Emirati Man sentenced to 90 days of community service for feeding a live cat to his dogs
- Thread starter Mentee
- Start date
Hell hound
STAFF
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
duniya kay system say jo ek bayzuban ko jitna insaf mil sakta tha woh mil gya par rab ka insaf or us ki lathi abhi baqi hay meray dostBhai meray maano billi ki
pest vs pet
your comparison makes no sense
Blue Marlin
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 6,688
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
why didn't they just feed that particular human to the dog ?
They need to be shoved into a rabid dog's cage , look what they did with that poor cat
"Arabs"
Hun Araaam ay??? A very honest & noble punishment.
Nice to see another brother having the same views as mine in these issues. The problem with Muslims whether in east or the west is that, we after coming out of an westernized education mill, starts to take western ideas and social constructs as the default standard and a norm. This is where we are still in a colonized (intellectually colonized) state. The more Muslims think like you the the quicker we would come out of this position and would grow a spine and learn to think for ourselves. All the social turmoils we have in the muslim world can be traced back to this intellectual colonized condition we are in.
With all due respect brother, the 4 khalifas were chosen in different ways. Eg. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). Usman (may Allah be pleased with him) was elected by a council of senior sahabas etc. NO they were NOT elected via popular vote as there were NO such concepts then but they did have the consent of the masses and the masses gave them baya (allegiance). One of the greatest & pious of the post-rashidun kalifas in islamic history is Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) who inherited power via dynastic system. Taking power by force (as long as the ruler upholds islamic values or does NOT force muslims to go against their religion) is also accepted in Islam and both the Abbasids and Ottomans took power by force. One of the pious & successful Mughal emperors Aurangzeeb (may Allah have mercy on him) also took power by force. And then you have the example of mamluks, where a group of military generals exercised effective power but had a symbolic khalifa with 0 powers as the head of state.
What these all proves is that Islam did NOT stipulate a rigid structure for governance. It emphasized consensus and consent of the masses but that Islamic stipulation can NOT be reinterpreted to suit western notions of "democracy" or "anti-monarchy" both of which is strictly European development shaped by their unique culture and history. Such reinterpretation would be intellectually very shallow and short-sighted without taking long term consequences in perspective IMHO.
And who decides what a modern society should be like? Definitely Harvard and princeton academics and political scientist can NOT decide that for the Muslim world. Do you know that the term modernity it self is a western construct - where the notion of modernity is synonymous with western socio-cultural development and values. I as a Muslim do NOT want my society and Muslims world to ape the west to get the certificate of modernity.
And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion.
[Quran 2:120]
Look at turkey where westernized kemalist forced secularism on it and blindly aped the west for a century but since the self-determined and self-conscious Muslims of anatolia did NOT give up their religion they have been rejected by the west and is virulently attacked. Erdogan is formulating a system that suits Turkey's current socio-political climate but since its NOT in line with western interest the west is virulently against it , even though the system Erdogan is proposing is democratic and republican in nature.
Do NOT get me wrong, I am NOT saying Muslim countries should have slave mentality dictatorships like Egypt, Bangladesh, Syria, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. Infact given the current divided socio-political structure of the Muslim world - its vital to have elected governments that rule by consent of the masses for the sake of stability. BUT no need to call that using western term "democracy" as that carries a lot of anti-islamic ideological baggage. And in the same breath there is absolutely NO need to criticize or condemn Muslim monarchies that are stable and enjoy consent of the masses. Due to historical development Pakistan can NOT have a monarchy that have consent of the masses BUT the saudis can. Why criticize the monarchy based on our own biases shaped by western notions. Consider this fable in a alternative historical development for example - if subcontinent had a Muslim dominated demography, most likely subcontinent would have been a united constitutional monarchy like Malaysia, with a Muslim mughal emperor at the helm and the muslim demographics could have very well been like that of malaysia or nigeria (60-40 in our favor). Remember the princely states - many monarchs of the princely states were highly respected by the masses.
We should judge Muslim governments (whether elected OR monarchs) based on Islamic principles and parameters of right & wrong and see if they are providing an environment where society is growing and developing in an islamic way or not. And most importantly we should be consistent in our judgement.
I humbly apologize if my post gives a rude vibe. I just expressed my deeply held views on such issues to a fellow Muslim brother. I hope you would not take it in any negative way.
Did you notice the west is NOT as virulent and critical of these pro-iranian groups as they are to the sunni groups (whether extremist/terrorist or NOT). The civil war in syria is a case point. Rebels are painted with the same brush as ISIS, whereas Hezb'saytan & Assad is given a free pass and their inhuman unprecedented atrocities are whitewashed by the western press.
Last edited:
salarsikander
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2013
- Messages
- 8,860
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Excellent post ! Something to learn from. I'm very pleased by members who give their genuine attempt yo educate rather than lookmdown upon because of ones lack of understanding. And your tone was also humble. You sir are added to my fav list of people from who I can genuinely learn .Nice to see another brother having the same views as mine in these issues. The problem with Muslims whether in east or the west is that, we after coming out of an westernized education mill, starts to take western ideas and social constructs as the default standard and a norm. This is where we are still in a colonized (intellectually colonized) state. The more Muslims think like you the the quicker we would come out of this position and would grow a spine and learn to think for ourselves. All the social turmoils we have in the muslim world can be traced back to this intellectual colonized condition we are in.
