Active Theocrats: The New Apostolic Reformation and The Seven Mountain Domionists

reply to post by wildtimes

next question, will you support SHARIA IF, it will give everything that you wish for humanity?

It won't, so that would be another "No."

it can and thats the reason muslims want it for themselves and i am happy that you atleast agree that they can implement it in majority countries.

I'll say with reservations, that I'd maybe support your guy Umar's (what
is "r.a") philosophy, but I will not
support Sharia or become a Muslim.
Ever.

Umar(Rehmatullahi Allai)(r.a=may God have mercy on him) was following SHARIA to the letter.
Here's a story about him

One night, when Umar Bin Al Khattab
was on his usual rounds in Madina, he
saw a woman busy cooking
something while her children cried
continuously. Feeling pity for them,
Umar asked why they were crying and the woman sadly told him that she had
no food in the house and that there
was only water in the pot on the fire.
She was pretending to cook
something until the children fell
asleep. Umar was shocked by the misery he witnessed and thought,
being the Caliph, he was responsible
for this tragedy..
Umar immediately hurried away with
his servant to the state storehouse and
came back carrying flour, butter,
dates, clothes and money. He had
even refused to let his servant carry
anything saying that he was responsible for the welfare of his
people and that his servant would not
be there on the Day of Judgment to
carry his sins.
Umar reached the woman's house
and started cooking the food himself.
After every one had eaten, Umar
started playing with the little kids and
crawling around them as if he was a
horse making them laugh and giggle. And he said "I saw them crying and I
hated to leave them until I saw them
laugh." The woman replied: "May Allah bless
you. You are better than Umar Bin Al
Khattab himself." So he said: "And how is Umar
supposed to know about you?" She said: "He takes our welfare onto
his shoulders (she is referring to him
accepting the position of being Caliph)
and forgets about us"

I support The Golden Rule only.
"Revenge" for insults or injury
(whether real or imagined) is never
okay, it damages the soul.
I support Ghandi's method.
And pony unicorns for every kid.

we agree at least about ponies

Quran allows justified revenge/punishment but says Patience and forgiveness is better. (not all people are same wildtimes)

Sharia is based on the Golden rule.

Ask the inmates of any prison charged for robbery if they prefer prison time or lose a hand and be with family to watch their kids grow.
Ask a rapist what would he prefer to do to a man who raped his sister/daughter.
(just a curious asignment for you ask your husband what would he prefer if someone did that to his wife/daughter)

Gandhian method din't even work for India, the british left mainly due to WWII and because USA was against colonisations.

reply to post by logical7

(just a curious asignment for you ask your husband what would he prefer if someone did that to his wife/daughter)

I already know what he'd prefer, and what he'd do. And he's not participating in this discussion. He is totally disinterested in religion.

I want you to know that earlier I was looking up "jihad" and even tried to find the "Quran" online to read. All of the websites were just downloads filled with ads, though.

I'm fine with the "Greater Jihad" of purifying one's inner thoughts to align with 'righteousness.' It's the "lesser jihad" and its VERY REAL followers who see it as justifying violence that I object to.

My daughter lives in Boston. She happened to be out of the country when the April 15 bombings occurred. Had she not been, she might very well have been a spectator at the marathon. Yesterday I read that those young men had originally planned to carry out the attack on July 4 - which is our National Independence Day, and a HUGE deal, especially in Boston. My mother is going to Boston for July 4th, to see my daughter and spend some time at the festivities there.

When I read that their plan was "implemented early" from July 4, because the bombs they made were done sooner than expected - my blood went cold.
Now....what happened to those young men? I initially reacted with thinking - "Well, likely it's paybacks (revenge) for the atrocities of war that the USA and NATO have imposed on other countries' innocent people." All the more reason to STOP WARS.

