Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Saudi's may kick out US forces!
mujaahid
10/18/01 at 12:59:58
LONDON [MENL] -- Saudi Arabia is quietly debating whether to end the U.S. military presence in the kingdom. Western diplomatic sources said the Saudi royal family has not relayed any such intent to Washington. But the royal family has been examining the option of calling on U.S. forces to leave the kingdom to relieve the intense pressure by the Islamic opposition. Crown Prince Abdullah, the sources said, appears to favor such a call. The move is said to be opposed by Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan, a rival to the throne. An estimated 13,000 U.S. military personnel and support staff are deployed in eastern Saudi Arabia. The U.S. military also has the use of facilities in Dharan, Riyad and Taji for aircraft. The military personnel is joined by another 30,000 American nationals, many of whom help train the Saudi military and work on weapons programs. The sources said the Pentagon is aware of the debate within the Saudi ruling family. They said officials have been examining alternatives to the U.S. military presence in the kingdom. The options could include Oman, regarded as Washington's most reliable ally in the Gulf. The United States could also transfer aircraft and installations to such countries as Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The debate within the royal family is not meant to end the U.S.-Saudi alliance, the sources said. They said Riyad intends to maintain oil stability, a key interest of Washington.

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
Kashif
10/18/01 at 13:43:27
May Allah hasten the exit of the US troops from the Arabian peninsula. They can be at ease with their families, and we can feel at ease in following the command of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Kashif Wa Salaam
NS

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
NewJehad
10/19/01 at 14:03:14
Oman is in the arabian peninsula. May Allah hasten the distruction of America and it's kufr. May Allah distroy democracy and make its evil clear just like he did so for communism.

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
Kashif
10/19/01 at 14:15:04
assalaamu alaikum Its important to point out that our gripe isn't with America, as in the American people at large. Its with certain elements to do with the country, namely its government. And i'm sure that we all understand that there is a difference between the two.* Kashif Wa Salaam * Albeit, the pursuits of the govt. are followed using the tax dollars of the American people and it is appropriate that people show interest in where their dollars go, if only to make sure that they're not used in wrong ways. The same applies to me a a Briton and my tax pounds!
NS

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
BroHanif
10/19/01 at 17:57:56
Another thing I've noticed is that there is a strong rivalyry between Crown Prince Abdullah and the so called Defense Minister. I'm for Crown Prince Abdullah for the throne. Insha-allah he'll bring some good change to the kingdom, otherwise...there may be muslim blood spilt in the holy lands very very soon.... [quote]The debate within the royal family is not meant to end the U.S.-Saudi alliance, the sources said. They said Riyad intends to maintain oil stability, a key interest of Washington[/quote] So what happens when the oil ends ?? Do the Saudis and Washington pat each other on the back and walk off in thier different ways ?.

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
MuslimaKanadiyya
10/21/01 at 21:29:23
[slm] I have a quick question regarding NewJehad's statement: [quote] May Allah distroy democracy and make its evil clear just like he did so for communism.[/quote] Wasn't Abu Bakr elected to the position of first caliph through a democratic process wherein the companions chose him from among all the followers of the prophet [saw]? [wlm]

