Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Recommended Posts

I was just wondering, what do you think are some qualities or characteristics that make a president a good president :) I'll share my answers later insha-Allah. wasalaam

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering, what do you think are some qualities or characteristics that make a president a good president :) I'll share my answers later insha-Allah. wasalaam


Here is my list of what would make a good president of a republic:

  • The president must understand that he or she is a president of a republic, and not a monarch of a kingdom nor a dictator nor emperor of an empire.
  • The president must uphold the constitution of the republic to the best of his or her ability.
  • The president must be strong enough to resist any attempts to attain more power than is granted by the republic's constitution he or she is bound to uphold.
  • The president would understand that he or she is not exempt from the law.
  • The president must understand that he or she does not have the power to create laws or to unilaterally declare war on another nation or group.
  • The president must obey any court order if that order is constitutional.
  • The president must act, with force if necessary, to repel any IMMINENT danger to the people of the republic.
  • The president would exhaust all possible diplomatic options with hostile nations/groups before considering using force.
  • If the legislative body of the republic declares war, then the president would carry out, to the best of his or her ability, the duties of Commander-in-Chief to meet all the stated objectives in the declaration of war as quickly as possible while minimizing casualties on both sides.
  • The president would not rejoice with the injury or death of any human being.
  • The president must understand that he or she is the "face" of the entire citizenry that he or she represents, and should act accordingly as to not embarrass the people of the republic.
  • The president would know that he or she cannot run the world, cannot run the lives of people, and cannot run the economy, and would take no actions toward any of those three things. Only the people themselves can "run" those things.
  • The president would promote and protect the civil liberties of the republic's citizenry.

That's just off the top of my head.

Edited by Wanderer

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea now go find one , because every President going back in recent history to atleast Stonewall Jackson , has broken at least "one or MORE of your rules " . In case you hadn't noticed , in a DEMOCRATIC Republic [uSA] ,that there are three branches of government to ensure a system of checks and balances . And The Supreme Court , has the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not . Nullification is not an option in a Democratic Republic .


BTW , the Constitution , NOT the President ENSURES the citizenry protection of their civil liberties as prescribed in the Constitution . These things have not and should not be left to whims or notions of any ONE man , not even the President .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea now go find one , because every President going back in recent history to atleast Stonewall Jackson , has broken at least "one or MORE of your rules " . In case you hadn't noticed , in a DEMOCRATIC Republic [uSA] ,that there are three branches of government to ensure a system of checks and balances . And The Supreme Court , has the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not . Nullification is not an option in a Democratic Republic .


BTW , the Constitution , NOT the President ENSURES the citizenry protection of their civil liberties as prescribed in the Constitution . These things have not and should not be left to whims or notions of any ONE man , not even the President .


Imagine that, a human being that doesn't 100% fulfill your expectations. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that conforms to whatever list of criteria you come up with. The Congress hasn't done much in relation to its responsibilities lately in terms of declaring war or curbing presidential overreach. Neither has the Supreme Court said to the current president, "No you can't just unilaterally decide to assassinate American citizens."


Also, a democratic republic is still a republic. Either way it's not supposed to be a monarchy nor an empire. We just happen to use democratic elections to choose our legislators and executives instead of undemocratic methods that are used in other republics. But it's still a republic.


The whole list I gave boiled down to the president basically being chained down by the Constitution, which also chains down the legislature and the judiciary. I also hinted at the separation of powers in my list; I'm not sure how you didn't get that.


Nullification didn't even enter my mind when I wrote my list because nullification originates more with the legislative rather than the executive branch. In our FEDERATION, we have two main levels of government: national and state. Nullification is a tool that has been used in the past both for noble and ignoble purposes by state legislatures who disagreed with laws passed by the national legislature. Nullification is yet another check against runaway government, only in this case it's between the levels of government, not between the branches of the national government. If the three branches in the national government colluded together against the states, then without nullification the states and their state constitutions would have no recourse to protect their citizens from a tyrannical federal government.


In fact, while we're at it, might as well bring up JURY NULLIFICATION as well. Just because the legislature passes a law and judges don't find anything wrong with it, that doesn't mean that juries cannot judge the law as well as the crime. As noted earlier, human beings are not 100% infallible, so when they draft these laws, they cannot foresee every single instance in which the law may be applied or even abused by the executive. Even if they are temporary, juries are still a part of the judicial branch, and they can always vote to not convict a person based upon misapplication of the law or they find the law itself is unjust or unconstitutional in the specific case they examine. Jury nullification serves as a necessary check by individual citizens against the government, as well as a judicial check against legislatures and executives.


Still though, I don't know exactly what set you off since there wasn't any real disagreement in the first place beyond nullification. Since the topic was only about the president, I listed what would make a good president. If the question said what would make a good government, I would have listed things pertaining to the legislature and the courts, as well as different levels of government and the responsibilities of individual citizens.