Stop the violence, and no "revenge" is necessary. Stop the oppression, and likewise, no one feels the need to "fight back."

reply to post by logical7

Gandhian method din't even work for India

That doesn't mean he was wrong.

reply to post by logical7


You didn't answer my question.
Who do you believe is responsible for the devastation of 9/11? I mean the act itself, not the "philosophical reasons" it might have been based on, or centuries old hatred for others, or to stir up the people.

reply to post by wildtimes

I already know what he'd prefer, and what he'd do. And he's not participating in this discussion.

and what would that be? Maybe i can already guess, your way of reply said it all

I want you to know that earlier I was
looking up "jihad" and even tried to
find the "Quran" online to read. All of
the websites were just downloads
filled with ads, though.

i appreciate it.
Maybe you can check this site.
www.tafheem.net...

I'm fine with the "Greater Jihad" of
purifying one's inner thoughts to align
with 'righteousness.' It's the "lesser
jihad" and its VERY REAL followers
who see it as justifying violence that I
object to.

I agree with you, and i'l tell you that every war that muslims fight is not jihad. Its misuse of the religion.
Greater jihad is much more required by everyone.
What i want you to agree to is that sometimes the lesser jihad becomes inevitable.
For example if you know that some mafia are trafficking children, will you support an armed rescue mission?

The difference in islam is everything in life has been detailed and so can be consider religious and even going to that rescue mission is jihad.

Stop the violence, and no "revenge" is
necessary. Stop the oppression, and
likewise, no one feels the need to
"fight back."

what happened in Boston is not "fight back" its a sin!!
I would not even justify that!
"fight back" should be against the people doing it not against innocents.
I do agree with you that just stop the oppression and no "revenge" after it.
But what if the oppressor is not stopping? Will you then be ok to use force to stop it?

reply to post by logical7

I agree with you, and i'l tell you that every war that muslims fight is not jihad. Its misuse of the religion.

And -- since misuse of religion is very obviously a clear and present danger, religion does NOT stop immorality.

Please answer my question about who you believe carried out the 9/11 attack.

But what if the oppressor is not stopping? Will you then be ok to use force to stop it?

No. Two "wrongs" do not make a "right."

What i want you to agree to is that sometimes the lesser jihad becomes inevitable.

If it involves force and violence, NO. I won't agree to it. The only moral way to fight oppression is with refusal to do what the oppressor is demanding via civil, peaceful disobedience and speaking out against the oppressors.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

Gandhian method din't even work for India

That doesn't mean he was wrong.

he wasn't wrong, his ideals were just ineffective.

If you want to change things to better, you need effective practical solutions, not idealistic theory.

Giving the other cheek is one of the many lessons in life to learn restrain and humility. It not the whole philosophy of life.

reply to post by logical7

If you want to change things to better, you need effective practical solutions

Like mutual agreement to STOP WARS with each other.
You are too young to remember the "Cold War" - I'm not. I remember "duck and cover" drills at school, and the huge sirens that were put up to warn of incoming air raids. My mother remembers having to wear dog-tags, and rotating black-outs during WW2.

Eventually, Russia and the USA agreed that they woudn't bomb each other. THAT is effective and practical as a solution.

We need to STOP SENDING OUR YOUTHS to WAR!! We need to learn to make do with what we have, and if we don't have adequate infrastructure to not need unavailable (other people's) resources, we need to start FINDING OTHER solutions and change the infrastructure to reflect what we DO HAVE available. Like alternative, sustainable energy sources. Oil is on its way out. My daughter is a scientist working on alternative fuel cells. ... she is working on practical solutions.

I have two more questions - 1) would you ever consider coming to the USA to live? Most "regular" Muslims in the USA seem to be pretty tolerant and moderate. And they're NOT getting blown to bits by other Muslims.
Yet.
and
2) If you were here, what would you do about those young men who killed and maimed those people in Boston?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

You didn't answer my question.
Who do you believe is responsible for the devastation of 9/11? I mean the act itself, not the "philosophical reasons" it might have been based on, or centuries old hatred for others, or to stir up the people.