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
Kashif
10/22/01 at 04:43:01
[quote]I have a quick question regarding NewJehad's statement: May Allah distroy democracy and make its evil clear just like he did so for communism. Wasn't Abu Bakr elected to the position of first caliph through a democratic process wherein the companions chose him from among all the followers of the prophet ?[/quote] assalaamu alaikum I'm not answering on NJ's behalf, but i had some comments to pass on both points raised here. 1> Democracy. There is a very interesting article about democracy by Sh. Ja'far Idris (which i've pasted below). What it discusses is that democracy to some extent is permissible. However, it becomes haram when it reaches the level which it has in many societies where the laws of man are allowed to overrule the laws of Allah/God. 2> Selection of Abu Bakr Neither Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman were installed as Khalifah by what you could call a democratic process. Abu Bakr was chosen as the successor to the Prophet essentially from the indications of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam himself. Umar was selected by Abu Bakr. And Uthman was selected essentially by one person too from amongst a group of only six companions. From what i remember, the selection of the Muslim ruler isn't done by way of polling the Muslims at large: it is made by a group of specialised people termed collectively 'ahl al-halle wal-aqd' [those who bind and release]. These are basically the movers and shakers of society. Kashif Wa Salaam ----------------------------- Shoora and Democracy: A Conceptual Analysis Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is shoora? Shoora comes from an Arabic word shara whose original meaning, according to classical Arabic dictionaries was to extract honey from hives. The word then acquired secondary meanings all of which are related to that original one. One of these secondary meanings is consultation and deliberation. The way consultation and deliberation bring forth ideas and opinions from peoples' minds must have been seen to be analogous to the extracting of honey from hives. It might also have been thought that good ideas and opinions were as sweet and precious as honey. According to this purely linguistic meaning, shoora is no more than a procedure of making decisions. It can thus be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and deliberation among those who have an interest in the matter on which a decision is to be taken, or others who can help them to reach such a decision. The important matter on which shoora is made can be either a matter which concerns an individual, or a matter which concerns a group of individuals, or a matter that is of interest to the whole public. Let us call the first individual shoora, the second group shoora, and the third public shoora. Thus formally understood, shoora has nothing to do with the kind of matter to be decided upon, or the basis on which those consulted make their decisions, or the decision reached, because it is a mere procedure, a tool you might say, that can be used by any group of people - a gang of robbers, a military junta, an American Senate or a council of Muslim representatives. There is thus nothing in the concept which makes it intrinsically Islamic. And as a matter of fact shoora in one form or the other was practiced even before Islam. An Arab Bedouin is reported to have said, "Never do I suffer a misfortune that is not suffered by my people." When asked how come, he said, "Because I never do anything until I consult them, astasheerahum.. “ It is also said that Arab noblemen used to be greatly distressed if a matter was decided without their shoora. Non Arabs also practiced it. The Queen of Sheba was, according to the Qur'an, in the habit of never making a decision without consulting her chieftains.. What is democracy? What is democracy? The usual definition is rule, kratos, by the people, demos. On the face of it, then, democracy has nothing to do with shoora. But once we ask: "How do the people rule?" we begin to see the connection. 'Ruling' implies ruling over someone or some group, and if all the people rule, over whom is it that they rule? (Barry, 208) The answer on which almost all democracy theorists are agreed is that what is meant by rule here is that they make basic decisions on matters of public policy. How do they make those decisions? Ideally by discussion and deliberation in face-to-face meetings of the people, as was the case in Athens. Similarities Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation. But this is what an Arab would have described as shoora. It might be thought that there still seem to be some differences between shoora and democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters. But the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of life, because a people who choose to give the power of decision-making on political matters to the whole population, should not hesitate to give similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter is of interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be and is, therefore, extended to include such groups as political parties, charitable organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly understood, democracy is almost identical with shoora. There is thus nothing in the primary or extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or secular. If shoora can take a secular form, so can democracy take an Islamic form. Islam and secular democracy Basic differences What is it that characterizes shoora when it takes an Islamic form, what is it that characterizes democracy when it takes a secular form, and what are the differences between these forms, and the similarities, if any? What would each of them take, if put in the framework of the other? I cannot go into all the details of this here. Let me concentrate therefore on some of the vital issues which separate Islam and secularism as world outlooks, and therefore give democracy and shoora those special forms when placed within their frameworks. Let us understand by secularism the belief that religion should not have anything to do with public policy, and should at most be tolerated only as a private matter. The first point to realize here is that there is no logical connection between secularism and democracy. Secularism is as compatible with despotism and tyranny as it is compatible with democracy. A people who believe in secularism can therefore without any violation of it choose to be ruled tyrannically. Suppose they choose to have a democratic system. Here they have two choices: a. They can choose to make the people absolutely supreme, in the sense that they or their representatives are absolutely free to decide with majority vote on any issue, or pass or repeal any laws. This form of democracy is the antithesis of Islam because it puts what it calls the people in the place of God; in Islam only God has this absolute power of legislation. Anyone who claims such a right is claiming to be God, and any one who gives him that right is thereby accepting him as God. But then the same thing would happen if such a secular community accepted the principle of shoora, because they would not then exclude any matter from its domain, and there is nothing in the concept of shoora which makes that a violation of it. b. Alternatively those secular people can choose a form of democracy in which the right of the people to legislate is limited by what is believed by society to be a higher law to which human law is subordinate and should not therefore violate. Whether such a democracy is compatible with Islam or not depends on the nature and scope of the limits, and on what is believed to be a higher law. In liberal democracy not even the majority of the whole population has the right to deprive a minority, even if it be one individual, of what is believed to be their inalienable human rights. Belief in such rights has nothing to do with secularism, which is perfectly compatible, as we saw, with a democracy without limits. There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy, and there are minor differences, but there are also similarities. The basic difference is that in Islam it is God's law as expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. No one can be a Muslim who makes, or freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept, legislation that is contrary to that Divine law. Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption. When some Muslims object to democracy and describe it as un-Islamic, it is these kinds of legislation that they have in mind. A shoora without restriction or a liberal shoora would, however, be as un-Islamic as a liberal or an unconstrained democracy. The problem is with secularism or liberalism, not with democracy, and will not therefore disappear by adoption of shoora instead of democracy. Another basic difference, which is a corollary of this, is that unlike liberal democracy, Islamic shoora is not a political system, because most of the principles and values according to which society is to be organized, and by which it should abide, are stated in that higher law. The proper description of a political system that is based on those principles is that it is Islamic and not shooraic, because shoora is only one component of it. This characteristic of Islam made society immune to absolute tyranny and dictatorship. There have been Muslim rulers who were despotic, but they were so only in that they were not chosen by the true representatives of the Muslim people, or that they were not strict in abiding by some of the Islamic teachings; but none of those who called themselves Muslim rulers dared, or perhaps even wanted, to abolish the Islamic law. This emphasis on the law stood in the way of absolute tyranny in another way. It gave the ulama so much legislative power that it was their word, and not that of the ruler that was final on many matters. An interesting section of one of al Bukhari's chapters reads: If the ruler makes a decision that is contrary to that of people of knowledge, his decision is to be rejected. Walter Lippman considers it a weakness of democracy that it laid more emphasis on the origin of government rather than on what it should do. He says (Rossiter, 1982, p. 21) : The democratic fallacy has been its preoccupation with the origin of government rather than the processes and results. The democrat has always assumed that if political power could be derived in the right way, it would be beneficent. His whole attention has been on the source of power, since he is hypnotized by the belief that the great thing is to express the will of the people, first because expression is the highest interest of man, and second because the will is instinctively good. But no amount of regulation at the source of a river will completely control its behavior, and while democrats have been absorbed in trying to find a good mechanism of originating social power, that is to say, a good mechanism of voting and representation, they neglected almost every other interest of men. Similarities So much for the basic differences, we now come to the similarities, and some of the less basic or minor differences. Islam and liberalism share certain values, basically those which the concepts of democracy and shoora entail. In liberal democracy there are rights which individuals have as individuals, even if they are in a minority. These rights are said to be inalienable and cannot, therefore, theoretically speaking, be violated, even by the overwhelming majority of the population. Such violation, even if embodied in a constitution, makes the government undemocratic, even tyrannical. One might think that the idea of inalienable rights is not compatible with the basic concept of democracy as rule of the people, because if the people choose, by majority vote, to deny some section of the population some of what the liberals call their human rights, then that is the rule of the people, and it would thus be undemocratic to not to let it pass. But on close inspection one can see that this is not so. It is not so because the concept of democracy entails that of equality. It is because the people are equal in having the right to express their opinion as to how they should be ruled that democracy is the rule of the people. But surely individuals have rights that are more basic than participating in decision making whether directly or indirectly. To participate they must be alive, they must be able to express themselves, and so on. There is thus no contradiction between the concept of democracy or shoora and the idea of inalienable rights that sets limits on majority rule, because the former is more basic to democracy than the latter. If I am right in saying that these values are entailed by democracy and shoora, it follows that absolute democracy, democracy that is not constrained by those values, is a contradiction in terms. Islamic shoora agrees with liberal democracy that among the important issues to be decided by the people is that of choosing their rulers. This was understood from the fact that the Prophet chose not to appoint his successor, but left it to the Muslims to do so, and this was what they did in a general meeting in his town al-Madina. When it was reported to Umar, the second Caliph, that someone said that if Umar died he would give allegiance to so and so as Caliph, he got very angry and said that he would warn the Muslims "against those who want to forcibly deny them (their right)". He later made a public speech in which he said, If a person give allegiance to a man, as ruler, without a consultative approval of the Muslims, ala ghayri mashoorati-n min al muslimeen, then neither he nor the man to whom he gave allegiance should be followed (Bukhari, al Muharibeen) As far as my knowledge goes the manner in which this public right is to be exercised, is not specified in any authoritative statements or practice. The first four, The exemplary Caliphs were chosen in different ways. Is the Islamic state democratic? Can a country that abides by the principle of shoora constrained by Islamic values be described as democratic? Yes, if democracy is broadly defined in terms of decision-making by the people. No, if it is arbitrarily defined in a way that identifies it with the contemporary Western brands of it. Such definitions commit what Holden (1988, p. 4) calls the definitional fallacy. In essence it is the fallacy of believing that the meaning of 'democracy' is to be found simply by examining the systems usually called democracies. A common example of this is the idea that if you want to know what democracy is, you simply have a look at the political systems of Britain and America. There are some deep-rooted misconceptions involved here. Apart from anything else, though, such an idea involves the absurdity of being unable to ask whether Britain and America are democracies: if 'democracy' means , say, 'like the British political system' we cannot ask if Britain is a democracy. An example of a definition which commits this fallacy is that of Fukuyama (1992, p. 43) In judging which countries are democratic, we will use a strictly formal definition of democracy. A country is democratic if it grants its people the right to choose their own government through periodic secret-ballot, multi-party elections on the basis of universal and equal adult suffrage. There was no universal suffrage in Athens where women, slaves, and aliens were excluded; no universal suffrage in America until 1920, in Britain until 1918 or 1928, and in Switzerland until 1971. Fukuyama's definition would exclude all these, and would apply only to contemporary Western democracies or ones that are copies of them. I called such a definition arbitrary because it selected, without any rational criterion, only those features which are common to the Western democracies, but not those on which they differ, and made them necessary conditions for a country being democratic. Otherwise instead of government, it could have said 'their own president', but that would have excluded Britain and some other European democracies. It could also have been specific on the periods of time between elections, but that would again have excluded some Western democracies. Why should the right to form political parties be a condition for democracy? Suppose that a country gave its people, as individuals, and not as party members, the right to freely choose their government, why should that exclude it from being a democracy? Why should government elections be periodic? Can't a country be democratic and set no limit to the term of its ruler so long as he was doing his job in a satisfactory manner, but gave the elected body that chose him the power to remove him if and whenever they thought that he was no longer fit for the job? Having said all this, I must add that I do not set any great store on the epithet 'democratic'. What is important to me is the extent to which a country is Islamic, the extent to which it abides by Islamic principles, of which decision making by the people is only one component and, though important, is not the most important.
NS

