Jump to content
Islamic Forum
yusufar

Unity In Islam

Recommended Posts

:D

 

:D

 

Brothers and Sisters in Islam,

 

Let us seriously discuss the issue of Unity in Islam.

 

Non-Muslims may also have a bash at this (or bash it, as they please), although obviously most of them would not like to see a truly United Islam being formed, least of all a United Islamic State which they think will terrorise them and force them all to become Muslims, although this would not be the case.

 

Many Muslims themselves (especially many Muslim despots, dictators and elites), for their own selfish reasons, may not even like to see it take place, but may nevertheless pay lip-service to it.

 

Notwithstanding such detractors, I believe at the very least that we should all set in motion an Islamic initiative to promote greater unity amongst Muslims and Islamic countries.

 

If we all work together with other like-minded individuals, organizations, institutions and governments, concrete steps may be taken to help establish workable methods and practical solutions towards achieving the goal of a United Islamic State, if of course in the first place Muslims (or least a majority of Muslims) can agree that this is a desirable goal.

 

A good starting point to remind us of our obligations as Muslims in this regard would be the (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Last_Sermon.htm"]Last Sermon of the Prophet[/url] (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

 

Among one of the worst things that we as Muslims can do today is to merely pay lip-service to those obligations and to ignore the real teachings of Islam brought by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as embodied in the Qur’an and his Sunnah. Most Muslims must understand that it is not sufficient only to obey the basic outward requirements of Islam but forget its real basic teachings.

 

The Prophet (peace and the blessings of Allah be on him) clearly stated in his Last Sermon that the life and property of every Muslim is a sacred trust (as far as all Muslims are concerned).

 

Do Muslims pay much heed to this today? Throughout the Muslim world the life and property of Muslims is at risk from Muslims themselves either acting by themselves or in collusion with non-Muslims. Can this be redressed so that Muslims will feel safe from one another and with each other, no matter where they may be?

 

The path in Islam has been clearly set – affirmation of Allah's Unity and the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), worship of Allah, prayer, purification of wealth, fasting, pilgrimage (if one can afford it), remembrance of Allah, righteousness, piety, knowledge, good thought, good action, good behaviour, good deeds, trust, humility, kindness, tolerance, justice, equity, legitimacy, faith, reason, rationale, charity, peace, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, brotherhood and love.

 

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also made it very clear that if Muslims were to follow the Qur’an and his Sunnah, they would never go astray.

 

Yet increasingly, Muslims seem to become their own worst enemies, making it easy for non-Muslims to take advantage of the divisions amongst and weaknesses of Muslims themselves. Oppression of Muslims by Muslims is thus compounded by oppression of Muslims by non-Muslims (often in collusion with Muslim oppressors as well), leading to frustration upon frustration for the bulk of the oppressed Muslims.

 

The reason is clear – many Muslims do not really follow the Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunnah (even if outwardly they profess to do so) and have gone astray.

 

This is the reality that Muslims must face and address. Can Muslims change for the better?

 

As Ahmed Abu Lafi said in his paper (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.passia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/meetings/2004/June-21-Islam-Bi-national-State.htm"]“Islam and the Bi-National State”[/url]

 

“In fact, the most difficult issue is to change these minds that have been educated and influenced with un-Islamic cultures, and took these cultures as the base for their thinking. This resulted in separating religion from life and the state. Thus they accepted the emergence of a state on foundations other than Islam, and they accepted the establishment of many states in the Islamic lands. Islam has been pushed away from governance and the state, and the Islamic lands have been divided into multiple entities that are not related to Islam at all, even though some of them nominally call themselves Islamic.”

 

Today, more than ever, the ideal of a united Islam seems further from reality than it has ever been at any time in the past. While it may be arguable that a really united global Islamic State has ever existed at any time in history, even during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, nevertheless I would argue that its establishment is necessary to address almost every problem that Muslims all over the world face today, especially in their dealings with non-Muslims.

