Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you want to debate or no? You asked me what I wanted to debate as a subject and I have given you one. If you don't want to, thats fine too. We will call islam is not suitable to UDHR and that will be that.
In exchange, you can claim it is "democratic" as long as you like...
For the curious crowd; so you have UDHR, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", first put together in the west for all the countries to get together in a general understanding of the world. And it may or may not be shared by the others on this rock. But none of them, not even the infamous communists, except of course muslims, came up with an alternative to that, with an opposite understanding, which is named "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam".
All those regimes and ideas you have seen as dangerous till to this point, they all knew, even if they did not obey, these rules somewhat had a ground, but of course except islam.
Islam was the only one that was "opposing" it with an "opposite" idea. They claimed UDHR being "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition"; meaning, it was not islam enough, because it was promoting freedom for speech, for expression, for woman, for sex, for alcohol..., for anything you were planned to let the enjoyment of, that were already banned in the holy book koran. That is enough reason for the islamic countries to reject that all together and come up with the opposite.
Don't be fooled people, islam is the opposite of what you are standing for and it will always be. Either you will tolerate it, if not, should somehow teach it to tolerate you.
You were the one who chose Islam and Democracy. You said you were comfortable with it as a subject and we were both agreed on it. Do you no longer have confidence in your ability to prove your argument?
Do you no longer think that Islam is incompatible with Democracy?
How fucked up is that.
Yes, bingo, I don't. I think islam is "very" compatible to the democracy now. Changed my mind. Islam is compatible to the democracy just like how aids is compatible to the human body, with its key/lock structure.
So, I don't have any problem you declaring islam compatible with democracy after all, since you can make anything considered a "democracy" by terminology, just like any good islamist can.
On the other hand, UDHR is very definitive. You either somehow have a sense of it, or not.
This is your question. And you got your answer.
I suggest you don't cry no more so we can either start a debate or you can just shut the hell up, because we are far out of the scope of this thread here...
Yes, bingo, I don't. I think islam is "very" compatible to the democracy now. Changed my mind. Islam is compatible to the democracy just like how aids is compatible to the human body, with its key/lock structure.
So, I don't have any problem you declaring islam compatible with democracy after all, since you can make anything considered a "democracy" by terminology, just like any good islamist can.
Not sure what prompted this rant. You look up the definition of Democracy or something?
I would argue Islam is compatible with liberal democracy as well.
Is there a certain way you would like to define it for the purposes of discussion?
On the other hand, UDHR is very definitive. You either somehow have a sense of it, or not.
It's also 30 articles long, part of a HUGE overarching international legal system, and is a question of international law more so than philosophy. It is much more divided and flexible in its interpretations than "democracy" could ever be.
For example, Saudi Arabia is a signatory of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Saudi Arabia. If we were actually looking at women's rights, I'd place the country near the bottom, and yet it works within the international legal framework of international guiding principles (or claims to).
This is your question. And you got your answer.
Lol I'll remind you of your backtracking the next time you assert Islam is incompatible with democracy.
I suggest you don't cry no more so we can either start a debate or you can just shut the hell up, because we are far out of the scope of this thread here...
I don't mind discussing the UDHR, but I would rather debate only one or two amendments. You have a preference?
One problem with debating human rights, is that you aren't familiar at all with humanitarian and human rights legal procedures and institutions. I attended a law school for several years for international law and I can assure you that it would be a highly convoluted debate. But whatever floats your boat I guess.
I also don't understand why you can't just argue against Islam based on your own interpretation of Democracy and/or what Democracy should be?
How about starting from the 1st article and see if you can hold islam against my arguments. That should be pretty simple, no?
If we conclude that and both sides want to move further, we can get to the 2nd.
How about starting from the 1st article and see if you can hold islam against my arguments. That should be pretty simple, no?
If we conclude that and both sides want to move further, we can get to the 2nd.
