TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
In which case your answer was irrelevant to his post, which was this:If you carefully examine, you may see my post wasn't an answer to that content of his post. If was to the content at the of the post I responded to......
You did not address whether or not a nation needs to be ready for Democracy or not, which was the main point he made in the post you quoted - instead you just lectured him about his own views, which was not needed as he had clarified them in post #23.No, it really doesn't. Democracy starts when the nation is ready for such a system. It took the Brits hundreds of years to gain it, and even longer to get to where they are now.
If we're going to bring religion into this, why not just declare a Caliphate in Pakistan then? Or at least an Emirate?
If you didn't read post #23 when you wrote your response, it's common courtesy if you admit a mistake and apologize to him for not reading his posts properly instead of just arguing with him for the sake of arguing.
But he can argue for himself if he wants to and I will not waste any more time arguing over someone else's post, so please don't quote me in a post about this matter.
That clears it up, thank you for the detailed post. It wasn't a disagreement, just a misunderstanding - I admit I wasn't very clear in my points either.Pardon me if I am missing something out but the conquest of Mecca was indeed the establishment of the Islamic rule. Now there were many things, as you have pointed out correctly, that were not prohibited right away such as alcohol consumption, even the interest-based transactions (only declared illegal during the last sermon). However, I see those prohibitions more like the evolution of moral values of the Arabs and not really as the establishment of democratic values. My friend if you read the history of Arabs (of-course you have read), it was a fierce tribal culture with all the good and bads that are associated with such a system. If Mohammed (PBUH) had not practiced democratic values from day one, the Arabs would have never accepted Islam in the first place, let alone the rule of Islam in Mecca. It was through that democratic system the Prophet (PBUH) manged to deal with the various clans who were literally killing and robbing each others for ages. The archangel Gabriel brought Allah's message to the Mohammed (PBUH) much latter whereas Mohammed (PBUH) had already established himself as a leader and visionary and an honest gentleman long before. Arabs used to listen to him and follow not because of the divine message he preached, but for his righteousness, kindness, tolerance, and forgiveness. Thats my two cents. I admit I might not have understood your point completely.
So basically he followed democratic values since day one but did not directly impose them immediately. He caused (or sped up) the gradual evolution of values in Arab society and eventually it reached to the point of accepting both Islam and Democratic values.