No you’re both wrong. Using Drunky’s math,
3(-6)+7=4 
Are you suggesting that these laws about apostacy are not based on Islamic law? This seems very far-fetched, to put it mildly.
Citing the Quran (or the Hadith, or whatever) would be a huge mistake. I’m not claiming to be an Islamic scholar and wouldn’t want to debate Quran. But if masses of people who are actually Islamic believe in something as part of their religion, then that’s (at least a valid version of) Islam, by definition, and some scholar claiming they’re all interpreting the Quran wrong can’t change that.
In any event, what about you answer my question. What’s the basis for your assertion?
I would say America in 1789 was an oligarchy with certain democratic features-the ruling oligarchy can be reasonably large not necessarily tiny. And literally any historian of 18th Century Britain (except maybe 19th Whig historians like Macaulay) will tell you without any doubt that 18th Century Britain was a government of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs, and for the oligarchs.
Nonetheless your parallel is appropriate in the sense that what you advocate would indeed be a reactionary measure comparable possibly only to the reestablishment of Negro slavery.
As I’ve pointed out above, that would simply be an oligarchy with certain democratic features or rather a relatively liberal oligarchy. A government “of the people” when the “people” is a miniscule percentage of the population makes mockery of the term.
I fail to see how that is anymore worse than the modern system where politicians are forced to tailor their policies and rhetoric according to the whims of their donors. Indeed the old system of machine politics was preferable since at least it enabled widespread political participation and allowed politics to work in the interests of majorities not minorities.
That is far too much of a Zinnite view of American history. Were the Founding Fathers all modern democrats (in the small “d” sense)? No. But at the same time the American Revolution did have social revolutionary aspects-slavery was abolished in the northern states, state churches disestablished, the franchise extended, and so forth. Thomas Paine hardly was a “useful idiot”, he instead was farsighted enough to see the democratic potential of the American Revolution which indeed had triumphed largely within two generations.
Here are a couple of links backing up Ramira. Basically the first two links that caem up on a google search “are children of muslims automatically considered muslim” and had reasonable providence (I excluded a Yahoo answers link).
In general I would be far more likely to trust a “Muslim apologist” to tell me waht Muslims think than I would someone such as you who seems actively opposed to the religion. Just like I would go to CS Lewis to learn about Christianity rather than Osama bin Laden.
Yeah, kick it old school like John Jay. Those who own the country ought to run it.
Until later. Then it was: those who run the mill ought to own it.
Those who own the mill ought to run it?
Those who run the country ought to own it?
Worlds are colliding.
Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
No it is not liar and distorter, not any more than saying it is not ordinary belief of Christians to believe in a 2nd prophet after the jesus christ.
It is an observation of the dominant practice among a majority.
The dictatorship that is the north sudanese regime under sanctions is well known to be extremist Islamist in origin and a violater of rights.
This is the REGIME
it is not a statement of the practice of the sudanese.
the several hundreds of millions who are not practicing the salafist interpretations that would call for calling a person like Obama an apostate, very simple.
You guess wrong as a stupid lying distorter of course, I said nothing of any prefered practice of mine. I observed dominant interpretation.
You have quoted some hadith, not the Quran.
They are not the same and the hadith are given different weights in the different schools of law.
It is not a refutation to Nemo’s statement about the Quran to cite the Not the Quran…
I am impressed that we have an algebra debate, Islam debate, and voter’s rights debate all going simultaneously in one thread, with very little overlap.
You are referring to the idea current in some liberal circles that we presently have a de facto ‘oligarchy’ of the first sort. That may have some truth, in a certain sense, but not in the basic, literal sense that I mean. Easily fooled or not, “the masses” do have a voice and a role in the present system. They may be misled–the decisions yielded may be less than ideal–but they will belong to the people who consented to them. In short, we get the government we deserve.
So you say. But it seems only a difference of degree, between these “very small” and merely “restricted” sets. Regardless, you presume a right to make decisions for other people that you have not earned.
Democracy isn’t smarter or more efficient. It is simply more just. Which is good enough for me.
It’s certainly possible for liberals to be ignorant about things. But you’re falling into the (incredibly rage-inducing) fallacy of presumed-existence-of-equivalency.
Just because something stinky exists on one side of the current US political spectrum doesn’t mean that there’s an equivalent stinky thing on the other side.
There is no liberal equivalent of Ann Coulter.
There is no liberal equivalent of Fox News.
There is no liberal equivalent of Donald Trump.
There is no liberal equivalent of birtherism.
Popping up with “oh, the other side is just as bad” with no support for that claim wastes everyone’s time and also drips condescension.
Liberals aren’t perfect. Liberals do and believe plenty of stupid things. I’m sure there are some areas in which liberals are far worse than conservatives. But your claim is JUST NOT TRUE. Or if it is, it’s not automatically true “just because”, and it requires substantiation.