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
NewJehad
10/22/01 at 05:46:02
Democracy is nothing to do with Islam. it was invented by the pagan greaks, and even they dumped it, cause it does not work. democracy means rule by the people. This is kufr because Allah is the only law maker. A lot of people who want to make it hallal for them selves change the meaning of shorah to mean democracy. when it clearly doesnt. shorah means consoltation. it is when the khalif asks people their opinune on a issue. The khalif has no obligation to except their opinune as the khalif is the emir. and even if all the people, including the khalif were uninted on a issue, that islam does not agree with the issue will not be excepted, as Allah is the only law maker. some opologist change the meaning of democracy to mean voting. it does not. voting is just a means. democracy is a system. in a democracy people might vote on a law or to elect some people who will vote on a law on their behalf. but in islam only Allah is the lawmaker. democracy means rule by the people, thats its literial meaning, as well as its implemented meaning. it does not mean voting, it means democracy. if you voting in a democracy, you take part in the law making, and taking part in the kufr. you may votein the khilfah, to elect the khalif, onlyif that is the means adopted by the khilafah to elect the khalifa and only because in the khilafah the amir has no power to legislate.

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
se7en
10/22/01 at 08:40:41
as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatAllah, [color=black] If true democracy is not confined to the form or model of government but is the way of life of a people wherein man is treated with respect and given dignity, irrespective of what he is or what he is not, then Islamic society, from the very birth of Islam, has been nearest to the ideal, much nearer to it than has been, perhaps, any other society in the recorded history of man. [/color] --  M.N. Masud Here's some good stuff on Islam and democracy: [*][url=http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/qpolitic-9/qpolitic1.shtml]Islam and Democracy: the Emerging Consensus[/url] [*][url=http://www.radioislam.com/WorldAffairs/WorldAffairs.asp]Theory and Practice of Democracy in Islam[/url] [*][url=http://www.twf.org/Library/Democracy.html]Islam and Democracy[/url] [*][url=http://www.soas.ac.uk/Centres/IslamicLaw/PublicIntro.html]Islam and Public Law[/url] [*][url=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9701/reviews/muravchik.html]a review of Esposito's Islam & Democracy[/url]