Edited by Wanderer
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Wanderer said, the President is the face of the country, as exists in the United States. And yes the Constitution upholds the civil rights of the people, but the President must defend the Constitution or press for change (if the Constitution violates civil rights) instead of just being silent. A good president has to be able to negotiate and compromise in my opinion. Also, I believe that the president must be a man or woman of good character, lest the government be a laughing stock.


Congress is a whole 'nother fish so to speak. It is true that Congress is where the laws are made, and frankly a good Congressman or woman is one who actually serves. But this discussion is about presidents. Also as Wanderer said, there is never going to be any president that ever makes everyone happy. Even two of the greatest American presidents (Washington and Lincoln) weren't perfect...and Lincoln was hated not only by a segment that seceded but by some within his own government. A president has to make hard decisions, and hopefully he (or she) will make the right ones.


Lastly, just to clear up something real quick, I believe you meant Andrew Jackson and not Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. Andrew Jackson was a president that history judges for his horrible treatment of the Native Americans whereas Stonewall Jackson was a Lieutenant General of the Confederate States of America. :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, probably the only good thing Andrew Jackson did was to oversee the abolition of the second national bank of the United States. It's extremely ironic that Federal Reserve notes have Jackson's portrait. It is also improper to have Thomas Jefferson on a Federal Reserve note as well, who stated that "banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies," and who fought Alexander Hamilton and his first national bank of the United States.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's been well over a week, and the original poster hasn't chimed in on what she believes makes a "good president," like she said she would. It sure would be nice to have more opinions on this matter...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Guest FireyWitness
      By Guest FireyWitness
      I am told by Muslims the Bible is corrupted book, I am asked "so how can you trust something in that book if you dont have reference, like we muslims have reference the Quran?"
      The Bible tells us why Jesus had to have been born of a virgin. The Quran doesn't tell why it just states He was born of a virgin. The only place and book in all history that information could be found before the Quran was written was in the NT Bible. The Bible has problems but no where near the amount Muslims think! The central message of the gospel is consistent and in tack fully.
      Now, I would have a problem with the Bible if there were a Christian version of Uthman (non prophet) who burned all our original manuscripts and recompiled them into a single book, but that never happened. So why shouldn't I continue trusting it?
    • By Absolute truth
      In the name of God, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.

      Was Jesus God, a son of god , a man, a servant,or a prophet ?
      This post will answer those important questions from the bible itself.

      1) Was Jesus a servant ?
      Yes, the Bible says that :
      1 ) "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen." (Matthew 12:18)
      2) "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus." (Acts 3:13(RSV)
      3) "For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hast anointed...." ( Acts 4:27(RSV)
      The exact same word "pias" is attributed to Jacob (israel) in Luke 1:54 and translated as "servant "(( Can any father call his son "servant " . Can a servant equal his master ? .Who is supreme in rank ? Who orders who and who obeys who ? ))

      2) Was Jesus a man or a son of man?
      Yes, the Bible says that :
      1)ye men of israel , hear these word; Jesus of Nazareth, was a MAN approved of God among you by miracles, wonders, and signs.(Acts 2:22)
      2) the son of MAN came eating and drinking. (Matthew 11:19)
      3) this MAN is really the prophet. (John 7:40)
      3) Now ye seek to kill me, a MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God .(John 8:40 KJV)
      4) “…so will the son of man be…” Matthew 12:40
      5) “For the son of man is going to come…” Matthew 16:27
      6) “…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew 28
      7) “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority…” Mark 2:10
      “…because He is the son of man.” John 5:27
      9) “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22)
      10) “He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed” Acts 17:31
      (( Jesus testified himself that he is " a man" why didn`t he clearly and openly say: "Now you seek to kill me, God incarnate, who has told you the truth." Is it possible that he was hiding the truth? He denied any divinity to himself .Can a man be god ? The bible says strongly : “God is not a man...nor a son of man…” Numbers 23:19 . ))

      3) Was Jesus a prophet or a messenger ?
      Yes, the Bible says that :
      These are just some of the many Biblical verses which point out that Jesus was a prophet and a messenger of the one true God :
      1) this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth. (Matthew 21:11)
      2) Jesus said, "A prophet is never accepted in his home town." (Luke 4:24)
      3) I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than
      the one who sent him. (John 13:16)
      4) Surely this is the prophet who is to come into the word. (John 24:19)
      5) "'What things?' he asked. 'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.'" (Luke 24:19)