 

Khalid Baig in his (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.albalagh(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/food_for_thought/corrupt_societies_rulers.shtml"]“Analysis: More Than Bad Rulers and Corrupt Societies”[/url] put it more directly:

 

“…Is the 1.2 billion strong Ummah suffering only because there are fifty-four corrupt persons who are ruling it?

 

These rulers do not carry out all their plans personally. They have armies of compliant soldiers, bureaucrats, and other staffers at every level of government that do the dirty work. Further the societies at large produce, nurture and sustain the corrupt machinery of the corrupt governments. As we continue our investigation, we find that our problem is corruption; not only of the rulers but also of the ruled. Today we have strayed from the Shariah in our personal lives; we lie, cheat, steal at a higher rate than ever before; we exploit and oppress in our small spheres. In short, our problems are caused by our moral corruption.

 

But there is something more. And it is getting scant attention in the Muslim discourse.

 

Islam teaches us the correctness of belief is even more important than the correctness of deeds. There is an implied message here: The corruption of ideas is far more devastating than the corruption of actions. This may be happening here. We complain about the particular tribal leaders that happen to be there today but forget about the tribalism that seats at the root of all this. This tribalism of the nation-states has been enshrined into the constitutions, legal structures, bureaucracies, and the entire apparatus of government in every Muslim country. Its language and thinking, though anathema to Islam, has gained widespread acceptance. While we condemn its outcome, we do not sufficiently examine or challenge the system itself.

 

We constantly talk about the Muslim brotherhood and the need for Muslim unity. We assert that Muslims are one Ummah. Simultaneously – and without much thought – we embrace the symbols, ideas, and dictates of its exact opposite. We have lived under our nation-states, celebrated our national days, and sang our national anthems all our lives. As a result the realization that the gap between the idea of the nation-state and that of one Ummah is wider than can be patched with good leaders of individual nation-states does not occur easily. We do not realize that we may be trying to simultaneously ride two different boats going in opposite directions.”

 

Muslims at large need a United Islamic State to free themselves from oppression by other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

 

But to do that they first have to free themselves from their own egos and their sometimes extreme attachment to self, tribe, sect, race and nation. We have to put Allah, the Prophet (peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him), Islam, the Muslim Community and the Islamic Nation first before ourselves, our tribe, our sect, our race or our nation. This is not and has never been an easy prescription, but one that needs and cries out to be implemented from the very birth of Islam itself.

 

That is the natural state and path of those who have chosen to submit themselves to God, not the path of those led astray by egoism, individualism, tribalism, sectarianism, racism, nationalism and materialism and many other undesirable “isms”.

 

Once the majority of Muslims agree that a United Islamic State is a desirable goal, an arduous enterprise in itself, the further practical steps of drawing up a complete and utterly new framework for the proposed Constitution and the proposed Political, Legislative, Legal, Administrative, Judicial and Economic Structures for such a state which the majority of Muslims agree on will also have to be drawn up and adopted.

 

Muslims must make it a priority to dialogue and discuss Islamic and Muslim Unity and put into operation steps to make it a reality.

 

The obstacles are numerous, not only from non-Muslim but also Muslim sources, but are not insurmountable. Many Muslims themselves may feel that Islamic and Muslim Unity is not necessary, yet react with frustration and misplaced impotent rage at every encroachment, mockery, threat, intimidation, oppression, bombing, killing against and of Muslims by non-Muslims (and other "extremist" Muslims as well).

 

Muslims of all races, tribes, sects and nations must stand united for Islam to stand. For Muslims to be in disarray will mean the eventual demise of Islam and all it stands for.

 

Muslims, unite! The future of Islam and of all Muslims is in your own hands.

 

ONE GOD, ONE RELIGION, ONE COMMUNITY, ONE NATION.

