A Democratic Iraq?

[Starman3000m]

A Democratic Iraq? By Starman3000m

Note: The following prediction was posted on the Internet on June 2004 priorto the establishment of a "governing council" in Iraq. Additional follow-up comments were posted as noted herein.

(Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:22 pm)
Post subject: A Democratic Iraq: Threat to Arab World:

Terror organizations will continue to disrupt every effort to establish Democracy in Iraq for the very reason that Democracy and Islam Do Not Mix.

The National Constitutions of most every Arab nation have established Islam as the national religion, the Qur'an as the guide for governance - from which Sharia laws are established and meted out, and that only Muslims can serve in the military and political government.

Terror organizations view themselves as "freedom fighters" and "protectors of Islam" in the army of "Allah." They view ANY Muslim who cooperates with an American led coalition to establish Democracy as a "traitor to Islam" and are therefore given authority by Qur'anic decree to kill traitors who have become "friends and allies of the enemy."

The mess that has resulted in Iraq is due to going into war without knowing that Islam and Democracy do not mix and that the Arab world would view Democracy as a threat to their entire ideology; political, social, and religious.

June 30, 2004 will not establish Democracy; it will inflame the Arab world even more whereby terrorism will continue to target all members of a governing council for assassination and threaten Iraqi citizens with death if they cooperate in any democratic voting process.

The only way to change the minds of terrorists is to convince them that what they have been taught to believe in is totally wrong. It won't be easy and may really never happen - for they believe they are in the apocalyptic fight spoken of in the Qur'an and that martyrdom for Islam will guarantee an entrance into paradise.

-----------------------------------------------------
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:36 pm Post subject: The New Iraq: Democratic, or, Islamic?

Day one in the surprise handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi governing council which [we] were told would not occur until June 30th.

The question is: Will Iraq actually form a Democracy that separates Church and State, or, will the governance of Islam and Sharia Laws continue to prevail as it does through all Arab nations?

Fundamental Islam and True Democracy do not mix for they negate one another. For example:

Fundamental Islam establishes that there is only one God, Allah; Islam is the only true religion; and, that it is the obligation of all Muslims to bring this world into subjection to their faith even if by force (terrorism).

Moderate Muslims may denounce terror, but still believe that their governance is to be a theocracy, faithful to Allah, and that the governing rules (Sharia) are to be extracted from the Qur'an and teachings of their prophet, Muhammad.

True Democracy, which allows personal freedom to choose whether to believe or not believe in a Supreme Creator is seen as an enemy to Islam and, therefore, all Muslims who aid and abet the formation of Democracy in Iraq are considered by fundamentalists to be traitors and can be marked for death by decree of Sharia laws.

Will True Democracy take hold in Iraq, or, will the people of Iraq fall back into the fundamental Islamic ideology that calls for killing Jews, Christians, and Infidels, and continue to call for the abolishing of Western culture?

Update: February 6, 2005

Now that democratic elections have taken place, let's see what happens next:

Article: Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq
By EDWARD WONG
Published: February 6, 2005

(Excerpt)

NAJAF, Iraq, Feb. 4 – “With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/i...tml?ex=1108357200&en=ee3fe7b29a2961fb&ei=5070

Last edited by Starman3000m on Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:40 am; edited 2 times in total

Excerpt from article:

“DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Religious Shiite parties are poised to take power in new constitutional assembly in Iraq and leading clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as guiding principle of new constitution; they want at least legal measures overseeing personal matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to conform with Shariah or Islamic law, but most conservative leaders want Shariah as basis of all legislation; American insistence on equal rights for women in transitional law irked clerics, yet politicians fearing backlash have publicly promised not to install theocracy”


More Research: http://www.Starman3000.com

 

[RadioPatrol]

A Democratic Iraq? By Starman3000m

Note: The following prediction was posted on the Internet on June 2004 priorto the establishment of a "governing council" in Iraq. Additional follow-up comments were posted as noted herein.

(Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:22 pm)
Post subject: A Democratic Iraq: Threat to Arab World:

Terror organizations will continue to disrupt every effort to establish Democracy in Iraq for the very reason that Democracy and Islam Do Not Mix.

