We all have a right to exist as human beings, unless we disobey God so significantly that we no longer posses that right such as if we murder another human being wrongfully, whether they have done something to us or not, commit adultery whilst we are, or have been previously married, renounce Islam, or do something else which God has legislated the death penalty for.

The death penalty itself cannot be carried out except by the authority of the accepted ruler of the land, whether it is a land of believers or unbelievers or Jews or Christians. The Prophet Muhammad once said in a famous tradition which has been verified that you should "Obey your ruler even if he beats your back and takes your wealth", and also "even if he is an Abyssinian slave" (from an unprivileged background).

If this principle was followed by more people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, there would be a lot less corruption and havoc in the world. If you think about it, it makes sense. What do revolutions bring about except chaos and insurrection? Think the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the overthrow and assassination of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, the overthrow, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein Iraq, and not just in the Arab world but in the European world; the far-right-led Euromaidan revolution which led to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime Ukraine which in turn led to the Russian annexation of Crimea, and the rise of Separatists in the Donbas, the revolution and the overthrow of Communism in post-Tito Yugoslavia which led to the formation of seven separate states... this all could have been avoided if the simple principle of never rebelling against the ruler-ship was promoted internationally.

Security and stability is more valuable than freedom, and the same principles apply to the Palestinians. Don't rebel against the Zionist oppression, and eventually things will improve. They will stop viewing you as a threat, and you will live in peace one day.

Glory to our noble god.

You ain't got a God though, right? Enforcing God's legislation is for the ruler only, not the common folk.
This is the main reason why the terrorists in Paris, Denmark and elsewhere are all to blame.

Colonel death penalty is not something commanded by God, death penalty has been decided by "mortal men".

Don't chat utter baloney. You know that's complete and utter garbage.

The death penalty is ordered by God for extreme crimes. Every sane person knows this.

God's decisions are not affected by people, whether Pope, Mufti, Caliph, Rabbi or Saint. They were made, and the desires of men do not bring about anything but the ruin of themselves.

Yeah, Panda, that's utter baloney. Stop spewing nonsense.

it is not ordered by God! Or then the God you are actually believing in, is a bloody one!

If this principle was followed by more people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, there would be a lot less corruption and havoc in the world. If you think about it, it makes sense. What do revolutions bring about except chaos and insurrection?

Those things have already been tried in both fascism and communism, two state forms that I thought you dislike.

If everyone has a moral obligation to unquestioningly obey the leader, then everybody will try to become that leader themselves. Corruption will skyrocket. If you think of a typical less-corrupt nation, you think of a democracy. If you think of a corrupt society, you think of a dictatorship.

Unquestioning obedience let to 6 million dead Jews (I know, I know, Muslims don't find that a bad thing).

Do people not have the right to revolt against an unjust ruler? I understand the wisdom in what Muhammad said, but I do not agree in all circumstances, what if in a coup, someone came to power in say Canada, and began killing innocent Native Americans? Inuits per se. Do they nor have the right to fight back?

Those things have already been tried in both fascism and communism, two state forms that I thought you dislike.

Extreme leftism is worse than extreme rightism, but still both give me the chills. I'm glad someone understands me on that point.

If everyone has a moral obligation to unquestioningly obey the leader, then everybody will try to become that leader themselves.

What makes you assume that? In the Arabian Gulf States the Sunni population apply this rule. Some Muslim Brotherhood terrorist-sympathising leftists try to infiltrate and distort that, and they have been largely successful in Qatar, but it remains in the head of the people. It is simple.

I will give you an example: my close friends from the Shammar tribe were once at war with the Saudis and allies. They took over Riyadh at one point, and ruled Nejd between the Second and Third Saudi States. During that time the Aal-Rasheed ruling family were greatly unpopular in what is now the provinces of al-Qassim and ar-Riyadh. The people however, did not revolt against them, and merely had patience with the motto "we hear and we obey" (our ruler) being foremost above their preferred Aal-Saud overlords especially in al-Qassim. They waited until Abdulaziz Bin Abdurahman al-Faisal aal-Saud came out from Kuwait and took back his family's kingdom.

What makes you assume that? In the Arabian Gulf States the Sunni population apply this rule. Some Muslim Brotherhood terrorist-sympathising leftists try to infiltrate and distort that, and they have been largely successful in Qatar, but it remains in the head of the people. It is simple.

I will give you an example: my close friends from the Shammar tribe were once at war with the Saudis and allies. They took over Riyadh at one point, and ruled Nejd between the Second and Third Saudi States. During that time the Aal-Rasheed ruling family were greatly unpopular in what is now the provinces of al-Qassim and ar-Riyadh. The people however, did not revolt against them, and merely had patience with the motto "we hear and we obey" (our ruler) being foremost above their preferred Aal-Saud overlords especially in al-Qassim. They waited until Abdulaziz Bin Abdurahman al-Faisal aal-Saud came out from Kuwait and took back his family's kingdom.

Did they patiently wait, or were they just afraid of severe punishment if they rebelled? Just because a ruler remains long in power does not mean that there are no attempts to overthrow him. And if power changes in a dictatorship, things often become violent. In a democracy, change of power is expected and bloodless.