 

yusufar

 

:D

 

 

“Truly the faithful are brothers” (Qur’an 49:10)

 

“And hold fast, all together, by the rope of Allah, and do not be divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favour on you, for you were enemies and He united your hearts, so that by His grace you became brothers” (Qur’an 3:103)

 

“And indeed, this your community (“ummah”) is one community and I am your Lord, so worship Me” (Qur’an 21:92)

Edited by yusufar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

:D

 

 

As long as the project of Islamic unity is based solely on religious appeals it remains wishful thinking. Your article gives no hints how to bridge the numerous secterianism/economic differences/language barriers/geographic barriers... It remains just another shout for unity in the desert. (and we all heard lots of them). The so-called workable steps remain in the dark. We need political ideas. The reasons why we should be tied together more closely are obvious to anyone. We just lack of a sensible how-to.

 

 

Ma'a Salama

 

 

 

nasiruddin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

As long as the project of Islamic unity is based solely on religious appeals it remains wishful thinking. Your article gives no hints how to bridge the numerous secterianism/economic differences/language barriers/geographic barriers... It remains just another shout for unity in the desert. (and we all heard lots of them). The so-called workable steps

 

remain in the dark. We need political ideas. The reasons why we should be tied together more closely are obvious to anyone. We just lack of a sensible how-to.

Ma'a Salama

nasiruddin

 

:D

 

Patience Brother,

 

Neither Rome nor the EEC were built in a day and so also a United Islamic State.

 

I give no hints because this is just the introduction. Yes, there will be a lot of differences to be bridged and each one will have to be identified and solutions worked out.

 

I do not mind shouting out in the desert or anywhere else at all, sooner or later someone will hear, and maybe more will gather towards the call.

 

How-to is obviously not easy, but until we all take that first step towards the light, it will remain dark.

 

By all means, let us discuss the political ideas towards such a goal, after all this is the Political Front of the Islamic Forum.

 

yusufar

 

:D

Edited by yusufar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

What constitutes unitedness? E.g. A free trade bloc, federal state, centralised state, monarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace,

 

What constitutes unitedness? E.g. A free trade bloc, federal state, centralised state, monarchy?

 

Peace to you too,

 

Possibly a federal state with a centralised leadership. I don't think it will be a monarchy until the 2nd Coming of Jesus (pbuh) and even then will be limited only to him probably.

 

It will have to speak with one united voice as far as certain central matters directly pertaining to Islam and relationships with non-Islamic States are concerned (foreign affairs).

 

It may be a free trade bloc as far as all its member States are concerned.

 

The basic European model may be considered, but with a more powerful leadership based on the American presidency.

 

Regards,

 

yusufar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nation-states for the time being are the only effective means to organise. In the age of American hegemony, Muslims must first, along with the rest of the oppressed peoples of the world, challenge the European-led and oppressive international system which subjugates the majority of the globe so the interests of the West, and more specifically America, are served. Once Muslims countries improve their economies, standards of living etc. only then can we really speak of unity. It won't work as long as half the people are starving.

 

I also take issue with Ahmed Abu Lafi. He seems to be suggesting to replace one despotism (secular) with another (religious).

 

I also don't think unity will work unless Muslims stop this trend of calling eachother apostates. If you hold an 'untraditional' or conventional view now it won't be long before you're labelled an apostate or kafir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how would a 'United Islamic State' accept the diversity and plurality in thought of the Muslim world? Will it just be a totalitarian system where only one ideology is propagated and others suppressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Assalamu alaykum

 

 

Once Muslims countries improve their economies, standards of living etc. only then can we really speak of unity.

 

brother So your suggestion is to wait until the economy establishes, and standard of living? when it would happen? so you agree that theres no unity, well if theres no unity how you dream us to be economically established? economy and unity is related to one another. we need to be economically, socially united.

 

It won't work as long as half the people are starving.

 

and to help people from starving we need to be united, if everyone starts to pay zakat, Insallah there wouldnt be anyone living among us under the poverty.

