NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/

ISSUE 416: If someone's shoes are taken, and in their place, another pair of shoes are left, then in the event that one knows that the shoes that are remaining are the property of the person who took his shoes, and this person will be content that the person (whose shoes were taken) takes his shoes in place of the stolen shoes, he can take these shoes in substitute for his own shoes (that were taken). However, if he knows that his shoes were taken unjustly or without right, and if the value of the shoes that are left behind

(Q.73) What is the ruling on playing chess using the commonly known equipment? Is the ruling different if the play is conducted on a computer, using symbols?
A: Playing chess is haraam mutlaqan (absolutely or under any circumstances), even though betting is not used. There is no difference between the two methods of play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Q.74) What is the criterion of [chess] being haraam as a gambling tool? Is it the preparation with the intent of gambling or through use of urf (generally accepted practice, custom, or usage)? Also, is there any difference between an urf of a particular society and an international one?
A: The criterion is that it be set up for gambling and used for it, in such a manner that it is readily known as a gambling tool. It suffices to describe it accordingly in a particular society.


Interesting...but why is playing chess forbidden?

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/





Interesting...but why is playing chess forbidden?
When were chess EVER a gambling game???

What Iraq might soon look like?Iraq will look like Iran...

....Then again...
That is what most Iraqis want..
That is Democracy..

When were chess EVER a gambling game???
Never.

Interesting...but why is playing chess forbidden?

I'm not sure about all Islamic nations, but Iran and Saudi Arabia also ban chess (as well as other board games such as backgammon). The rationale is that it's used for gambling, but also "immerses" people in it and draws people away from the teachings of the prophet.

(I read about this while looking with bemusement at the entry conditions for travel to Saudi Arabia.)

When were chess EVER a gambling game???
Apparently it's not even about the gambling itself though...it's about the game. I wonder why?

Iraq will look like Iran...

....Then again...
That is what most Iraqis want..
That is Democracy..
Yeah, that's kind of the point of the thread. I think it's useful to actually have a look at the ideas of the top spitual theoretician to-be.

I'm not sure about all Islamic nations, but Iran and Saudi Arabia also ban chess (as well as other board games such as backgammon). The rationale is that it's used for gambling, but also "immerses" people in it and draws people away from the teachings of the prophet.

(I read about this while looking with bemusement at the entry conditions for travel to Saudi Arabia.)
They should get rid of those laws. Do they think everyone is a Muslim or something like that. Religious laws should be stopped.

They should get rid of those laws. Do they think everyone is a Muslim or something like that. Religious laws should be stopped.

The problem is that in these totalitarian societies, there is only one "truth" and that is Islam. All other opinions, ideologies and beliefs are irrelevant to the leadership of these nations.

Religious laws should be stopped.
Religious laws?
Muslim Laws?

That is what most Iraqis want..
That is Democracy..

Religious laws?
Muslim Laws?

That is what most Iraqis want..
That is Democracy..
No it's not. You could as well declare Hitler's regime democratic- it, too, was originally elected, it was what the people wanted, wasn't it?

It is not democratic to end democracy by a majority vote.

It is not democratic to end democracy by a majority vote.
Truth is though that at this point, it seems like the Shia (together with the Kurds - but I don't see them being part of a durable Iraq) have pretty much imposed the constitution on the Sunni.
And the spiritual leader of the Shia (who's apparently very popular) thinks that chess is bad, but anal- and oral sex is okay (as long as no sperm is wasted). And that you can buy shoes without consent.

It is not democratic to end democracy by a majority vote.You are an oximoronYou could as well declare Hitler's regime democratic- it, too, was originally elected, it was what the people wanted, wasn't it? Hitler WAS democraticaly elected...You cant change history.

Truth is though that at this point, it seems like the Shia (together with the Kurds - but I don't see them being part of a durable Iraq) have pretty much imposed the constitution on the Sunni.
And the spiritual leader of the Shia (who's apparently very popular) thinks that chess is bad, but anal- and oral sex is okay (as long as no sperm is wasted). And that you can buy shoes without consent.
what's the big deal with shoes?

Hitler WAS democraticaly elected...You cant change history.
Well, but it wasn't all quite right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#The_road_to_power

No it's not. You could as well declare Hitler's regime democratic- it, too, was originally elected, it was what the people wanted, wasn't it?

It is not democratic to end democracy by a majority vote.