The National Constitutions of most every Arab nation have established Islam as the national religion, the Qur'an as the guide for governance - from which Sharia laws are established and meted out, and that only Muslims can serve in the military and political government.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

A Democratic Iraq? By Starman3000m

Note: The following prediction was posted on the Internet on June 2004 priorto the establishment of a "governing council" in Iraq. Additional follow-up comments were posted as noted herein.

(Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:22 pm)
Post subject: A Democratic Iraq: Threat to Arab World:

More Research: http://www.Starman3000.com

A "democracy" is not a Christian form of gov,

democracy is not an Islamic sanctioned form of gov,

and no religious backing at all supports democracy in gov.

In fact democracy is very destructive to morality and to religious principles.

 

[hvp05]

In fact democracy is very destructive to morality and to religious principles.

Yeah, we know you're an anarchist and will erode Washington from the inside... once you get elected.

 

[Starman3000m]

A "democracy" is not a Christian form of gov,

democracy is not an Islamic sanctioned form of gov,

and no religious backing at all supports democracy in gov.

In fact democracy is very destructive to morality and to religious principles.

Hmmm... C'mon, JPC sr. Do the voters in Maryland know that you really feel this way???

Is this an excerpt from your "campaign speech" ???

You are still in my prayers.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Hmmm... C'mon, JPC sr. Do the voters in Maryland know that you really feel this way???

Is this an excerpt from your "campaign speech" ???

You are still in my prayers.

You fail to say if you agree with the comments or not.

But I do add, the idea that the questions of morality could be decided by popular vote is a dangerous concept indeed.

The USA is a democratic republic and that protects us from much of the dangers of a true democracy.

 

[Starman3000m]

You fail to say if you agree with the comments or not.

Your comments, as a candidate for a political office, are rather questionable regarding how patriotic you really are to upholding the U.S. Constitution. Be honest, if elected, would you ask to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office?

But I do add, the idea that the questions of morality could be decided by popular vote is a dangerous concept indeed.

Indeed! But consider that Shari'a Law shows itself to be a very dangerous concept if imposed upon Americans as many Islamic leaders are aiming to achieve, as noted below:


Ibrahim Hooper
AP - 6/11/2004
CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Spokesperson
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like
the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in
the future. ...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
--------------------------------------
Omar Ahmad
5/16/2004
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6473

As you are aware, beheadings, floggings and honor killings occur today within Islamic governed societies and this is certainly not by popular vote! Fact is Muslims are not allowed to vote on a Qur'anic decree from which Shari'a Law is derived.

The USA is a democratic republic and that protects us from much of the dangers of a true democracy.

The Democratic Republic also protects us from a True Theocracy such as the Islamic Laws that presently govern the Muslim world. And did not the founders of America flee the Theocratic leaning imposed by the Church of England in order to establish the Freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

You are right however about the "True Democracy" where majority rules. Such was the case when, in our well intended efforts to encourage democratic elections in the Middle East, Hezbollah won by majority vote! It established a "Democratically controlled government" alright - but not the democratic government we expected!

Even then, Islam still does not mix with a True Democracy when the Muslim citizenry is told how to vote and is not allowed to question its government.

 

[hvp05]

But I do add, the idea that the questions of morality could be decided by popular vote is a dangerous concept indeed.

Your mind is like a grab-bag of ideas; you can reach in ten times and come out with something different each time.

For instance, in the above post you don't believe in legislating morality...

But, in this post you want to restrict peoples' marriage freedoms and outlaw adultery, as if that will stop it from occurring.

What contradiction will you reveal next?

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Your mind is like a grab-bag of ideas; you can reach in ten times and come out with something different each time.

Well thank you and I am pleased that I do give out many ideas,

and I am touched by your sincerity too.

For instance, in the above post you don't believe in legislating morality... But, in this post you want to restrict peoples' marriage freedoms and outlaw adultery, as if that will stop it from occurring.

What contradiction will you reveal next?

My position is to outlaw "im-morality" and not to force "morality" as in we can outlaw "stealing" but it is foolish to create laws requiring one give out charity.

Like the child support laws are completely backwards by ordering charity by legalized stealing.

And the idea of laws that make it unlawful for the outsider to adulterate a marriage or family but does not outlaw the morality of the marriage or the family unit.

Thus we must not legislate morality but we need to criminalize immorality.

 

[This_person]

Thus we must not legislate morality but we need to criminalize immorality.

While this is clearly grossly off topic, it's a fun side-line.