 

wassalam

Edited by Risalat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brother So your suggestion is to wait until the economy establishes, and standard of living? when it would happen? so you agree that theres no unity, well if theres no unity how you dream us to be economically established? economy and unity is related to one another. we need to be economically, socially united.

 

I mean unity in the strict, coherent sense that is being implied in this article. As long as there are overriding national problems, nation-states will remain central and there will not be an opportunity for a proper united Islamic structure.

 

and to help people from starving we need to be united, if everyone starts to pay zakat, Insallah there wouldnt be anyone living among us under the poverty.

 

It is not merely domestic policies that are exasperating poverty. The international economy currently serves the interests of the West. It is created in a way so the rest of the world is subjugated and oppressed, while the West benefits from the disparity. George Kennan, who was the father of the 'containment' policy during the Cold War, for example, explicitly stated in 1949: "we have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity".

 

That is why I think Muslims should join with the oppressed all over the world, regardless of religion, to combat Western imperialist tendencies.

 

One other point i'd like to bring out is that won't a 'United Islamic State' just be a competition of power politics? We have already seen Wahabis use their power to project influence over the Muslim world in terms of ideology. Islam is not homogenous, and with all its plurality, won't a 'United Islamic State' just be run by whoever is most powerful? This could have grave dangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

First of all, thank you for opening such an important and well-intentioned thread. I had a similar thread going once upon a time but it died due to lack of interest :D . Inshallah that won't happen here. If we're going to have this debate then we'll have to move outside the bounds of the article and speak in broader terms. We would all love to have muslim unity, but we have to adopt a picemeal approach. There has never been a monolithic Islamic state in history, as even the domain of the first Caliphs was run along mainly tribal lines with the original Caliphs being more like 'first among equals' rather than absolute rulers. When the Muslim empire expanded and added in non-arab peoples and arab tribes that were originally sidelined, the Caliphate began to evolve into a more monarchial system and problems increased along with the increasein size and complexity. The rest, as they say, is history. My point is that even if a miracle were to occur and all the muslim countries were to unite into one great big Islamic superstate...it will not be a monolith.

 

Eoin raises a good point when he asks what sort or unity are we talking about.

For there to be unity, the individual muslim countries must first put their own houses in order. Now, we have no lack of talented man(and woman) power, nor do we lack for natural resources. What we lack is leadership at the national level. (The lack of global Islamic leadership is obvious). The reason we remain in this hole is because, quite simply, our leaders do not represent us. Those of you who live in the muslim world or have first-hand experience of such will know what I am talking about. From Morrocco to Pakistan we are ruled by Kings, Dictators and military men who are great when it comes to suppressing internal dissent but are utter cowards when it comes to standing up for national interests, let alone Islamic interests. Dictators do not have their constituency among the people, there constituency is among the elite that they patronize and with those forces in the world who would like to see the Islamic world perpetually subjugated. We can never expect Hosni Mubarak, the Saudi leadership or Pervez Musharraf to stand up for what we believe simply because they do not owe us anything. We did not brging them to power, they seized power themselves with the help of the army, their tribes or whatever the case may be. Therefore they are answerable only to those elements that have brought them to power...and to the world powers that sustain them in their positions. So what is the solution? I say the solution is democracy...pure and simple. We must choose our own leaders and hold them accountable. If they dissapoint then we will reject them and vote in someone else and so on and so forth until our institutions are strong enough to sustain the political process. Once this democratic jihad is complete we will ourselves inshallah put our economies in order and then we can talk of unity.

Now, everytime I talk of democracy on this forum I get attacked by people who say that democracy is unislamic and only the caliphate is Islamic. Well, can anyone define a modern political caliphate for me? Who will choose the Caliph? Were the early Caliphs not chosen through consesnus? How long will it take for a non-representative caliph to become just another dictator? What is consensus if not a form of democracy? Also, lets please not link the USA with democracy and thus reject the very concept of democracy. That's as crazy as saying you hate Islam because of Osama, or you hate the idea of seafood because your worst enemy likes fish!