The problem here is that we have shifted the fundamental nature of the supposed discussion. No Arbahamic faith adheres strictly to the UDHR because they hold strictly to something else: Theology. They are two different ideological sets. That doesn't mean they can't coexist though within the same society, it is merely a matter of personal beliefs of the masses vs. state assurances and institutions through a constitution. All democracies (decent ones) need such protections though.
As a side note we don't adhere to it either as the US, not even article one (otherwise we wouldn't have the issue of lack of homosexual marriage / union).
In short, I'm not sure what good the discussion would do, because it doesn't really have anything to do with what we have been talking about across the three recent threads.
Of course it does. Islam is not democratic because it contradicts to the fundamental rights of human beings.
If you want to debate it is otherwise, be my guest. If not, i think everybody got enough of all our debate so far.
Of course it does. Islam is not democratic because it contradicts to the fundamental rights of human beings.
If you want to debate it is otherwise, be my guest. If not, i think everybody got enough of all our debate so far.
I find it ironic that you claim to be confident of Islam's incompatibility with democracy at the same time as you are actively backing out of a formal debate over that exact topic. But either way you don't really seem interested in talking about it anymore for whatever reason, so i guess we're done here.
The ironic part is you not being able to defend a religion that you find democratic against "fundamental" human rights, which any democracy should automatically qualify for.
For example, can you claim any religion that is promoting slavery, be democratic at the same time?
To me; no.
To you; technically yes.
The ironic part is you not being able to defend a religion that you find democratic against "fundamental" human rights, which any democracy should automatically qualify for.
For example, can you claim any religion that is promoting slavery, be democratic at the same time?
To me; no.
To you; technically yes.
Christianity has supported the institution of slavery and yet Christian populations living within the United States, Europe, and all around the world are compatible with societies and governments that ban the practice.
So no, not incompatible at all with free societies, nor is Islam.
Do you have any account of christian god promoting slavery, without any dispute?
Christians themselves might have been promoting slavery, but show me their god himself promoting it. Show me the words of the christian god talking about slavery, can you?
I would bet $20(dont want to take all your money) right now that you can NOT.
Do you have any account of christian god promoting slavery, without any dispute?
The Torah codifies rules of slavery in with its legal base and Moses who was a prophet of the judeo-Christian faith base acting as God's messenger promoted the institution of slavery against enemies during his military campaigns (particularly the taking of women as wives).
Christians themselves might have been promoting slavery, but show me their god himself promoting it. Show me the words of the christian god talking about slavery, can you?
Many Christians would call the entire Bible God's word.
I would bet $20(dont want to take all your money) right now that you can NOT.
Monetary bets of any kind are not allowed on this forum. Intense already informed us of that earlier in this very thread. apparently mine aren't the only posts that you don't read.
The reason there is protestant religion is because christianity is a interpretation itself, so you can interpret accordingly.
The reason islam can not keep up with civilization is because it is considered to be the words of god, talking to muslims, from heavens.
This is a fact and i would not be debating otherwise if i were you.
Any christian will debate you if you tell them their religion is promoting slavery.
There is no muslim on this planet that would do the same for his religion while his god has very well documented past full of references to slavery. There is no dispute there.
A muslim can not come up with any explanation to this situation, while a christian can easily claim "they interpreted wrong".
The reason there is protestant religion is because christianity is a interpretation itself, so you can interpret accordingly.
That's fine, there are different branches of Islam too.
The reason islam can not keep up with civilization is because it is considered to be the words of god, talking to muslims, from heavens.
Many Christians would consider the bible to be God's word as well. that's actually pretty important in the area of scriptural Christianity.
Reviving your "no true Scotsman" fallacy for Christians now eh?
Depends on the time. No a-days, slavery has generally been recognized as not desirable all over the world, but as someone quite familiar with African history i am also quite familiar with the use of Christian theology in the justification of the trans-atlantic slave trade and with the development of social settings such as Apartheid in South Africa (originally lobbied for by the South African Christian church).
Even the writer of the world famous song "Amazing Grace' was himself a slave ship captain and still held assets within the slave trade when he wrote that song.
