Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
darla_1753

Islam Doesn't Strive For A Mullah-led Theocracy

Recommended Posts

Peace

 

I apologise because I went a bit off topic here.

 

 

What I mean to say is that I agree with the Islamonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link) article, but I also agree that before an Islamic system can be implemented, the population has to choose what kind of constitution they want, wether they want a secular democracy or an Islamic one. If the people choose the latter, then everything written about in that article (in my opinion) should fully apply.

 

 

But first people have to choose.

 

Salam

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Salaams peeps,

 

Okay that's fine. What I'm saying is that shariah/theocracy/Islamic democracy, call it whatever you like is a superior model to western democracy. In an earlier post you were saying that you prefer a democracy over a shariah based theocracy but now you're saying you agree with the article you posted. I think definitions are getting in the way of this discussion progressing.

 

I'm arguing for an Islamic theocracy. Theocracy meaning laws of God as implemented by the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. Shura or council is a fundamental concept and I think this is what you mean by Islamic democracy. I'm not particularly for a one-man-one-vote system, as it runs the risk of becoming a popularity contest like western election campaigns. Perhaps representatives from communities who have knowledge of governance and know the characters of potential candidates can have shura as to who a leader or governor should be.

 

What I'm against is the idea of a democracy where the people decide the policies and have no boundaries set by Islam.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

I'm arguing for an Islamic theocracy. Theocracy meaning laws of God as implemented by the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. Shura or council is a fundamental concept and I think this is what you mean by Islamic democracy. I'm not particularly for a one-man-one-vote system, as it runs the risk of becoming a popularity contest like western election campaigns. Perhaps representatives from communities who have knowledge of governance and know the characters of potential candidates can have shura as to who a leader or governor should be.

 

What I'm against is the idea of a democracy where the people decide the policies and have no boundaries set by Islam.

 

here's the thing. I support an Islamic Democracy as explained in that article. The reason why I do NOT support the Elitist Religious circle way of appointing a leader is because if a small number of muslims maintain the exclusive right to appoint a leader, we face the prospect of a tyrannical Theocratic Elite taking control and becomming opressive. This is precisely the kind of thing the article warns against. PLUS, I dont think that any such "elite" exists which could claim the exclusive right to "choose in the name of all the people". There exists no one group (as far as Im aware) to whom Allah(swt) has given Divine Authority to make decisions in the name of everyone.

 

The basic risk of corruption and the state eventually eroding into a tyrannical dictatorship is still there, but that's because of human nature. Evil people will always manage to rise at the top.

 

I believe the one-man-one-vote system will work best, as long as the population is generally well-informed and educated enough. Take away the education from the masses, and allow the state to control the media outlets by proxy and......well you have seen what's happened in the U.S.A.

 

Salam

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

 

Another complicated issue is that there are many different interpretations of Islam, so in my opinion the constitution should be strictly the Quran , Without the sunnah since many people disagree over a wide number of hadith, but every muslim agrees to the fact that the quran is 100% the word of Allah(swt)

 

So the constitution should be Rigid, meaning that the Quran would be absolute, literal and inflexible, but there should also exist "organic" laws (based on the sunnah)which can be interpreted and reinterpreted by a body of knowleadgeable "supreme court style" scholars.

 

salam

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s take a rather simplistic view of the natural kingdom ,we have in the lower food chain the trees , which despite that their existence is vital for the ecosystem , are the less free of all , a seed which grows , stuck for time in the same place , having night in and night out to feed *intruders *, *defenseless* ,regenerating every period to undergo the same cycle again and again and again .

 

A step higher the herbivore, who despite possessing more liberty in their movement, are also *defenseless* and obliged to play their roles as an aliment for others, hence they reproduce eat and drink carelessly waiting for their time to come.

 

At the highest level, we find the most free of all, the carnivores/omnivores, the kings of nature who have only each others to fear, skirmishing over a piece of territory or to whom this or that pray belongs, they dwell in the wild mighty and arrogant having in mind only their best interest, spreading death as they progress.

 

An important thing to note about all these classes is that they are dependent on each other so it’s by necessity that they live together, feed on each other, and to their likening or not their freedom is limited and shared, the major theme is the strongest is the freest, we can label this as negative liberty or the liberty of the absence of obstacle, certainly one must be realist when considering what an obstacle is.

 

Resumed in one sentence, **People feeding on each other**, I declare this is a genuine representation of the human society from the ancient time till now, and I will add that once an understanding of the necessity of such an act took place mixed with compassion and morality which will give life to a different understanding of liberty and society, then we could arrive to the conclusion nothing is malevolent with that.

 

To illustrate this by an example let’s take science, science is a body of knowledge shared between people, this sharing is important and obligatory to the evolution of our knowledge and understanding, hence to the progress of humanity, so sanity dictate that instead of relearning from scratch we come together and build on what was discovered before us, if a new invention is made it’s the property of humanity, if errors are done then it’s because of ignorance and vigilant man will strive to rectify such blasphemy . In brief science is like this huge collective consciousness were different minds having the chance to meet together freely and peacefully, learn and feed on each other knowledge, having one goal in mind: to discover and establish truth.

 

But since as shown that having obstacles is a necessary condition, and that there is no liberty which exists outside certain boundaries, then clearly it’s absurd for anyone to asserts that the kind of liberty he’s searching for is a liberty deprived from any obligations , the natural questions which follows what are the obligations which render a man free ?