I agree with those who say that we must reform ourselves as individuals...yes if everyone paid the zakat it would be the greatest social security net in history and so on. There is no doubt that in Islam we have a workable blueprint for a near utopian state...but what good will it do is even 90% of the people follow this and the 1% at the top do not? When the leadership comes from among the people, only then will we achieve these goals.

Lets also not forget that it was the curbing of freedom of expression, tacitly approved of by the west that created the frankenstein monster of extremism. If the Algerians, the Egyptians the Saudis, the Pakistanis been allowed to choose who knows what might have been. Believe me, four years of trying to provide water, power, sewerage and jobs to a restive population is enough to blunt even the most extreme agenda!

Once we have our individual democracies/constitutional monarchies ar whatever system of REPRESENTATION we can devise then we can one day join together in a loose confederation. It can start with economic unity and then a NATO style military force and finally an Islamic Union with a rotating leadership...a Caliph by consensus with a five year term. This way none need lose their identity and we avoid the inevitable cultural conflicts. Let us not forget, we may all be muslims but we are culturally very very different. And like it or not...nothing just wipes away cultural difference and individual national interests.

That's my two bits for now.

A request for those who may disagree with what I have said: Please don't give me a one-liner like "democracy is man-made hypocrisy." It may rhyme but its just a shortcut to rational thought. And if you're going to take a position then please give some solid historical/political/religious backing. Otherwise its just a waste of space. I'd also like to request the brothers and sister to ignore the inevitable trolls and stay on topic.

:D

Edited by Ozymandias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nation-states for the time being are the only effective means to organise. In the age of American hegemony, Muslims must first, along with the rest of the oppressed peoples of the world, challenge the European-led and oppressive international system which subjugates the majority of the globe so the interests of the West, and more specifically America, are served. Once Muslims countries improve their economies, standards of living etc. only then can we really speak of unity. It won't work as long as half the people are starving.

 

The problem with this is that many of the Muslim nation-states are controlled by elites who subjugate and oppress their own people. Under these circumstances it is not easy to challenge the oppressive international system, although obviously I would agree that this needs to be done.

 

Many Muslim countries are in fact rich in natural resources, and there is no necessity for their people to remain poor, other than for the fact that the wealth of their countries has deliberately been controlled by their elites and not equitably distributed - this is unIslamic but has become a norm in many Muslim countries.

 

I also take issue with Ahmed Abu Lafi. He seems to be suggesting to replace one despotism (secular) with another (religious).

 

I would agree that we should not replace a secular despotic system for a relious despotic system - that would not be progress nor would it benefit Muslims. But whatever system it is will have to be based on Islamic principles and Muslims will have to ensure that true principles of Islamic justice will prevail.

 

This is something Muslims will always have to guard against, since it so easy for Islam to be hijacked by extremists using the very name of Islam itself, while substituting their own egos' sense of justice for that of Islam.

 

We cannot depend only upon good intentions or purported good intentions of the religious scholars and allow ourselves to be tyrannized by them or any leaders who are elected by us to represent us. A fail-safe system of check-and-balances will have to be worked out and put in place to avoid the Muslim Ummah in general from being held to ransom by any of its components while giving each its rightful role to play in the United Islamic State.

 

I also don't think unity will work unless Muslims stop this trend of calling eachother apostates. If you hold an 'untraditional' or conventional view now it won't be long before you're labelled an apostate or kafir.

 

In my opinion this particular "trend" is worthy of being criminalized and severe penalties imposed on anyone calling another Muslim an apostate or kafir. Personally I don't mind being called anything by anyone, but this kind of labelling can be very divisive for the Muslim Community and even lead to great violence between Muslims as we have seen many examples of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, how would a 'United Islamic State' accept the diversity and plurality in thought of the Muslim world? Will it just be a totalitarian system where only one ideology is propagated and others suppressed?