Not sure if you’re serious, but… in your proposed system, none of the following people would be allowed to vote:
(1) a wall street banker making a zillion dollars a year and paying tons of taxes who lives in a $500K-a-month apartment in downtown Manhattan
(2) someone with a law degree from Harvard who selflessly devotes his life to providing legal assistance for the poor
(3) a high school dropout who built a fortune 500 company out of nothing through sheer hard work and is now fabulously wealthy
(4) a veteran who was wounded in combat and is now undergoing multi-year physical therapy to learn how to walk again
I can see some attraction to the idea of a test of basic civic/economics literacy test for voting, if one can hypothesize some magical perfect way in which it could be created and administered in actual total fairness (which is basically impossible), but basing voting rights on any of your three criteria is incredibly unAmerican and antiDemocratic.
But not in the southern states, where most of the leaders were.
Anyway, even Britain [ aristocratic and mercantile ] had established no slavery; Portugal [ monarchic ] abolished slavery and the slave trade; the King of Denmark [ monarchic ] was the first to abolish the western transatlantic slave trade; and the French Revolution [ mercantile and revolutionary ] abolished slavery ( although they later changed their minds ]. All around this period or before.
Anti-slaving was in the air, and they needed no lessons from the American experience ( which was enabled by the revolution to continue owning slaves until 1865 ). And to continue urging freedom on other countries which did not practice slave-owning.
The thing about cautious mustn’t-go-too-far reform is that it permits the complacency of ruefully shaking one’s head, and saying: “Some day… Some day….” in the delightful knowledge you won’t have to suffer the consequence in your lifetime. Most of the Fathers were long in their graves when universal male suffrage came in.
The second time they rolled was when the ex-slaves were given the vote: the third time was women were permitted this ultimately harmless right.
Holy shit, that is incredibly stupid and funny!!!
Political beliefs???
Hey, here’s a random American Republican who doesn’t believe that President Obama was born in America. For, you know, political reasons.
And here is another random American Republican who believes that Ted Cruz, admittedly born in Canada, was born in the U.S.A. It’s a political belief, har har.
For the record, I believe that Republicans absolutely deserve the right to vote. Even the thickest-skulled dumb-fuckest of the bunch.
Of course he would. Original property requirements in early America typically had provisions for persons who had no real estate but had high net worth. This was to account for wealthy city dwellers who often owned very little land (the property requirement was usually in acreage, and you could be a wealthy lawyer living in Philadelphia in an expensive home that sat on too small a lot to qualify.) We never dug into the details, I just said “propertied” individuals, which has multiple meanings.
You’re presuming the income thresholds would be ludicrously high, and that the income of a legal assistance attorney is necessarily very low. Some of those attorneys still make good money, nothing like in private practice but they wouldn’t necessarily be poor.
I’m cool with that.
I’m cool with that too. Voting should be about getting the best result, not being “the most fair.” Fair isn’t always best, and often isn’t.
I disagree. The House of Lords was an oligarchical holdover, but the Commons was still the real power even in the 18th century. They had all but neutered ole George III and his descendants would be wholly neutered a few decades later.
The Commons was upper class, but not an oligarchy. There are valid reasons for limiting the franchise, and to me it destroys the usefulness of the term “oligarchy” if it just means “any franchise that isn’t every single person who with a heart beat and a functional brain.” The term oligarchy was literally coined to describe the form of government typical in ancient Rome, where an extremely small group of only a few families ruled everything–in both the Republic and even more so in the Imperial era; and places like Venice or other middle age city states where literally, a group small enough to fit in a conference room ran the whole country. Public elections and such are really not compatible with the system, and both 1789 Britain and America had those.
That’s emotionalist, American-centric hyperbole. That being said–the concept of a property/education limited franchise is not a position I believe has any serious political muscle behind it. Just a sort of thought exercise type point, that such a system would all but certainly produce better governments.
Then I’d call America an oligarchy today compared to Scotland, since 16 year old are going to be able to vote there. The limited franchise in America makes 2015 America an oligarchy.
FWIW a simple limited franchise isn’t even my most favored voting scheme. My favored would be a form of sortition. Districts would have random selection of eligible voters who would be pressed into serving in a sort of voter’s jury. They would be required to sit in attendance at lectures and presentations on the issues over say, one evening a week for a few months. On election day they would cast their votes.
Well, if 54% of Republicans are not only familiar with small details of Sharia Law, but believe in it, then that’s a much bigger story.
And in case it hasn’t been posted yet, here’s a link to the actual survey (PDF)
It shows that among people who favor Trump, a veto-proof 66% believe Obama is Muslim.
You don’t need to go back nearly that far:
Seems like it would have been in all the papers if Obama had been arrested and executed during one of his several visits to Saudi Arabia.