how does allah look upon the "new" iraq?

[mario]

With the help of the infidels allah allows a new iraq to be born. A freer, less tyrannical one maybe. Another 'mother of all wars' is over and the christians have won. But islam still goes on under the watchfull eye of george bush. Is there some sort of conflict here between believing in the power of allah to defend "his" people and also thanking america for a new government? It just seems ironic that muslims are happy that a christian power brought them freedom from a dictator instead of allah doing it. Come to think of it, why are most islamic countries dictatorships anyway? Cannot islam survive in a democracy? It seems to be doing ok in the west.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

With the help of the infidels allah allows a new iraq to be born. A freer, less tyrannical one maybe.

Uou must be kidding, right?? What free Iraq?? You must have been fox too much lately. (take a look at atimes.com, informationclearinghouse.info)

Another 'mother of all wars' is over and the christians have won.

There was no real war. Although the U.S. army was in a deplorable shape the Iraqi regime didn't put up a fight and got what was coming to him. As is often said in Islam; "the reward is of the same nature as the (initial) work.

But islam still goes on under the watchfull eye of george bush.

Now that is the real war. But few know about its existence let alone its details.

Is there some sort of conflict here between believing in the power of allah to defend "his" people and also thanking america for a new government?

There is a conflict between the true aims and deeds of america and its public discourse.

It just seems ironic that muslims are happy that a christian power brought them freedom from a dictator instead of allah doing it.

Muslims are happy that america got into a fight with its servant (Saddam). As for Allah, He has given the Muslims plenty but they refuse to act.

Come to think of it, why are most islamic countries dictatorships anyway?

Because it is in the best interest of the powerfull nations. First England and France were the main profitting from that (the u.s. was a friend back then, they say Morocco was the first country to recognise the u.s). Now it seems the u.s. joined the club. It is because these countries profit from it and because a prosporous Muslim world is too strong for them.

look here: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=625823#post625823

Cannot islam survive in a democracy? It seems to be doing ok in the west.

First you seem so keen on christianity, I hope that you know that that "democracy" only exists because christianity was driven back behind the doors of the churches and into sunday.

Second, Theoretically Islam calls for the a principle that I believe could best be translated as consultancy. Which is rather and sufficiently close to "democracy".

Thirdly, this principle was implemented in the first era. The era in which everything was done following to Islamic scripture. This was under the first rulers after the prophet -peace be upon him. An example, When Uthman, the third Khalifah, was chosen, every one in the city was asked for his opinion even little girls.

Fourthly, follows a short lesson in modern history (you will never get to hear this on fox), "Muhammad Ali of Egypt appointed his first advisory council in 1824, consisting mostly of elected members. In 1881, the Egyptian nationalist movement succeeded in convening an elected parliament, but this was aborted only a year later by British occupation. Tunisia had promulgated a constitution in 1860, setting up a Supreme Council purporting to limit the powers of the monarchy. But this was suspended in 1864 when the French discovered that it interfered with their ambitions. Turkey elected its first parliament in 1877, though it was dissolved a year later by the Caliph; a second parliament was convened in 1908. Iran's progress was more dramatic. It started with protests against a British tobacco monopoly in the 1890s, and quickly led to an elected parliament in 1906, with powers to confirm the cabinet. A year later, however, the British and Russians carved up Iran into their spheres of influence, a development that would lead to the dissolution of the parliament in 1910. Nevertheless, the constitutional movement persisted until it was suppressed in 1931 by a new dynasty brought to power by the British.
Compare these developments with the history of constitutional movements elsewhere, not excluding Europe, during the nineteenth century - and the world of Islam does not suffer from the comparison. Incredible as this appears to minds blinded by Euro-centric prejudice, Tunisia, Egypt and Iran were taking the lead in making the transition to constitutional monarchies. The 'resistance to democracy' in the Arab world even today does not come from their population. Quite the opposite. It comes from neo-colonial surrogates - brutal military dictatorships and absolutist monarchies - imposed by a United States determined to safeguard oil and Israel."

From very good article I read a couple of years ago: http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid3.html



Peace be onto you.

 

[surenderer]

Not to mention that Indonesia has the worlds largest muslim population (87% of their population) and is a democracy.....peace to you

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why do you think dictatorships exist in the first place?

Why has the world had to rid itself of monachies and dictatorships? Why did they exist in the first place?

Is it human nature of the past to be led by a single leader, a sort of wolf pack mentality? Is democracy a more natural state or one that requires greater determination of the people. It is so easy is it not to pass the buck to some dictator to lead as he sees fit and not be active in community development.