 

How should Muslims deal with non-Muslims in an Islamic State? With tolerance and respect for their views and lifestyles which do not conflict with Islamic norms. This kind of tolerance must also extend among Muslims as long as any Muslim group does not go against generally accepted norms of the Muslim Community at large.

 

Muslims must learn to accept diversity and plurality of the Muslim world as a blessing, not as a curse or something undesirable. This tolerance must be engendered as an integral and essential part of the United Islamic State. Without it there can be no such state.

 

Islam being what it is - a mercy for mankind and a middle path, it cannot be a totalitarian regime nor can it be an entirely liberal or permissive one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
allow ourselves to be tyrannized by them or any leaders who are elected by us to represent us. A fail-safe system of check-and-balances will have to be worked out and put in place to avoid the Muslim Ummah in general from being held to ransom by any of its components while giving each its rightful role to play in the United Islamic State.

:D

Well I agree 100% with you. However I think it would be easier to impose effective checks and balances in an 'open' system of representation than in a closed 'one-man rule' type system, don't you think so? Ideally all this could be overseen by a regulating body, but I think the individual nations will have to develop their own independant checks and balances first. And yes, there can be no monolithic ideology, that's why I see this as a loose confederation rather than a single 'super-state'. All in all, I'm with you on this one.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean unity in the strict, coherent sense that is being implied in this article. As long as there are overriding national problems, nation-states will remain central and there will not be an opportunity for a proper united Islamic structure.

 

We have to work towards getting Muslims and Muslim governments unhooked from this concept of nationalism or each of their nations first. That is not how Islam works and that is one of the main causes of the break-up and sub-division of Muslim power.

 

Muslims must learn to work together and put the needs and greater good of the Community before their own narrow tribal, sectarian and national interests.

 

It is not merely domestic policies that are exasperating poverty. The international economy currently serves the interests of the West. It is created in a way so the rest of the world is subjugated and oppressed, while the West benefits from the disparity. George Kennan, who was the father of the 'containment' policy during the Cold War, for example, explicitly stated in 1949: "we have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity".

 

In reality the current international economy serves the interests of the elites and the rich and powerful not just of the West but also of Muslims as well. This is how Muslim populations are subjugated and oppressed by their own kind. It is not just the West which benefits, obviously.

 

While the West wants to maintain this disparity on a global level, the Muslim elites want to maintain this disparity on a national level.

 

That is why I think Muslims should join with the oppressed all over the world, regardless of religion, to combat Western imperialist tendencies.

 

Welcome to the insurgency.

 

One other point i'd like to bring out is that won't a 'United Islamic State' just be a competition of power politics? We have already seen Wahabis use their power to project influence over the Muslim world in terms of ideology. Islam is not homogenous, and with all its plurality, won't a 'United Islamic State' just be run by whoever is most powerful? This could have grave dangers.

 

The very diversity of the Muslim world can also be its greatest strength. No one group can become over-powerful. This factor can be worked into the United Islamic State's Constitution. Whoever runs the United Islamic State must really be at the service of the whole Muslim Community and not just one part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who cares. lets think of reason why they are not united!

stubborness

stubborness

stubborness

stubborness

stubborness

stubborness

stubborness

 

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Well, sometimes you need to call people apostates if they are. You would not want a person who says, "The Quran is created" as your ruler now would you? Also, Muslims have to unite on true Islam, and that true Islam is Sunni Islam with out bidah, or shirk or kufr. If you unite on something other than (true, referenced, free from innovation) Islam then you will fail. In this case you have to put your "sect" first, the saved sect, that the Prophet spoke about.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

Well, sometimes you need to call people apostates if they are. You would not want a person who says, "The Quran is created" as your ruler now would you? Also, Muslims have to unite on true Islam, and that true Islam is Sunni Islam with out bidah, or shirk or kufr. If you unite on something other than (true, referenced, free from innovation) Islam then you will fail. In this case you have to put your "sect" first, the saved sect, that the Prophet spoke about.