With all due respect brother, the 4 khalifas were chosen in different ways. Eg. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). Usman (may Allah be pleased with him) was elected by a council of senior sahabas etc. NO they were NOT elected via popular vote as there were NO such concepts then but they did have the consent of the masses and the masses gave them baya (allegiance). One of the greatest & pious of the post-rashidun kalifas in islamic history is Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) who inherited power via dynastic system. Taking power by force (as long as the ruler upholds islamic values or does NOT force muslims to go against their religion) is also accepted in Islam and both the Abbasids and Ottomans took power by force. One of the pious & successful Mughal emperors Aurangzeeb (may Allah have mercy on him) also took power by force. And then you have the example of mamluks, where a group of military generals exercised effective power but had a symbolic khalifa with 0 powers as the head of state.
What these all proves is that Islam did NOT stipulate a rigid structure for governance. It emphasized consensus and consent of the masses but that Islamic stipulation can NOT be reinterpreted to suit western notions of "democracy" or "anti-monarchy" both of which is strictly European development shaped by their unique culture and history. Such reinterpretation would be intellectually very shallow and short-sighted without taking long term consequences in perspective IMHO.
And who decides what a modern society should be like? Definitely Harvard and princeton academics and political scientist can NOT decide that for the Muslim world. Do you know that the term modernity it self is a western construct - where the notion of modernity is synonymous with western socio-cultural development and values. I as a Muslim do NOT want my society and Muslims world to ape the west to get the certificate of modernity.
And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion.
[Quran 2:120]
Look at turkey where westernized kemalist forced secularism on it and blindly aped the west for a century but since the self-determined and self-conscious Muslims of anatolia did NOT give up their religion they have been rejected by the west and is virulently attacked. Erdogan is formulating a system that suits Turkey's current socio-political climate but since its NOT in line with western interest the west is virulently against it , even though the system Erdogan is proposing is democratic and republican in nature.
Do NOT get me wrong, I am NOT saying Muslim countries should have slave mentality dictatorships like Egypt, Bangladesh, Syria, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. Infact given the current divided socio-political structure of the Muslim world - its vital to have elected governments that rule by consent of the masses for the sake of stability. BUT no need to call that using western term "democracy" as that carries a lot of anti-islamic ideological baggage. And in the same breath there is absolutely NO need to criticize or condemn Muslim monarchies that are stable and enjoy consent of the masses. Due to historical development Pakistan can NOT have a monarchy that have consent of the masses BUT the saudis can. Why criticize the monarchy based on our own biases shaped by western notions. Consider this fable in a alternative historical development for example - if subcontinent had a Muslim dominated demography, most likely subcontinent would have been a united constitutional monarchy like Malaysia, with a Muslim mughal emperor at the helm and the muslim demographics could have very well been like that of malaysia or nigeria (60-40 in our favor). Remember the princely states - many monarchs of the princely states were highly respected by the masses.
We should judge Muslim governments (whether elected OR monarchs) based on Islamic principles and parameters of right & wrong and see if they are providing an environment where society is growing and developing in an islamic way or not. And most importantly we should be consistent in our judgement.
I humbly apologize if my post gives a rude vibe. I just expressed my deeply held views on such issues to a fellow Muslim brother. I hope you would not take it in any negative way.
Did you notice the west is NOT as virulent and critical of these pro-iranian groups as they are to the sunni groups (whether extremist/terrorist or NOT). The civil war in syria is a case point. Rebels are painted with the same brush as ISIS, whereas Hezb'saytan & Assad is given a free pass and their inhuman unprecedented atrocities are whitewashed by the western press.
God bless you
Tps43
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 4,960
- Reaction score
- 16
- Country
- Location
What a *****
jamahir
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 28,132
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
If I had the authority I would have personally shot that two-legged dog.
Among other things, the cat is a wise animal.
Last edited:
Hack-Hook
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 19,448
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
nobody enter the cages when they are inside it
no you don't have a choice in democracy , you have illusion of having a choice
Dai Toruko
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 2,179
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
war&peace
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 33,771
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
Congratulations... you opened a 2.5 years old thread..
Hack-Hook
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 19,448
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
but Jamahir opened it
jamahir
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 28,132
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
You are correct. In a Representative Democracy system, which most of the West has, and so do others who have adopted the Western model, as you said, one only has an illusion of choice.
On the other hand, a Direct Democracy system, like what Switzerland has ( to an extent ) and what Libya had until 2011, it is real democracy. The people have a choice in selecting the issues that affect them and directly removing the problems they face even at neighborhood-level.
In India, there are two political movements - the AAP party and the Swaraj Abhiyan movement - which propagate Direct Democracy.
I was extremely saddened by what that psycho had done to the cat.
war&peace
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 33,771
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
No problem but what did you mean by "nobody enter the cages when they are inside it"
ohh you softy.. yeah I was also horrified by this act as well.
Similar threads
- Locked