      4) Was Jesus a god or a son of god ?
      Jesus never said he is a god or a son of god Let us see what Jesus himself said :
      1) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)
      2) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.(John 5:30)
      3) Hear, O israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" ((and this was the message of all prophets sent by Allah from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all ) "There is no God but God" and if Jesus (peace be upon him) was a god or a son of god he would declare that strongly ))
      4) My father is greater than I (Jesus) (John 14:28)
      5) My father, who gave them to me, is greater than all. (John 10:29)
      6) What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God,who sent me. (John 5:30) ((In these verses Jesus (peace be upon him) declares his complete submission and surrender to the will of our unique God and didn't impute any power or any strength to himself and that was the matter of all prophets before him ))
      7) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18) ((Jesus refused to be called "good" although we humanbeings describe ourselves "good" and this was the top of humbleness of Juses. Jesus emphatically corrects any notion that he was God; he does not like to be called even good, as genuine goodness is a quality of God alone. If Jesus were God, his words do not make sense; because, it does not befit God to humble Himself before His creatures.Then we don't believe that he claimed or accepted to be god or a son of god ))

      8) No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come neither the angels in heaven, nor the son; only the Father Knows. (mark 13:32) (( If he was god he should have known the time of that day but he said the truth and that does not belittle of his rank as one of the greatest prophets that God sent to the human beings . In fact a sincere seeker of the truth should accept what Jesus says about himself and not make Him God or the equal of God!))

      9) *Anyone who says something against the son of man can be forgiven, but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven-now or ever.(Matthew 12:32)
      10) I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17) (( Then The father is the father of Jesus and all people ))
      11) Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and him only.'" (Matthew 4:10)
      12) "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him." (Mark 12:32)
      13) "The Lord our God is Lord alone! Therefore, you shall adore the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Mark 12:29-30)

      5) Was Jesus the only one who was called the son of God in the Bible ?
      No,the Bible doesn't say that :
      1) Adam is the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
      2) israel is my first-born son.(Exodus 4:22)
      3) The Lord has said unto me, thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7,KJM).
      ,4) David is another begotten Son
      *Blessed are the peacemaker, for they will be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)

      ((Tracing this title : son of God" in the Bible, we can find many "sons of God" and that Jesus is not the only son.It can be concluded that the Bible uses this title" son of God" figuratively to mean Righteous, pious, selected, or God-conscious.))

      6) Can God be a man ?
      ((Can God be a man,eat as man,feel hungry ,go to toilet ,is crucified,tortured and be seen and be heard ,cry on the cross and be spit on his face and doesn't have the power to destroy his enemies and pray to his god.What god is that ?))

      1) “God is not a man...nor a son of man…” (Numbers 23:19)
      2) “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9)
      3) Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
      4) in John 5:32 Jesus told his followers that they have never seen GOD at anytime nor ever heard his voice?
      5) "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." (John 5:37)
      6) "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?)

      (( Finally after discussing evidence from the Bible . In fact that God is one, NOT THREE, that
      Jesus is not God or part of God, that he is not equal with God, and that He is not the son of God in the literal sense .The son of god is common in the Bible and it is not underage on Jesus only (peace be upon him )) Please be logical and be rational and don't say what Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't say about himself .He was a model in his faith and in his submission to the will of the only unique God (praise be to him ) . Saying Jesus is a god or a son of god is the biggest sin which God never forgive and Jesus himself prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Jesus (peace be upon him) in this verse warns his followers from being worshippers to him .He ordered his people not to exaggerate in their love to him .
      And All praise is due to God, Lord of the worlds.
    • By Absolute truth
      Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") الحفرية are the preserved remains or traces of animals , plants, and other organisms from the remote past.
      Fossil record,السجل الحفري  history of life as documented by fossils, the remains or imprints of the organisms from earlier geological periods preserved in sedimentary rock.
      Paleontology or palaeontology علم المتحجرات أو الأحياء القديمة أو المستحاثات is the scientific study of prehistoric life.
      Archaeology, or archeology علم الآثار(from Greek "ancient"), is the study of human activity in the past, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind, which includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes (the archaeological record).
      Geochronology  التاريخ الجيولوجي is the science of determining the age of rocks, fossils, and sediments
      Anthropology علم الإنسان is the "science of humanity."
      Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
      Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that evolution occurs through the accumulation of slight modifications over long periods of time.
      Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory to explain the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, which are predicted by Darwinian evolution, It proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is thought to be the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.
    • By Absolute truth
      One great evidence for evolution touted by its followers, is the similar structures found in many diverse and closely related organisms. If evolution were true, and all life has evolved from a single common ancestor, we should expect to see similarities present in organisms. However, using these similarities as evidence for evolution makes the argument fallacious on two counts.
      The Fallacious Argument
      Evolutionists base the evolutionary tree of life (or, ‘phylogenies’) on the similarities found in animals. In other words, if two animals are similar, it is assumed they are closely related in the evolutionary scale. But for evolutionists to turn around and claim these same similarities ‘prove’ evolution is fallacious. This line of reasoning also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here’s why. Evolutionists claim: "If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in organisms. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true." This conclusion may not be true — there are other explanations for similarities in organisms, such as a common designer. To escape their argument being labelled as a fallacy, evolutionists might substitute the
      conclusion "therefore, evolution is true" with "therefore, evolution is probably true". But this is also fallacious. We could say: "If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it will have large depressions. The moon has large depressions. Therefore, the moon is probably made of Swiss cheese." Adding ‘probably’ to the conclusion does not change it from being fallacious as it still commits the fallacy of Hasty generalization.