A common misconception. Hitler didn't win the majority; the Nazi party made a coalition with the conservative DNVP after they only won 44.5% of the seats. So technically, he didn't even have the consent of the majority. :p

what's the big deal with shoes?
I assume it's got to do with mix-ups outside the mosque.

Truth is though that at this point, it seems like the Shia (together with the Kurds - but I don't see them being part of a durable Iraq) have pretty much imposed the constitution on the Sunni.
And the spiritual leader of the Shia (who's apparently very popular) thinks that chess is bad, but anal- and oral sex is okay (as long as no sperm is wasted). And that you can buy shoes without consent.If those are all the Flaws you can find in their law...

WOW !!!

THAT MEANS THEY ARE ALMOST PERFECT....

Dude you gotta be wrong...Laws are never that perfect...they gotta have a lot more stupid laws...

I mean look at me...I Lived in many countries...and most had a monster collection of stupid laws...

You are an oximoron

It isn't an oxymoron; by an elected party arbitrarily deciding to end elections, they are in effect causing a great deal of repression to all of those that did not vote for them.

Would you still call the USA democratic if 50.2% of the population decided that black people were a menace to the nation and sent them away on boats?

Or, if say, 50.2% of the population voted to outlaw Christianity?

Democracy is more than just voting.

If those are all the Flaws you can find in their law...
I'm not after finding flaws. As long as they comply with the UN Charter and Human Rights, it's really none of my business what their laws are.
I just wanna find out more about them.

what's the big deal with shoes?

I have often thought shoes should be banned. They lead to large scale repression.

Truth is though that at this point, it seems like the Shia (together with the Kurds - but I don't see them being part of a durable Iraq) have pretty much imposed the constitution on the Sunni.
And the spiritual leader of the Shia (who's apparently very popular) thinks that chess is bad, but anal- and oral sex is okay (as long as no sperm is wasted). And that you can buy shoes without consent.
Yes, it's problematic, without a doubt. The Americans are so eager to "win hearts and minds" that they may be allowing a real disaster to happen during the drafting of Iraqi constitution. It is in the Iraqi parliament, not on the battlefield, that the US is about to lose.

Have you read the Constitution draft (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:rZKJQ6wiTLAJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf+iraq+constitution&hl=en)?

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

How are they planning to reconcile those, I wonder.

It isn't an oxymoron; by an elected party arbitrarily deciding to end elections....

Let me take your hand ..and walk you tru it...

They are elected...they ARE a Democracy...

If at one point they "end elections" (I assume you mean to say they stop the elections cycle)...at that point they stop being a democracy...

Unless...the Constitution had special laws regarding War..

Let me take your hand ..and walk you tru it...

They are elected...they ARE a Democracy...

If at one point they "end elections" (I assume you mean to say they stop the elections cycle)...at that point they stop being a democracy...

Unless...the Constitution has laws have special provision for War..

They are a democracy up until they stop respecting the rights of minorities (In the context of this thread, I see banning chess as loopy, but not breaching that). I maintain that democracy is more than having elections. Iran has elections too. Is Iran a democracy?

They are a democracy up until they stop respecting the rights of minorities ...Democracy IS rule by the Majority.

You cant change history...and you cant change facts...

in your personal world...You are free to accommodate the meaning of words..to suit your personal ideologies...but its not going to change the Real definition.

Try www.Webster.com

Yes, it's problematic, without a doubt. The Americans are so eager to "win hearts and minds" that they may be allowing a real disaster to happen during the drafting of Iraqi constitution. It is in the Iraqi parliament, not on the battlefield, that the US is about to lose.

Have you read the Constitution draft (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:rZKJQ6wiTLAJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf+iraq+constitution&hl=en)?

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

How are they planning to reconcile those, I wonder.
with the rules of islam being mentioned first i assume they will give preference to laws that comply with islam, if their is a conflict that cannot be left unresolved.

I maintain that democracy is more than having elections. Iran has elections too.

Is Iran a democracy?Absolutely.

Iran and Israel are the only true democracies...in that region.

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/

Interesting...but why is playing chess forbidden?

Go Democracy!

Anyway, board games are not forbidden in Islam ... but there are some whacky people in the world who interpret hadith in some really, really strange ways.

Remember: You gotta fight for your right to party.

Democracy is rule by the Majority.

You cant change history...and you cant change facts...

in your personal world...You are free to acomodate the meaning of words..to suit your personal ideologies...but its not to change the Real definition.

