Islamic Socialism Is Superior To Atheistic Socialism

Now the merits of that is most definitely the dual nature of Islamic culture as both traditional and revolutionary. By this I mean that no where throughout human history or even today do we find naturally Atheistic societies on the nation level but just majorities produced via mass destruction of the old system. Historically speaking Atheistic Society on the national level have arisen via brutal destruction of the old society however I suppose that is now inconsequential as you are now arguing for Secularism rather then "State Atheism." I. Addressing The Attacks On Islamic Society And Gaddafhi Now I would say what Iran was doing despicable and would never have been condoned by an Islamic Socialist Nation. I stress that you not assume that because Iran represents such an extreme vision that all Muslims do and all Islamic nations. What you are in Affect saying is: Iran is Islamic, Islamic socialism is Islamic therefore Islamic Socialism=Iran's views. But that is like saying: Ayn Rand was Atheistic, Pol Pot was Atheistic, therefore all Atheist society holds Pol Pot's views. To substantiate this claim lets have a look at the Green Book itself(Gaddafhi's social vision) thought about these issues. On Gender Relations: " It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows as a self-evident fact that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination between man and woman is a flagrant act of oppression without any justification. For woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks ... Woman loves and hates as man loves and hates ... Woman thinks, learns and understands as man thinks, learns and understands" and " There is no difference between man and woman in all that concerns humanity. None of them can marry the other against his or her will, or divorce without a just trial. Neither the woman nor the man can remarry without a previous agreement on divorce. The woman is the owner of the house be- cause it is one of the suitable and necessary conditions for a woman who menstruates, conceives, and cares for her children. The woman is the owner of the maternity shelter, which is the house." So your charge that all Islamists view woman as inferior to men has no weight. Furthermore in the Great Libyan Socialist Arab Jarimahya was any homosexual stoned to death as mandated by the state? Onto Gaddafhi himself now. You claim that all the benefit Islamic socialism gave to Libya has no weight because the regime ceased to exist. Now you claim also that Gaddafhi's defeat in the civil war means that the people could not stand his regime and everyone was aiming to get rid of him. However if we examine the actual civil war itself a much different story emerges. At the civil war began as simple demonstrations not demanding Gaddafhi's removal or the destruction of the government but one in Benghazi concerning victims of a past tragedy at the Italian consulate. later on the 17th of February when the civil war began these organizers denounced the rebels as seeking political gain and hijacking the demonstrations for their own ends. They aimed for the peace and stability that existed in Libya at the time. A man in Benghazi was arrested for inciting a demonstration under the claim that a prison was on fire and they had to save the prisoners inside. After confessing to making this allegation up, he was released the same day. Regardless some persisted in demonstrating and security had to intervene to prevent a clash between pro-government demonstrators and the emerging dissidents. On the 17th a series of sunrise attacks stormed military and government compounds as video footage shows the authorities firing into the air and retreating. When one military compound fell, all the soldiers were slaughtered. later Rebels rolled in never before used tanks and anti-aircraft guns they captured to silence any opposition to their insurrection. Gaddafhi's response was of course war. This civil war would rage for many months and Gaddafhi's supporters were winning the war. Infect the rebels were being overpowered by the Pro-Gaddafhi army so badly that by march 19th the rebels had even thrown back to Benghazi itself! However NATO imposed a "no fly zone" which to them was justification for providing air strikes on Pro-Gaddafhi forces and bombing government strongholds killing hundreds of civilians. So if you think Gaddafhi and all of his accomplishments are rendered invalid by the fact that he lost a war against NATO and an uprising of militants then that is weak argument. Because in effect you are saying might makes right, are you saying whoever wins a war is right and whoever loses is wrong? Finally I will ask you to please provide an answer to the moral dilemma I proposed in round 1. Also some historical examples would be nice. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.aljazeera.com... http://www.youtube.com...