Wouldn't there have to be a decision as to what is moral, to declare something immoral? Isn't making immoral things illegal the same thing as legislating morality? Please, oh wise one with the "unique" dictionary, tell me what the difference is.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Your comments, as a candidate for a political office, are rather questionable regarding how patriotic you really are to upholding the U.S. Constitution. Be honest, if elected, would you ask to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office?

I would probably use any book to affirm my oath on, so I would not object to using the Quran.

I would also stand by my words and my duties regardless of any oath or book and I do believe in upholding the US Constitution.

It might even be more effective and more dramatic if a representative were to give the oath with our hand on an official copy of the Constitution instead of any religious text since it is said the USA is a secular gov.

Indeed! But consider that Shari'a Law shows itself to be a very dangerous concept if imposed upon Americans as many Islamic leaders are aiming to achieve, as noted below:

My point was that your first post of this thread said you predicted the democracy in Iraq and so I was pointing out that since it was a non-Christian and non religious prediction then it was not like a prophet of God but a prophesy of evil.

Even then, Islam still does not mix with a True Democracy when the Muslim citizenry is told how to vote and is not allowed to question its government.

We all seem to know that but Bush keeps trying to push the immoral democracy on people that do not accept it.

Any gov in a Muslim Country must live up to the Quran and that is that.

 

[Midnightrider]

A "democracy" is not a Christian form of gov,

democracy is not an Islamic sanctioned form of gov,

and no religious backing at all supports democracy in gov.

In fact democracy is very destructive to morality and to religious principles.

all except for the last line, i have to agree with. Democracy is not a form of religious anything, thats what makes it great. Its all about the people.

 

[PsyOps]

In fact democracy is very destructive to morality and to religious principles.

I'm almost afraid to ask this question...

How is democracy destructive to morality and religious prinicples?

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm almost afraid to ask this question...

How is democracy destructive to morality and religious prinicples?

dont pick on him for the one thing he has said that didn't make sens....


BWhahahahaha i cant even finish it......

 

[PsyOps]

I would probably use any book to affirm my oath on, so I would not object to using the Quran.

In other words you have no real rooted religious principles at all.

I would also stand by my words and my duties regardless of any oath or book and I do believe in upholding the US Constitution.

If you believed in upholding the US Constitution then you would stand by the laws that fall under it and obey those laws until you can change them, not disobey them in order to get them changed.

It might even be more effective and more dramatic if a representative were to give the oath with our hand on an official copy of the Constitution instead of any religious text since it is said the USA is a secular gov.

If I wanted drama I'd watcha movie. It doesn’t matter what you swear on if your intent is to violate the law or act with no honor towards the law.

My point was that your first post of this thread said you predicted the democracy in Iraq and so I was pointing out that since it was a non-Christian and non religious prediction then it was not like a prophet of God but a prophesy of evil.

Man, sometimes you make absolutely no sense at all.

Bush keeps trying to push the immoral democracy on people that do not accept it.

Immoral democracy? This some sort of new term or something? What is immoral democracy?

 

[Starman3000m]

I would probably use any book to affirm my oath on, so I would not object to using the Quran.

Hmmm... so you would affirm your oath to office on a book that commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends; instructs Muslims to wage Jihad against non-Islamic societies and against non-Muslims who do not accept the Islamic god, Al'lah, and to strike terror in the hearts of those who do not accept the self-proclaimed prophethood of Muhammad????

:I would also stand by my words and my duties regardless of any oath or book and I do believe in upholding the US Constitution.

Why then do you revere the likes of Osama bin Laden whose intent is to destroy Western society and replace the U.S. Constitution with Shari'a Law?

:My point was that your first post of this thread said you predicted the democracy in Iraq and so I was pointing out that since it was a non-Christian and non religious prediction then it was not like a prophet of God but a prophesy of evil. We all seem to know that but Bush keeps trying to push the immoral democracy on people that do not accept it.

It would not take a rocket scientist nor a prophet to predict the obvious outcome of what happened in Iraq. And, yes, as predicted, evil was unleashed by a 7th-Century ideology that has always wanted to take away the Freedoms that are granted to citizens living in Western societies. As one report stated "the gates of hell have been opened".

Any gov in a Muslim Country must live up to the Quran and that is that.

