[jb_1430]

..............

These findings are from surveys in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia...
On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503



Support was particularly strong in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt, where
approximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents stated that the Shari'a must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be “one of the sources of legislation”
http://www.css-jordan.org/new/REVISITINGTTHEARABSTREETReport.pdf



"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!"...
"Democracy, hypocrisy," Choudary chanted as the crowd echoed him. "Tony Blair, terrorist! Tony Blair, murderer! Queen Elizabeth, go to hell!"...
"Brothers and sisters, make no mistake. Make no mistake. The British government, the queen, the MPs in this country, they are enemies to you, enemies to Allah and enemies to the Muslims."...
"Of course," he replied, "we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503