Try www.Webtser.com

No, democracy comes from the greek word "demos", which means people. Democracy means "rule by the people".

"The people" includes minority groups. "The people" in our society is the entire population. If minorities are unable to access and make change within the system because of the majority, and if their rights are not protected, then that society cannot be rightly called a democracy. It is not the people ruling; it is a selective proportion of the population.

They are a democracy up until they stop respecting the rights of minorities ...No, democracy comes from the greek word ....blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, :rolleyes: Like i said:

Democracy IS rule by the Majority.

in your personal world...You are free to accommodate the meaning of words..to suit your personal ideologies...but its not going to change the Real definition.

Try www.Webster.com
...
...
Since you are too lazy I ll do it for you:
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=democracy&x=0&y=0

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/

Interesting...but why is playing chess forbidden?

Probably for the same reason that a six-sided die is forbidden.

Gambling is haram - not because it represents gaming or betting, but because it represents non-determinism. We are acknowledging that there is something that is not knowable in advance, and yet we are asserting that we can predict the outcome - we're playing God, in essence. Even if not done for money, it's still gaming to them.

Just giving a science lecture on the non-deterministic nature of quantum phenomena is blasphemy in some Islamic circles.

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
all of the people.

it seems to me that you are just as capable as anyone of manipulating words to suit your own opinion. and now your caught in a circular argument, you've already repeated yourself once.

:rolleyes: Like i said:

Democracy IS rule by the Majority.

in your personal world...You are free to accommodate the meaning of words..to suit your personal ideologies...but its not going to change the Real definition.

And that dictionary article isn't someone else's (in fact, your personal) definition? I believe the early (and quite a few modern) democratic thinkers might have some contention with that. And some would agree. That is democracy, after all.

However, I draw your attention to:

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

If the majority decides to arbitrarily privelige themselves at the expense of the minority (say, by using my earlier examples), then by that definition, such a society cannot be called democratic. That just proves my point.

And that dictionary article isn't someone else's (in fact, your personal) definition? I believe the early (and quite a few modern) democratic thinkers might have some contention with that. And some would agree. That is democracy, after all.

However, I draw your attention to:

Quote:
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges


distinctions and privileges will always exist...no matter what...the minute you decide to pay more to the Doctors...you are creating distinction and Privileges...

what Definition number 5 is talking about is rule by Monarchy... notice the words "hereditary or arbitrary"

distinctions and privileges will always exist...no matter what...the minute you decide to pay more to the Doctors...you are creating distinction and Privileges...

what Definition number e is talking about rule by Monarchy... notice the words "hereditary or arbitrary"

If that's what you think, then it's obvious that you don't know what "arbitrary" means.

distinctions and privileges will always exist...no matter what...the minute you decide to pay more to the Doctors...you are creating distinction and Privileges...

any priveleges that doctors recieve are in no way hereditary or arbitrary. that definition doesn't refer to all distinctions, just those inherited or granted with no good reason.

all of the people.LOL...

ALL of the people???

then we don't have Democracy today in the US...because we are Governed by 50% of the People...

50% of the people are having all the laws written "their way"...they are also getting to pick Judges that will interpret laws "their way"...50% of the people is calling all the shots...

ALL of the people???
Heck they don't have Democracy in Germany, or Canada...And when was the last time the US or any country had a Government by ALL of the people???

I don't know:confused:

any priveleges that doctors recieve are in no way hereditary or arbitrary.That is exactly my point...

If that's what you think, then it's obvious that you don't know what "arbitrary" means.Hi sierra, nice for you to drop by :fluffle:

:D :D :p :D

LOL...

ALL of the people???

then we don't have Democracy today in the US...because we are Governed by 50% of the People...

50% of the people are having all the laws written "their way"...they are also getting to pick Judges that will interpret laws "their way"...50% of the people is calling all the shots...

ALL of the people???
Heck they don't have Democracy in Germany, or Canada...And when was the last time the US or any country had a Government by ALL of the people???

I don't know:confused:

It's possible to argue that they aren't democratic on that basis (though I won't); but these societies all respect the rights of minorities. The important thing is that each of these societies recognises and protects the rights of minority groups to participate in the political process.

If the whites in the USA were able to hold a referendum that took away the voting rights of all blacks, then that wouldn't be democratic.

I would argue that Iran isn't democratic, for example, because a council of clerics approves candidates running for the election...and one of the conditions is that candidates are Islamic.