      Similarities Examined
      Putting all this aside, is it really true that supposedly closely related organisms have similar structures? Yes, some vertebrates do have similar forelimbs — but this could also be the result of a common designer just as much as the result of common ancestry.

      "Common design": The reason for similarities
      It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
      This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.
      It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.
      However, the complexity of the structure of living things cannot be compared to that of bridges, of course.
      Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

      This in itself overrules any claim that similarities are exclusive evidence for evolution. But the data isn’t as consistent as evolutionists would have you think.
      Proponents of Darwin’s theory believe that the eye evolved around 30 different times in different animals because there is no sequence to explain this similarity from a common ancestor. Shouldn't we expect the eye to have evolved once (at most, twice or three times) in a single common ancestor? Evolutionists thought so too, but they cannot create any coherent theories to explain the origin of the eye in this way.

      Scientists were convinced that the Red Panda was closely related to the Giant Panda (photo above) based on many similarities such as extra thumbs, V-shaped jaw, similar teeth, and similar skulls.

      We now know from DNA studies that the Red Panda (photo above) is actually more related to raccoons and not Giant Pandas or bears.
      Seals and sea lions look extremely similar;

      but most evolutionists believe that seals (photo above) is more related to a skunk or otter, while sea lions (below) are more related to a dog or bear.

      Even though they are very hard to tell apart, seals and sea lions are not related.
      Many organisms which are commonly thought to be unrelated also have similarities. Fish have fins and swim in water. But so do reptiles (Ichthyosaur) and mammals (dolphins). So according to the line of reasoning followed by evolutionists, why aren’t these animals closely related?

      Birds have wings. But so do mammals (bats) and reptiles (Pterosaurs). Yet they are not closely related and are thought- by evolutionists- to have evolved from an ancestor without wings.

      Birds have duck-bills. But so do reptiles (hadrosaur) and mammals (platypus). Yet they are essentially unrelated and are thought to have evolved from an ancestor without a duck-bill.
      Birds have bony eye rings. But so do reptiles (Ichthyosaur) and many fish. Yet they are essentially unrelated and are thought to have evolved from an ancestor without eye rings.

      The placental mole and the pouched mole look extremely similar. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them. Yet evolutionists think that the whale and the placental mole are more closely related than the placental mole and the pouched mole.

      The placental mouse and the marsupial mouse are very similar. Yet, evolutionists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the
      marsupial mouse.
      Observer Bias
      All these examples show the sheer folly of the similarity argument as evidence for evolution. But there is more than that — similarities are strongly subject to observer bias.
      For instance, the hyrax is classified the ancestor to elephants and sea cow based on teeth; while it is also classified the ancestor of horses and rhinoceros based on the ears. Dr. Daryl Domning said concerning this:
      "Some scientists have challenged the hyrax, elephant, sea cow connection on the grounds of special anatomical features, like the shape of the teeth in hyraxes, which is much like that of elephants. A particular sac-like structure inside the neck related to the Eustachian tube, which resembles what you see in horses and tapirs, is not found in sea cows or elephants or other mammals. ... In one commonly used approach, it boils down to a matter of counting characters on both sides and using what we call parsimony, the simplest explanation being that the relationship is wherever there is a greater number of characters in common."
      It all boils down to what a certain scientist sees as similar. There are many instances where scientists differ on what a particular organism’s ancestors were — and these differences in opinion are almost always based on similarities.
      Convergent Evolution?
      It is very common for an evolutionist to answer the previously-mentioned anomalies by pointing out that similar organisms could have evolved by means of convergent evolution.
      Convergent evolution basically says that two or more unrelated organisms evolved to have very similar characteristics independently. Not only does is this 'explanation' a cop-out, but it also undermines the whole principle of the similarity argument:

      Firstly, it is irrational to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms (take the eye for instance which supposedly arose 30 different times!).

      Secondly, it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by  convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms didn’t arise by convergent evolution?


      The dilemma is such that evolutionists should drop the similarity argument. It is based on fallacious arguments, pseudo-science, and finally, the very process used to explain unrelated similarities (convergent evolution) invalidates the whole argument! This is one ‘proof for evolution’ that should never be used.

      *: Interview with Dr. Daryl Domning, Paleontologist and Professor of Anatomy, Howard University, for video series, Evolution: The Grand Experiment conducted October 8, 1998, by Carl Werner.