Why doesn’t everyone study the West, like we study Ancient Egypt?

[Zibago]

ISIS/Boko haram are the extremist counter part of secular/liberals in the muslim world. Liberals not only rape but are proponents of blatant hedonism. They promote rape via their ideology.

Wow Afghan heroin reached reched BD

 

[Luffy 500]

Funny thread this.. Bashing Western civilization in a internet forum typing in English.

U understand bengali?

Luffy just proves this characterization right:

Islamism:-

"Fundementally an ideology of resentful humiliation, unable to accept the weak place of Islamic civilization and determined to act destructively, often self destructively, believing domination is the birthright of the doctrine"

How does it prove anything u have said? Btw the term islamism is a western coined term and far from considering it weak, west always considered it as a threat that just keeps on coming. This is what ideological mentor of sisi Winston churchill had to say abt Islam:

‘It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population. Several generations have elapsed since the nations of the West have drawn the sword in religious controversy, and the evil memories of the gloomy past have soon faded in the strong, clear light of Rationalism and human sympathy…But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries [i.e. followers] have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness…In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed.

Its beyond ludicurous that a follower of a man-mde fallacy i.e secularism , such as u , thinks his/her values r universal and strong.

Make a list of the liberal Muslim countries and conservative Muslim countries to check who have a better future. Your Saudis also will either liberalize or end up riding camels on desert sand once they run out of oil or technology replaces the use of oil.

Define better future? Blatant hedonism and rampant corruption is not development under any standard.

And what do u mean by liberalize? U must clarify such vague statements.

 

[flamer84]

So its western democracy that allowed advancement? But UK wasn't even a democracy till the late 19th century, well after the steam engine. Do people stop thinking without democracy? And what is democracy? Rule of the elite few? Do people really have power to change their gov? UK saw the largest demonstration in its history against the Iraq war with 0 effect on lunny bare faced balir.

The hell it wasn't! It was one of the most democratic countries for their time since they've forced king John to sign the Magna Chartum in the 13th century ,more so after they've beheaded king Charles in the 17th century and it certainly was a democracy with Parliament and private entreneurship in the 19th century.You'd better brush up on your history before engaging others on such matters.

Your so called islamic system it's a thing of the past with no chances for success in the present.Implemented it will only give you Afghanistan during the talibans.Some like you would try that but even most muslims aren't stupid and won't go for it.

 

[Gibbs]

U understand bengali?
.

Nope but seems like you dont get sarcasm

 

[flamer84]

You don't produce immediately but when you do, my logic does apply.

Really, then why does China make iPhones and all of Apple products. Yes, some do, not many, for example China has a GDP growth rate of 7+% (GDP per capita is over $6,000), Qatar's is over 6% (their per capita is $93,000). They all need to adapt, for example Qatar use foreign labour who are very cheap. Also remember that GDP per capita isn't nothing more than total GDP divided by population in the country. As long as you have cheap labour, you can make things for cheap. Also note that $6,000 in 20 years time isn't going to have the same value as it does now.

I am not acting out of jealousy, it's you who has ran out of logical thinking ability and thus making stupid claims about jealousy to bring legitimacy to yourself.

You really haven't disputed me on anything.Your theory is that the key to success for a country is cheap labour.Allow me to LOL

 

[Zibago]

A state is like a machine and machines don,t have religions.

 

[Luffy 500]

The hell it wasn't! It was one of the most democratic countries for their time since they've forced king John to sign the Magna Chartum in the 13th century ,more so after they've beheaded king Charles in the 17th century and it certainly was a democracy with Parliament and private entreneurship in the 19th century.You'd better brush up on your history before engaging others on such matters.

Ok lets see- At the beginning only few elites could vote. The upper middle class could only vote after 1832.

Reform Act 1832 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

Before the reform, most members nominally represented boroughs. The number of electors in a borough varied widely, from a dozen or so up to 12,000. Frequently the selection of MPs was effectively controlled by one powerful patron; for example Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk



While the urban male working class could not vote till 1867.
Reform Act 1867 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before the Act, only one million of the seven million adult males in England and Wales could vote


And when exactly were women allowed to vote in UK? U better brush up your history bcs this is something well known.