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
NewJehad
10/22/01 at 12:31:33
[color=black] If true democracy is not confined to the form or model of government but is the way of life of a people wherein man is treated with respect and given dignity, irrespective of what he is or what he is not, then Islamic society, from the very birth of Islam, has been nearest to the ideal, much nearer to it than has been, perhaps, any other society in the recorded history of man. [/color] --  M.N. Masud ??? Democracy does not mean the above, nor does it claim to be, nor do any of the nations that call the system they implement the above. If you give a word a definition that NO one else uses when you use the word you will be the only one who knew what you mean by your words. The purpose of language is to pass ideas, if people use definitions of words that no one else uses and are also not the literal meaning, then there is no point in saying the words. What does democracy mean? From the Greek word demos which means people, and cratus means rule. So laterally it means people have the right to legislate, it is shirk. Now lets talk about democracies. The Greeks who invented the word and the system, did they consider the system to have this objective? NO! The Greeks treated their slaves like animals and did not give this right to their slaves or their women. Their demos (people) made their cratus (laws), so they ruled by democracy. The Islamic state existed from the year 622 to 1924, did people ever make the laws in this? No, All laws were derived from Islam, even the laws that were produced right towards its end which were kufr were claimed to have been derived from Islam. And the khalif was the Amir. We had only one leader, leadership was never shared among all the people. So death to democracy and its shirk! Khilafah is our system and it is not democracy, and we should be proud of the fact that it is not democracy. As in a democracy people make the laws, and when people ever have the right to do this they will oppress each other. What is the most oppressive nation on the face of the earth? A nation whose oppression is unlike any other nation in history, because all the pervious nations oppressed only their subjects or people in neighbouring nations while this nation oppress people in each and every country. It even oppresses the animals and plant in each and every country with its pollution that is at a global scale. It starves billions with its riba. It oppresses billions by installing puppet rulers in their nation. On top of all this they oppress the truth by declaring any one who opposes them as terrorists. And claiming that the purpose of their evil is peace making while it is clearly mischief making. This nation of oppression is the world’s democracy, the USA. If any one doubted democracy( people making laws) is oppression just take a look at the oppression the USA is doing around the world. And even at home, how can a nation where 1/5 black male are in prison at any one time be anything other then a oppressor.