(Although the Christian, Jewish and Zoroastarian communities are allowed to elect a "delegate" to parliament, said delegate does not have any political power in practice.)

EDIT- And I should point out that other groups are not viewed so leniently.

If the whites in the USA were able to hold a referendum that took away the voting rights of all blacks, then that wouldn't be democratic.I agree. Democracy is a set of conditions. Free elections are only one part of said conditions.

LOL...

ALL of the people???

then we don't have Democracy today in the US...because we are Governed by 50% of the People...

50% of the people are having all the laws written "their way"...they are also getting to pick Judges that will interpret laws "their way"...50% of the people is calling all the shots...

ALL of the people???
Heck they don't have Democracy in Germany, or Canada...And when was the last time the US or any country had a Government by ALL of the people???

I don't know:confused:
you've only responded to the opening line of my post and ignored the main point; anyone can manipulate the meaning of a word. just because you point out that someone else has done it doesn't give you license to do it yourself.

ALL of the people???

then we don't have Democracy today in the US...because we are Governed by 50% of the People...

50% of the people are having all the laws written "their way"...they are also getting to pick Judges that will interpret laws "their way"...50% of the people is calling all the shots...

ALL of the people???
Heck they don't have Democracy in Germany, or Canada...And when was the last time the US or any country had a Government by ALL of the people???

I don't know:confused:It's possible to argue that they aren't democratic on that basis (though I won't); but these societies all respect the rights of minorities. I have nothing against Minority rights, of human rights, or Privacy rights,

That what the charters of Rights are for.

They are all good...

I have nothing against Minority rights, of human rights, or Privacy rights,

That what the charters of Rights are for.

They are all good...

Of course; i'm not attempting to bring your personal views into this or imply that you believe that blacks shouldn't have the vote (that was just an example). But some people might. If they then managed to get a majority in parliament, the society wouldn't be truly democratic if it tried to curtail these rights. That's all my point is. :)

So, if they set up a system that they want, and they are happy with... but the US admin is NOT happy with... is that not IMPOSING a system on people that don't want it?:confused:
Is it not undemocratic to impose democracy?:confused:


This is a Shia woman talking...
In the queues outside polling stations, people were clear about what they thought a "Yes" vote would mean.

"We want to live in an Islamic republic," said one woman dressed in the traditional black abaya.

"That is our religion, so we must have a president who is Islamic too."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4347636.stm

Edit: Odd the link won't work now. :confused: . anyway it was an article on the BBC News. com website about "What Yes in the constitution" meant to the Iraqis

Wait, let me get this straight: The US invaded Iraq and now, after lots of dead people and soldiers it's turning into a theocracy, just like ME AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WARNED? Geez, what a SURPRISE, is it not?

Wait, let me get this straight: The US invaded Iraq and now, after lots of dead people and soldiers it's turning into a theocracy, just like ME AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WARNED? Geez, what a SURPRISE, is it not?

Well, after hearing everyone who hates the US say, "OMFG! the eVIl US is going to set up a puppet government in Iraq!"

it does come as a surprise...

Maybe we just wanted them to have the government the people of Iraq wanted.

And maybe, just maybe, they'll remember that as a gift from the US.

Well, after hearing everyone who hates the US say, "OMFG! the eVIl US is going to set up a puppet government in Iraq!"

it does come as a surprise...

Maybe we just wanted them to have the government the people of Iraq wanted.

And maybe, just maybe, they'll remember that as a gift from the US.

It probably would have become a puppet government if people *hadn't* protested at the possibility.

Maybe we just wanted them to have the government the people of Iraq wanted.


Should read: "Maybe we just wanted them to have the government we thought the people of Iraq wanted"

If they vote in clerics into power, then thats the type of govt they want. You can't impose democracy on someone. It will forever be associated with an occupying force- thereby linking negative connotations with the occupier and the system they are pushing on people. They will instinctivley turn away from that.

It probably would have become a puppet government if people *hadn't* protested at the possibility.

Obviously, we're not as evil as people keep saying we are.

And maybe, just maybe, they'll remember that as a gift from the US.
You know, if people go to a restaurant and they love the food, they tell on average something like two people.
If they hated it, they tell ten people.

They're gonna remember the looting, the suicide bombs and Abu Ghraib. After a few years, the American involvement in anything else is going to become little more than a side note.

delete

delete
:confused:

:confused:
That was an edit. I said something I later realized was irrelevant.