9/11 and 7/7 were both inside jobs.
I believe the governments did them maybe even the saudi government was involved in 9/11.
Did you knew that the police had caught few israelis celebrating near the twin towers on 9/11 and they were deported to israel.
Do you know that the taliban government was ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to a netural country for a fair trial? And USA refused.

reply to post by logical7


But WHO flew those planes into those buildings, killing themselves and all those other 3,000 people?

P.S. "Guessing" what my husband would prefer or do is a mistake. People "guessing" what others think is a problem.
That's the reason that I continue talking to you, instead of just "guessing" at how I "perceive you to be".

Do you know that the taliban government was ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to a netural country for a fair trial? And USA refused.

No I don't know that. Reliable source, please.
And what makes you believe it was an inside job? This site? Sources and proof, please.

reply to post by wildtimes

If it involves force and violence, NO. I won't agree to it. The only moral way to fight oppression is with refusal to do what the oppressor is demanding via civil, peaceful disobedience and speaking out against the oppressors.

so if a thief enters your house with a gun, you'l disobey him and tell him what a bad man he is and not shoot him if you manage to get a hand on your gun.

I don't know what you think oppression is, i am talking about bombers dropping bombs, you agree that they can be shot down? I am talking about violent oppression, soldiers killing people, tanks blasting 'suspected' houses. You agree to use similar force to kick them out?

reply to post by logical7

so if a thief enters your house with a gun, you'l disobey him and tell him what a bad man he is and not shoot him if you manage to get a hand on your gun.

Now you're really stretching it.
If I am face-to-face with a killer, I will defend myself to the best of my ability.
If all he wants is my "stuff", he can have it. If he wants ONLY to immediately kill me or harm my kids or family, and I can't flee, then I will try to get to my gun, and I will use it. HOPEFULLY that would be enough just to get him to leave me alone. But if I see he's actually going to shoot me, yes, I'll shoot back. What would be best is subduing him and calling authorities to arrest and send him to trial.

I won't go bomb his home or his family.

You're talking about two leaders each with a 'button' they can press to annihilate the "enemy" from a distance (whether a nuclear bomb or an invasion sending youth to be killed and to kill), and no, I won't support that.

What is it with men and violence?

Most women would grab the kids and RUN. Hide. Get out of the way. If confronted with the barrel of a gun, of course I would fight to live or save the lives of my children. If the guy with the gun sends me a message saying he intends to bomb my house, I would leave my house.

The constant threat of violence is a huge problem in this world.

reply to post by wildtimes

Like mutual agreement to STOP WARS with each other.

will USA agree to do that with Taliban?
The other wars are just one sided aggressions, how do the oppressed stop them?

1) would
you ever consider coming to the USA
to live?

i wanted to, long back, wanted to study at MIT.
I won't consider it now, i admire the good values and things in America. If i do, i'l sure live in Dearborn MI.

2) If you were here, what would you
do about those young men who killed
and maimed those people in Boston?

i would want them to be put to trial.

reply to post by logical7


Why Dearborn, Michigan?
MIT is in Boston.

will USA agree to do that with Taliban?
The other wars are just one sided aggressions, how do the oppressed stop them?

I'm not sure what you're asking me. How would I know what "the USA" will agree to with Taliban? Again, you're talking about political leaders, not civilians. I would, however, let my representatives and president know that I want them to make peace with others. And I do contact my representatives when I feel it's appropriate to have my voice heard. I write to them and say, "I want you to do THIS." Or, "I want you to support this legislation, or vote against that other legislation." Or, "thank you for proposing this bill that prohibits cruelty to horses."

Whether they do it or not is not up to me, however. All I can do is voice my opinion.

The other wars are just one sided aggressions, how do the oppressed stop them?

What the leaders know is that they NEED the working people and laborers and the public to buy into the system of trade in order for their state to function. If everyone in the USA agreed to NOT GO TO WORK for a day, it would shake those "oppressors" up, for sure. If we all refused to FILE TAX RETURNS, that would shake them up as well. That is civil disobedience.