Speaking of women, this is what one of UK's most liberal statesmen Lord Cromer , who was a member and one-time president of the Men's League for Opposing Woman Suffrage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia had to say abt islam & muslim women:

‘It is absurd to suppose Europe will look on as a passive spectator whilst the retrograde government based on purely Muhammadan principles and oriental ideas [i.e Islam], is established in Egypt. The material interests at stake are too important …the new generation of Egyptians has to be persuaded or FORCED into imbibing the true spirit of Western civilisation’

‘The position of women in Egypt, and Mohammedan countries generally, is, therefore a fatal obstacle to the attainment of that elevation of thought and character which should accompany the introduction of Western civilisation’


It seems hypocrisy is a basic tenet of Western liberal secularism.

 

[flamer84]

Ok lets see- At the beginning only few elites could vote. The upper middle class could only vote after 1832.

Reform Act 1832 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

Before the reform, most members nominally represented boroughs. The number of electors in a borough varied widely, from a dozen or so up to 12,000. Frequently the selection of MPs was effectively controlled by one powerful patron; for example Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk

While the urban male working class could not vote till 1867.
Reform Act 1867 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before the Act, only one million of the seven million adult males in England and Wales could vote

And when exactly were women allowed to vote in UK? U better brush up your history bcs this is something well known.

Speaking of women, this is what one of UK's most liberal statesmen Lord Cromer , who was a member and one-time president of the Men's League for Opposing Woman Suffrage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia had to say abt islam & muslim women:

‘It is absurd to suppose Europe will look on as a passive spectator whilst the retrograde government based on purely Muhammadan principles and oriental ideas [i.e Islam], is established in Egypt. The material interests at stake are too important …the new generation of Egyptians has to be persuaded or FORCED into imbibing the true spirit of Western civilisation’

‘The position of women in Egypt, and Mohammedan countries generally, is, therefore a fatal obstacle to the attainment of that elevation of thought and character which should accompany the introduction of Western civilisation’


It seems hypocrisy is a basic tenet of Western liberal secularism.

Oh brother....ofcourse there was no today's democracy but it was still democratic for its time and compared to other systems that existed back then.You quoting someone from the beginning of the 20th century has no relevance,Western countries have continued to progress while you literally ask people to return back centuries.That is why you're doomed to fail.

 

[Frogman]

How does it prove anything u have said?

The self destructive tendencies of Islamists has been a major part of your posts on this forum. For instance, on this very thread you have differentiated between Muslims, those that are 'righteous' and those that you deem morally corrupt who hold liberal views or values and believe secular principles should be applied to governance.

This stems from a belief that it is those people who hold these values that hold the Muslim world back due to them being 'colonized' as you have referred and thus do not wish to progress, which you believe means being free of man made constructs and completely enveloping themselves to the ideas of Islam, the Sharia, and the Caliphate.

This divisiveness in reality is self destructive and is born out of a feeling of inferiority or as the quote argued a feeling of weakness. As a result you continue to rile against western values, governments, and schools of thought, in essence you believe that there is a clash of civilasations between the western world and the Muslim world and this is characterized in your incessant need to find works, views, or characters from a century (or half) ago that were outright racist, islamophobic, and generally nasty people and attach their views with current day western politcal or social thought when in reality they are often the antithesis, for instance, do you think Winston Churchill would have been in favour of gay marriage? No.

Btw the term islamism is a western coined term and far from considering it weak, west always considered it as a threat that just keeps on coming.

It is, however, when it was first coined it did not have the same meaning it does today. It was used as a substitute for the all more offensive Mohemedniasm, however, it fell out of favour and only resurfaced in the 80s. However, political Islam as term was around in Egypt for instance before the term Islamism resurfaced in the 80s.

This is what ideological mentor of sisi Winston churchill had to say abt Islam:

The assertion that the ideological mentor of Elsisi is Winston Churchill is simply ridiculous. Ignoring Churchill's more controversial views on Islam, race, and security (which he does not share with Elsisi) Winston was a great advocate of the European Court of Human Rights after WW2 (and can be seen as its founding father). Elsisi has no regard for any rights nor does he believe they are universal (a bit like you).