There is a wide variety of Christians and their views have changed quite a bit over the years, but the Bible does allow for slavery, or at least recognizes its institution within society and even shows prophets utilizing it (Moses).
There is no muslim on this planet that would do the same for his religion while his god has very well documented past full of references to slavery. There is no dispute there.
The Quran actually tends to be more liberal with the institution of slavery than the Bible does. Muslims are even encouraged to free slaves, and it was a popular practice for Muhammad to buy slaves and then free them.
Neither religions are particularly pro-slavery, both have allowed it as permissible within society, but neither mandate it as a religious obligation.
A muslim can not come up with any explanation to this situation, while a christian can easily claim "they interpreted wrong".
This statement rather ignores the entire history of Islamic religious evolution, and the fact that slavery is outlawed in many Islamic societies.
The soldiers targeted were patrolling on foot, ensuring the safety of teachers along a rural road at Ban Sanambin in Tambon Bang Lang of Bannang Sata when the roadside bomb exploded. Teachers are the target of these devout Muslims -- "Western education is sinful."
You two can argue all you wish. It won't do one thing to overcome THE FACTS presented!
The articles come with links that it is almost impossible to ignore. The bottom line is simple - compare the FACTS of Islamic attacks and deaths - not including injuries - to those of non-Islamic groups.
Ramadan Bomb-a-thon: Jihadists plant two bombs in Thailand's deep south
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Read more @ Ramadan Bomb-a-thon: Jihadists plant two bombs in Thailand's deep south - Atlas Shrugs
Show me a record that tells us Moses did own slaves. An undisputed one.
You think here I am defending christianity or judaism???
That is true you are trying to defend islam, but lets look at how, by showing us how christianity was pro slavery also.
So you accept the fact that islam is "pro" slavery
the prophet of islam was buying and selling slaves from left and right and he was freeing some when he did feel like it that day, and we should think highly about this situation?
You can not find any undisputed records about any religion existed from the beginning of time that has any undisputed promotion of slavery in it, except islam.
The prophet of islam was a slave owner which some were sex slaves. And you can not change this fact, because it is very well documented fact.
If islam did not have a book like koran, it might have been a different story.
Show me a record that tells us Moses did own slaves. An undisputed one.
The Bible? Mosaic law allows the women of captured peoples to be used for the purpose of forced marriage (sexual slavery) for Israelites. Moses himself commanded his men to do this (when he wasn't commanding his troops to simply slaughter the women and children that is).
You think here I am defending christianity or judaism???
No, I am merely drawing religious analogies, and showing that societies of many faiths that have religious texts that acknowledge the insitution of slavery currently live within and support societies that also ban the practice.
Just because slavery pops up in a holy book doesn't mean that all members of that faith support its institution or are going to practice it.
I don't think Christianity is that pro-slavery, and neither is Islam.
No. Islam and Christianity merely more so recognize its existence as an institution. If anything Islam encourages the freeing of slaves, not the keeping of them.
He didn't sell them, he freed them. He obtained them from others and set them free. It was a popular custom among the umma and also generally helped increase the number of faithful Muslims.
And yet you haven't posted a single Sura or verse from the Quran to support your argument, nor have you addressed the fact that it is banned in many Islamic countries.
Why is that?
The prophet of islam was a slave owner which some were sex slaves. And you can not change this fact, because it is very well documented fact.
I'd be happy to discuss any "documentation" that you have of this with you.
If islam did not have a book like koran, it might have been a different story.
And yet you haven't used Quranic passages at all in your assertions. Telling.
So you claim to know about koran and not know the passages regarding slavery?
You don't just need the knowledge of koran but how it came to be, for any good analysis you can make out of this region.
In this case; if you are an analyst as you claim to be one, seems to me like you are trying to get out of the lock, not so different from what islam is trying to do. See yourself the best, the purest and always the rightest.
If you really don't know the verses tho, I could bring them together for you if you liked,