 

:D

 

Way to ruin it pal. and By the way , didnt you make a thread a while back saying democracy is totally UnIslamic?

 

This topic is called UNITY IN Islam, and im guessing you are not advocating Unity and pluralism since you seem to want the United Islamic State to consider muslims only your kind of sunni Islam (so what about the shia's?)

 

 

 

 

 

So what is the solution? I say the solution is democracy...pure and simple. We must choose our own leaders and hold them accountable. If they dissapoint then we will reject them and vote in someone else and so on and so forth until our institutions are strong enough to sustain the political process. Once this democratic jihad is complete we will ourselves inshallah put our economies in order and then we can talk of unity.

Now, everytime I talk of democracy on this forum I get attacked by people who say that democracy is unislamic and only the caliphate is Islamic. Well, can anyone define a modern political caliphate for me? Who will choose the Caliph? Were the early Caliphs not chosen through consesnus? How long will it take for a non-representative caliph to become just another dictator? What is consensus if not a form of democracy? Also, lets please not link the USA with democracy and thus reject the very concept of democracy. That's as crazy as saying you hate Islam because of Osama, or you hate the idea of seafood because your worst enemy likes fish!

 

GENIUS, PURE GENIUS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D/Peace To All

 

Perhaps it can be a bit like a federation, where current nation's become 'provinces,' with a rotating presidency like the EU, a common monetary system, foreign policy, internal laws, abolish visa's & travel restrictions amongst the 'provinces,' a common miliatry defense force as NATO (which will rely on the 'provincial' forces), common flag, an Islamic Parliament, war crimes court, a court to resolve disputes peacefully, an Islamic federal police (like Europol), a unified Islamic trade bloc, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

too bad a lot of fundamentalist muslims like sallahudeen would never agree since they reject everything not invented in the arabian peninsula.....not to mention democracy.

 

There will never be a khalifah until people from the middle east are brought into the 21st century starting with DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS.

 

Without democracy there cannot be a khalifah. End of Story.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

Well, sometimes you need to call people apostates if they are. You would not want a person who says, "The Quran is created" as your ruler now would you? Also, Muslims have to unite on true Islam, and that true Islam is Sunni Islam with out bidah, or shirk or kufr. If you unite on something other than (true, referenced, free from innovation) Islam then you will fail. In this case you have to put your "sect" first, the saved sect, that the Prophet spoke about.

 

:D

 

True to some extent. This is certainly an issue for all Muslims to consider. There are certain things which obviously go out of Islam completely. But this doesn't mean that we have to impose our judgements when it is not called for, especially when it is not going to lead to any improvement in the position of Islam and may even be to its detriment.

 

In saying this I do not mean that we have to whitewash all differences merely for the sake of unity.

 

There are some things we may ultimately have to leave to Allah's judgement. I don't see why Sunni Islam cannot unite with Shiah Islam, for example, unless Sunni Muslims insist that their sect is the only true Islam as you appear to suggest.

 

Does this mean that you consider Shiah Muslims as not really "Muslims" and beyond the pale of Islam? I do not think that that is a tenable position at all, much as both may have their disagreements on certain points of doctrine which do not affect the basic tenets of Islam in any way.

 

This will involve making a ruling on a matter which may be beyond the knowledge of either of the parties in disagreement and based on suppositions which neither can or should make. At best we can agree to disagree, otherwise we will be faced with the situation of trying to eliminate each other, which will not be in the wider interests of Islam.

 

Arguing about which "sect" is the saved sect is counter-productive and to me completely unnecessary. Neither can impose its views on the other and we could even be prejudging a matter which is within Allah's province and not that of humans.