Exactly! And that is why madrassas in those countries are training their young children to hate the West and to become suicide bombers in order to live up to the obligations stated in the Qur'an and Ahadith (sayings of Muhammad). That is also why there can not be any true "peace" settlement with a Muslim country whose Constitution is based upon the Qur'an.

Muslims threatened with punishment by Allah if they do not fight:

“Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an:009.039)

“O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.” (Qur’an:009.038)

“Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.” (Qur’an:009.041)


The Qur'an calls for terror to be waged against non-Muslims


“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (Qur’an:008.012)


And the Rewards?

"Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires;
Gardens enclosed, and grapevines; And voluptuous women of equal age;"
(Qur'an: 078.031 - 078.033)

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Hmmm... so you would affirm your oath to office on a book that commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends; instructs Muslims to wage Jihad against non-Islamic societies and against non-Muslims who do not accept the Islamic god, Al'lah, and to strike terror in the hearts of those who do not accept the self-proclaimed prophethood of Muhammad????

(Qur'an: 078.031 - 078.033)

The Quran does not say any of that.

Why do not you provide a link for us all to see?

I can not link to a negative showing it does not say that.

 

[hvp05]

Wouldn't there have to be a decision as to what is moral, to declare something immoral? Isn't making immoral things illegal the same thing as legislating morality? Please, oh wise one with the "unique" dictionary, tell me what the difference is.

I would probably use any book to affirm my oath on, so I would not object to using the Quran.

So would this one do? That would better suit your campaign than the Qur'an.

I would also stand by my words and my duties regardless of any oath or book and I do believe in upholding the US Constitution.

One must satisfactorily comprehend the Constitution before they can reasonably uphold it. And any person who believes that the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble is referring to bebe mama's welfare would fail the test miserably.

We all seem to know that but Bush keeps trying to push the immoral democracy on people that do not accept it.

Gosh, and I thought Iraqis had been guiding themselves. They would probably be interested to know Bush has been their puppetmaster all this time. You should fly over and tell them immediately, post haste!

Any gov in a Muslim Country must live up to the Quran and that is that.

And if you would be willing to swear your oath on a Qur'an, then you would not mind others doing so as well. Then you also would likely not mind as our long-accepted freedoms began to erode, so we could better conform to the Qur'an's teachings. Next thing ya know: Welcome to New Iran.

 

[Starman3000m]

The Quran does not say any of that.

Why do not you provide a link for us all to see?

I can not link to a negative showing it does not say that.

C'mon JPC sr! Are you in denial? The truth is that we don't need a "link" to show you what the Qur'an states regarding terror against Jews and Christians and promises of paradise and women for the "righteous Muslims". You obviously must have a Qur'an - so, please reference again the following text:

Terror Aimed at Christians who believe in the Deity of Jesus:

'Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" (Qur’an:003.151)

Terror Aimed at All Non-Muslims including Jews and Christians (People of the Book):

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (taxes) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an: 009.029)

“And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.” (Qur’an:033.026 )

Rewards to the “Righteous and Obedient Muslims”

"But the sincere (and devoted) Servants of Allah, For them is a Sustenance determined, Fruits (Delights); and they (shall enjoy) honour and dignity, In Gardens of Felicity, Facing each other on Thrones (of Dignity):, Round will be passed to them a Cup from a clear-flowing fountain, Crystal-white, of a taste delicious to those who drink (thereof), free from headiness; nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom., And besides them will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty). As if they were (delicate) eggs closely guarded. (Qur'an: 37.040 - 37.049)


"As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes." (Qur'an." 044.051 - 044.054)

"We have created (their Companions) of special creation. Lo! We have created them a (new) creation Surely We have made them to grow into a (new) growth, And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), (Qur'an: 056.035 - 056.036)

"Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires;
Gardens enclosed, and grapevines; And voluptuous women of equal age;"
(Qur'an: 078.031 - 078.033)

Conclusion: This is why the fundamental Islamic ideology cannot and will not accept any form of government so established by Western civilizations - especially the U.S. Constitution.

BTW: If your Qur'an states anything differently than what is stated above, please tell us.

 

[PsyOps]

Wouldn't there have to be a decision as to what is moral, to declare something immoral? Isn't making immoral things illegal the same thing as legislating morality? Please, oh wise one with the "unique" dictionary, tell me what the difference is.

Murder is an immoral act. Raping a child is an immoral act. Stealing is an immoral act. So, I would say the answer (to some degree) is yes.