Also, one has to note that if a dictator consolidates his power so much that overthrow is impossible, then the society is so repressive that no progress will be possible. Both fascist and communist societies had severe restrictions on freedom of thought and speech. Saudi Arabia implements censorship of the internet. People will think and know what the Saudi government wants, not necessarily what is good for them.

But America does the same thing in a more subtle way... it uses it's propaganda machine to make people think that everything apart from the government's position is foolish. That's why Western politics are always alternating between centre-leftism and centre-rightism.

All countries use propaganda to some degree. There is lots of American propaganda, and there is lots of anti-American propaganda. Still, nobody is forced to watch American propaganda if they don't want to. They can turn off the TV or not visit US propaganda websites. But it's more difficult, if not illegal, to circumvent government internet censorship, like the one in Saudi Arabia.

Minority opinions might be viewed as foolish in the USA, but they are not illegal or censored. Clearly, the USA is superior to Saudi Arabia here.

Edited 4/20/2015 09:41:44

Clearly Saudi Arabia is superior here. Saudi Arabia doesn't degrade people merely for holding an opinion.
If it goes against the religion, they just flog or behead them depending on the severity, and they take preventative measures to protect the population. Only things like pornography or dissident blogs are censored. It's not like the whole internet filters out the minute detail which might insult the royal family... also, all censored websites are done so on the request of a member of the public. It is then reviewed by the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice and action is taken accordingly.

In my honest opinion, I see no difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Wow, Saudi Arabia is so humane. They don't ridicule dissident opinions, they just murder all dissidents. Funny how you claim that beheading religious dissidents is "protecting the population".

Only things like pornography or dissident blogs are censored.

How open-minded of Saudi Arabia! Only porn and differing opinions are censored! Poor Americans, they have it so bad!

It's not like the whole internet filters out the minute detail which might insult the royal family...

So criticism of the royal family is forbidden... and nobody knows exactly what constitutes criticism of the royal family. How convenient. If a government official doesn't like somebody, he can just accuse them of insulting the king! After all, what's insulting is subjective.

also, all censored websites are done so on the request of a member of the public. It is then reviewed by the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

And the government isn't part of the public? Of course they can censor whatever they want. Also, I love the name of that ministry. It's like just out of 1984.

"the overthrow, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein Iraq" Not a revolution

"the far-right-led Euromaidan revolution which led to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime Ukraine" Not far right - what media do you read to miss this?

"the revolution and the overthrow of Communism in post-Tito Yugoslavia which led to the formation of seven separate states..." Obviously a fallacy as Tito was a revolutionary himself. - For you to say what came after was bad you need to admit that his revolution was good. Which would disprove your point.

"What do revolutions bring about except chaos and insurrection?" - Wasn't The Prophet Muhammad a revolutionary himself ... Oh sorry that doesn't work with your argument either ... we'll just move on ey?

Talking about prophets ... Jesus Christ he's a Muslim prophet ... and oh damn ... a revolutionary too, peaceful but yeah still a revolutionary.

Washington (American Independence), Ghandi (Indian self rule), Nelson Mandela (Ended Apartheid), Emmeline Pankhurst (Won British women the vote, Women's suffrage) Martin Luther King & Rosa Parks (American Civil Rights movement), William Wilberforce (A major player in illegalizing the British slave trade) etc etc ...

Oh I forgot one ... the Al Sauds ... revolted against Ottoman rule in The Arabian Peninsula leading to the formation of errr ... Saudi Arabia.

Now if the Al Sauds had been good Muslims like you suggest:

in a famous tradition which has been verified that you should "Obey your ruler even if he beats your back and takes your wealth", and also "even if he is an Abyssinian slave" (from an unprivileged background).

They would have obeyed the Caliph in Istanbul.

Edited 4/20/2015 11:00:33

And the Sauds when they finally succeeded to conquer territories which would become later Saudi Arabia (you can see here how modest they are giving their family name to an entire nation) with the help of the British, they brought Salafism and Wahhabism as the dominant sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia and surrounding states (Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud were allied).
Their retrograde vision helped greatly to develop some obnoxious ideologies, and as a real contributing factor it led to what we know today: Islamist terrorism, intolerance, hatred and violence, everything here comes from those obscurantist Wahhabi/Salafi ideologies. Because Wahhabism is truly the fountainhead of Islamist terrorism.
Not really suprising to see that the historical Al Qaeda leader, Usama Bin Laden came from a very important Arab family supporting the Al Saud.

Giving you some really worrisome figures and infos:

"It would be troublesome but perhaps acceptable for the House of Saud to promote the intolerant and extremist Wahhabi creed just domestically. But, unfortunately, for decades the Saudis have also lavishly financed its propagation abroad. Exact numbers are not known, but it is thought that more than $100 billion have been spent on exporting fanatical Wahhabism to various much poorer Muslim nations worldwide over the past three decades. It might well be twice that number. By comparison, the Soviets spent about $7 billion spreading communism worldwide in the 70 years from 1921 and 1991."

Edited 4/20/2015 11:17:34

>_<

Edited 4/20/2015 12:24:56