 

Let's get smart and stop this totally unnecessary bickering, which in some Muslim countries has deteriorated into violence, destruction and death between Muslims - which itself is unIslamic and entirely not in the interests of Islam.

 

Only the enemies of Islam benefit from this and for all you know are also capitalising on it by fostering it and probably partially organizing it in certain areas as well. Why put ourselves in their hands and play their game to our own detriment? Bringing death and destruction upon each other is not going to settle the issue of which one is ultimately right or wrong - that is the irony of the situation if only Muslims realised it.

 

Perhaps it is time for Muslims to start thinking rationally instead of merely emotionally.

Edited by yusufar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

Well I agree 100% with you. However I think it would be easier to impose effective checks and balances in an 'open' system of representation than in a closed 'one-man rule' type system, don't you think so? Ideally all this could be overseen by a regulating body, but I think the individual nations will have to develop their own independant checks and balances first. And yes, there can be no monolithic ideology, that's why I see this as a loose confederation rather than a single 'super-state'. All in all, I'm with you on this one.

:D

 

I'm with you on this too. However, we have to note that even an 'open' system is liable to abuse as we see in the case of America today, especially if the (silent) majority of the people allow themselves to be disproportionately controlled by the more agressive or opportunistic minority elite.

 

Once the general Muslim Community can agree that these checks and balances are necessary to prevent abuse of Islam and the Community itself, then yes there would need to be a drive to have individual states develop and adopt them. Even a loose confederation would be a good start - not as loose as the OIC though, but something more binding so that it is all not merely talk and rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

Though I don't see many signs of such a unification at present, what is clear is the major factor preventing progress from being made and that has already been pointed out - Namely the autocratic regimes in place accross the Muslim world.

 

As Ozy pointed out, they are all but unanswerable to the people it should be their duty to represent. The question is, how best to deal with them? It would be my view that a violent overthrow is unlikely to be the best solution. They all have their groups of supporters, it would not be a quick victory or a even a certainty that they could be toppled in this way, even with a large proportion of support from the local population. Furthermore, violence is the catalyst which put many of these men into power in the first place and no doubt has shaped the way in which they have opted to rule the countries they inherited. (That's without even mentioning the human suffering civil wars cause.)

 

If it is taken as a given that violence is not the answer then what is? Pro-democracy campaigns supported with civil actions such as strikes etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is totally Islamic. Islam has no clergy or central body with 'divine rights' like Christians do, and is against such a thing. If Islam is antithetical to democracy, who chooses how to interpret it? Just a few? A few who allegedly are the only ones qualified and smart enough to interpret it? That's tyranny. Liberal Democracy may be viewed as unIslamic, but not Democracy.

 

The supposed Islamists who want to implement a strict and narrow version of the Sharia keep telling us how things are western innovations and 'unIslamic', but if you properly dissect the ideology of these people, it is heavily influenced by the West! by Nietzche, by Marx, and by other Westerners. If they say democracy is unIslamic and a western innovation, then so is their ideology!

 

Well, sometimes you need to call people apostates if they are. You would not want a person who says, "The Quran is created" as your ruler now would you? Also, Muslims have to unite on true Islam, and that true Islam is Sunni Islam with out bidah, or shirk or kufr. If you unite on something other than (true, referenced, free from innovation) Islam then you will fail. In this case you have to put your "sect" first, the saved sect, that the Prophet spoke about.

 

That is according to your persuasions and your conditioning. Not all Muslims would agree with that. And why should they? That would be a form of shirk in itself, if they go against what they believe is (according to them) true Islam and believe what another man is telling them without genuinely believing it, that would be almost idol worship. We could only know what the most perfect form of Islam is if the Prophet (pbuh) was still here. There are basic and important elements of Islam that nearly all Muslims believe in, as long as those conditions are met how can we call another sect apostates? The use of fatwas to label others apostates has unfortunately been used as a political tool, often by oppressors.

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


×