If they all get "voted out" at the next election, they can no longer do anything in Congress. This is one of the reasons that the USA allows guns. If the government becomes tyrannical, the public has a way to "enforce" their will.

What would the leaders do, kill them all? Stupid. Then there's no chance for the working people to work and produce the things that make the state run, or to vote, or to purchase things.

I used to work for a global hotel chain. I was a supervisor for the housekeeping department. I saw the oppression and injustice of management's "policies", and I told those housekeepers, "You know, if ALL of you called in sick tomorrow, management would get the picture." Could they be fired? Sure they could. But then what will the management do?
Clean all 720 rooms themselves? Do all the laundry and clean up everything by themselves when a convention turns over (meaning, 1,000 people leave and 1,000 others are checking in that day).

reply to post by wildtimes

But WHO flew those planes into those buildings, killing themselves and all those other 3,000 people?

who flies drones and how?

P.S. "Guessing" what my husband
would prefer or do is a mistake.

then just tell me, this is the 3rd time i am asking

Reliable source,
please.
And what makes you believe it was an
inside job? This site? Sources and
proof, please.

www.guardiannews.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

President George Bush rejected as
"non-negotiable" an offer by the
Taliban to discuss turning over
Osama bin Laden if the United
States ended the bombing in
Afghanistan. Returning to the White House after
a weekend at Camp David, the
president said the bombing would
not stop, unless the ruling Taliban
"turn [bin Laden] over, turn his
cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added,
"There's no need to discuss
innocence or guilt. We know he's
guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime
minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third
most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that
the Taliban would require evidence
that Bin Laden was behind the
September 11 terrorist attacks in
the US, but added: "we would be
ready to hand him over to a third country". The offer came a day after the
Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed
Bush's "second chance" for the
Islamic militia to surrender Bin
Laden to the US. Mullah Mohammed Omar said there
was no move to "hand anyone
over". Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden
handover if bombing halts
The Taliban would be ready to
discuss handing over Osama bin
Laden to a neutral country if the US
halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban
official said today.

what makes you believe it was done by muslims who barely finished flight school yet managed to fly and turn BOIENG to amazing angles and hit a building without support from flight control when proffessional pilots don't have a clear idea about where they are without support. The government must have told you that, you saw it on TV, the same tv also shows king kong hanging out on empire state building, how you seperate facts from fiction?
I can give you links but you can easily find them yourself.

reply to post by logical7

who flies drones and how?

Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. PEOPLE were flying those planes, they weren't "drones",
and I disagree with the use of armed drones completely.

Surveillance is one thing. Automated killing machines is something else entirely. Drones are WRONG.

then just tell me, this is the 3rd time i am asking

And this is the 3rd time I've refused to answer. You can ask me 100 times, or a billion times, and the only way you will know the answer is to find out for yourself.

reply to post by wildtimes

You're talking about two leaders each with a 'button' they can press to annihilate the "enemy" from a distance (whether a nuclear bomb or an invasion sending youth to be killed and to kill), and no, I won't support that.

i am talking about a country wrongly invading and bombing another country, can they fight the invading army?

reply to post by logical7

*sigh*
That article came out a month after the event! It doesn't count. Too much research and investigation has been done since then.

I'm asking you WHO WERE THE MEN with box-cutters that flew those planes? Are you saying they were Taliban?

reply to post by wildtimes

Why Dearborn, Michigan? MIT is in Boston.

i would like to raise kids in a muslim community.
Now i don't want to be in MIT, i wanted to do my college graduatation there.

I think we are not clear on what kind of oppression we are talking about. Country on its people, ya disobedience, protests etc. What about a country on a weaker country? What can people of the weaker country do?

reply to post by logical7

i am talking about a country wrongly invading and bombing another country, can they fight the invading army?

I've already stated that sending youths to kill others and be killed is wrong.
From EITHER SIDE.
If the "leaders" want to duke, or duel, it out - then they can do so. A "country" is not a thing with a gun. It is comprised of "people."

If all the soldiers in the world laid down their arms and cried "ENOUGH", what then??

Peace!