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
Kashif
10/22/01 at 13:58:06
assalaamu alaikum I agree with NJ. The comment by M.N. Masud has nothing to do with democracy and sounds just like what i'd expect to hear from people belonging to a school of thought which aims to pitch the Muslim community head first into the democratic process as practiced in western societies: 'hey look, we were in fact the first democrats!' But obviously we don't really have democracy we have shura. Kashif Wa Salaam
NS

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
se7en
10/22/01 at 17:09:45
wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatAllah, I think it's a good quote.  Ask the average American on the street what thoughts come to mind when they hear the word "democracy", and I'm sure at least some of them will think of equality of people before the law. This just reminds me of when people say things like "adoption is forbidden in Islam" without clarification or qualification.  What impression of Islam do you think a statement like that will give people?  It'd probably be wise, when making such a statement, to mention that the Qur'an in many places praises those who care for orphans and the needy.  Just so that people see the complete picture. I think it's the same in this instance.  When making statements about democracy, perhaps it'd be a good idea to emphasize that we are not against equality of people before the law, innocence until proven guilt, questioning or protesting authority when it is unjust or oppressive, etc.  Again, just so that people see the complete picture. Just speak to people in a way that is *clear*, that leaves no room for misunderstanding what Islam is about.  That's all I'm saying. wAllahu a'lam. wasalaamu alaykum. PS - Brother Jehad, check out the links I posted above, in particular "Islam & Democracy" (the third link).  From reading your post, I think you'd find the quotes there interesting.

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
Saleema
10/22/01 at 17:34:32
[slm] Democracy isn't the only form of system that allows people the freedoms that are supposedly given in a democratic system. That quote by Mr. Masud was poetic rather than legal. People on the street will tell you that an Indian is an Arab. Democracy isn't all that it is made out to be. Good thing that the people perceiive it that way, an illusion, so that the politicians can sleep easily at night and not have to answer to the masses but the only to the top 25% of the population in United States that controls the rest of the population. Personallay, I like the parliamentay form of system better than the one that the U.S. has. [wlm]

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!	se7en
10/22/01 at 17:38:59
[quote]People on the street will tell you that an Indian is an Arab. [/quote] Exactly.  The person on the street may also understand democracy to mean/include something that it is/does not. That's why I said: just be *clear* :)

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
BroHanif
10/22/01 at 18:51:47
I was listening to this bayaan the other day on Human rights and surprise surprise the UN only adopted the Geneva convention a couple of years ago I think it was around 1940's. The Geneva convention is the universal rights of man, of course if you live in some countries it does not apply to you, you are above the law.  The scholar(Moulana Ahmed Ali) gave beautiful examples as to why Islam is the only way forward, Islam even has universal rights of Animals, land, neighbours, POWS etc etc, way before the Spiders web(UN) was constructed. Its a shame that we have forgotten our deen and rely on kufr laws. Everything good has been taken from Islam, I mean even the Mushwarah (making the decision) this was only implemented in the working practices only a couple of years ago. Forget your Harvard and Oxford, we Muslims had it good 1400 years ago and we can still have it good only if we come to the deen of Allah and the sunnah of the last prophet, peace be upon him.

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
Rashid
10/24/01 at 18:33:37
[slm] So basically we can establish that democracy as defined in the dictionary is not practiced anywhere in the world.  A whole lot of Muslims went and voted for bush:  Not only did he not win the majority of votes, but look how he is repaying us.  This is why I never have and never will vote inshallah.  I feel that by voting you're participating in a process where the elected officials elevate the laws of man above the laws of Allah, something that has no place in Islam because as Brother NJ pointed out, Allah is the only lawmaker and we already have a shariah.  These elected officials make lawful what Allah has made unlawful for a reason: abortions, alcohol, fornication, military aggression, interest, etc.  So you say "move to a Muslim country then"  except when you get there you find that the rulers are corrupt dictators and monarchs whose chief desire is to please America.   [wlm]

Re: Saudi's may kick out US forces!
Arsalan
10/24/01 at 22:03:02
[slm] Rashid, good to see you back bro :)   Recently I came across some really interesting stuff out there on the web about how the US is not a democracy, and was never meant to be a democracy (but a "republic" ... the difference between the two things) by its founding fathers.  Fascinating stuff!   Can you tell Political Science is not my forte? :) Wassalamu alaikum.
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org