Not that a bloke who was politically active 60 years ago is relevant to this debate.

Its beyond ludicurous that a follower of a man-mde fallacy i.e secularism , such as u , thinks his/her values r universal and strong.

I have never argued that my views are universal, you on the other hand believe those that do not share the same views as you are morally corrupt or 'colonised'. Some secular principles were implemented in Muslim Caliphates near the 13th century (usually when the Caliph was more of a figurehead than a ruler), but don't let that get in your way.

You are welcome to keep on pushing the divine right to rule in a Muslim garb btw.

 

[Luffy 500]

Oh brother....ofcourse there was no today's democracy but it was still democratic for its time and compared to other systems that existed back then.You quoting someone from the beginning of the 20th century has no relevance,Western countries have continued to progress while you literally ask people to return back centuries.That is why you're doomed to fail.

SO u have to redefine the basic tenets of your system which is inherently flawed since its man-made. On the other hand islam is a religion ordained by God for humanity and as such its unchangeable. Since its from the Creator of the heavens and the earth it can never be flawed. It does have room for accommodating natural human progress (which only takes place by the permission of God ) within the boundaries set by God. And as such islamic jurisprudence is inherently dynamic unlike secular/liberal system- which is a idea of 17th century philosophers tainted with assumptions, biases, speculations and shaped by the socio-political environment of their time..

 

[flamer84]

SO u have to redefine the basic tenets of your system which is inherently flawed since its man-made. On the other hand islam is a religion ordained by God for humanity and as such its unchangeable. Since its from the Creator of the heavens and the earth it can never be flawed. It does have room for accommodating natural human progress (which is a blessing of God ) within the boundaries set by God. And as such islamic jurisprudence is inherently dynamic unlike secular/liberal system- which is a idea of 17th century philosophers tainted with assumptions, biases, speculations and shaped by the socio-political environment of their time..

Oh... ofcourse,my humblest apologies.You just hang on in there ,..."God will provide "





While you wait for improvement to fall from the skies because you live like a 7th century book told you to,us,mere mortals will push forward in the 21st century.

 

[Luffy 500]

@Frogman , Indeed the secular colonized mind lack the ability of coherent thinking. Its bcs they suffer from an inferiority complex that they blindly accept everything western. They don't limit themselves to just study of natural scientific development by the west but accepts their socio-political set up without realizing that there is stark and fundemental difference between the two. They accept western notions regarding gender issues, sexuality, jurisprudence etc. Secularism/liberalism itself is a religion that resulted from west's experience with Christianity and their political tussle with the church It has its creed like individualism that narrows down a human's need to just the materialistic realm and from their comes their economic system and social system with complete disregard for family values and morality. They don't have any moral benchmark to lean back to and neither any compass for judging right & wrong. Since they totally depend on their materialistic desires that most often delude themselves into thinking whatever they do is right and rational.

Btw as for churchill, the thinking of the west didn't change. The current western leaders still espouse the same notion of western exceptionalism and universality of western values like churchill. They violently promote secular liberal democracy in the muslim world through their local implants. I personally think many secular/liberals r ignorant but majority of them and loyal servants of the west who have a apathy to anything and everything that has to do with islam & muslim.

 

[Khalid Newazi]

You really haven't disputed me on anything.Your theory is that the key to success for a country is cheap labour.Allow me to LOL

Keep living in your delusion, the balance of power is going to switch again.

 

[metronome]

Oh... ofcourse,my humblest apologies.You just hang on in there ,..."God will provide "





While you wait for improvement to fall from the skies because you live like a 7th century book told you to,us,mere mortals will push forward in the 21st century.

go easy.. you're arguing with a jamati here, don't expect much

 

[Koovie]

While you wait for improvement to fall from the skies because you live like a 7th century book told you to,us,mere mortals will push forward in the 21st century.

A quick glance at the scientific advancements, stability, peace or economic output and innovations between western nations and Muslim ones will tell us everything... The mere fact that people can discuss this with other people from all over the world in real time is a testimony to the power of free markets.


That does not mean that you have to throw away your identity... just look at Japan.