 

All is one, all is one!! A crazy man started shouting! All is one but what is that supposed to mean? a society is the collection of different human being who come together by necessity to secure for themselves a better hope and a better condition, the objective of the society is to melt the different individualities presented into one coherent soul which at the same time will keep the “I†and characteristics of each person .another crazy man shouted the one is not the all, the one is not the all!

let’s take the body for an example, each part of the body is different and have different task to perform, like the heart is different from the lung but their difference does not forbid them to worker together for the greater good of the organism which is life, the moment a difference arise between different parts and each do as it pleases then we can say farewell to the whole.

 

Hence a common principle for a society is the common good , but for this common good to be accomplished , people should work together , each person have to get out of his shell and place himself in the place of the other , each person will cease to view the world through his whims and desires but as a coherent entity where he’s presented in everything and in nothing , a person must start to view the world morally and start to free his soul from the caprices which enslaves him ,like the fear from his equal man which is a decision to live strangely , the hatred which is the decision to be lonely and egoistic … , a person must see the world as a father see his children a continuation for him , a chance to express his love , to realize through others what he’s incapable of realizing on his own , his heirs but not his property…to sum things up , the freest person is the most moral one.

 

So now we arrived to 2 important conclusion , liberty is alien if it’s not based on morals , furthermore as Rousseau said , a person which refuses to be free must be forced to be so , but if anyone agree with what I have said ,I must add that we did not solve yet our problem , our problem will be solved when we can agree on what are Morals , their basis , origins , what is right and what is wrong ?

 

Let me add something final, the allegory of the ship by Plato in which he criticizes democracy:

Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain, who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering --every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces anyone who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

 

And the thought of Jean Jack Rousseau on the legislator:

 

IN order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature, while knowing it through and through; its happiness would have to be independent of us, and yet ready to occupy itself with ours; and lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory, and, working in one century, to be able to enjoy in the next. It would take gods to give men laws.

 

 

He who dares to undertake the making of a people's institutions ought to feel himself capable, so to speak, of changing human nature, of transforming each individual, who is by himself a complete and solitary whole, into part of a greater whole from which he in a manner receives his life and being; of altering man's constitution for the purpose of strengthening it; and of substituting a partial and moral existence for the physical and independent existence nature has conferred on us all. He must, in a word, take away from man his own resources and give him instead new ones alien to him, and incapable of being made use of without the help of other men. The more completely these natural resources are annihilated, the greater and the more lasting are those which he acquires, and the more stable and perfect the new institutions; so that if each citizen is nothing and can do nothing without the rest, and the resources acquired by the whole are equal or superior to the aggregate of the resources of all the individuals, it may be said that legislation is at the highest possible point of perfection.

Edited by atheist1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

here's the thing. I support an Islamic Democracy as explained in that article. The reason why I do NOT support the Elitist Religious circle way of appointing a leader is because if a small number of muslims maintain the exclusive right to appoint a leader, we face the prospect of a tyrannical Theocratic Elite taking control and becomming opressive. This is precisely the kind of thing the article warns against. PLUS, I dont think that any such "elite" exists which could claim the exclusive right to "choose in the name of all the people". There exists no one group (as far as Im aware) to whom Allah(swt) has given Divine Authority to make decisions in the name of everyone.

 

What is an Elitist Religious circle? Abu Bakr ra did shura with Uthman, Ali, Talha ra and a few others when discussing the nomination of Umar ibn Khattab ra. Is this what you mean by elitist religious circle?

 

Another complicated issue is that there are many different interpretations of Islam, so in my opinion the constitution should be strictly the Quran , Without the sunnah since many people disagree over a wide number of hadith, but every muslim agrees to the fact that the quran is 100% the word of Allah(swt)

 

So the constitution should be Rigid, meaning that the Quran would be absolute, literal and inflexible, but there should also exist "organic" laws (based on the sunnah)which can be interpreted and reinterpreted by a body of knowleadgeable "supreme court style" scholars.

 

How can you have Qur'an without sunnah? This would not be shariah at all. Organic laws can still exist in different places and times within the Islamic state. Disagreeing with the constitution is irrelevant, people are obliged to abide by the law.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

What is an Elitist Religious circle? Abu Bakr ra did shura with Uthman, Ali, Talha ra and a few others when discussing the nomination of Umar ibn Khattab ra. Is this what you mean by elitist religious circle?

 

Nowadays it's obvioust different. We don't have anybody who has any kind of authority, certainly nothing like the political clout which the righteous caliphs had.

 

How can you have Qur'an without sunnah? This would not be shariah at all.

 

It will. what I mean to say is that the Quran has to be the inflexible constitution, but the Sunnah laws will also be very important, but changeable and flexible to different interpretations by the "supreme court". Also the supreme court should have representatives of the different perspectives and movements within Islam, such as the Shias

 

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

It will. what I mean to say is that the Quran has to be the inflexible constitution, but the Sunnah laws will also be very important, but changeable and flexible to different interpretations by the "supreme court". Also the supreme court should have representatives of the different perspectives and movements within Islam, such as the Shias

 

Okay I understand. As long as these flexible laws are determined by the ulema and by consensus I see no problem with that.

 

Nowadays it's obvioust different. We don't have anybody who has any kind of authority, certainly nothing like the political clout which the righteous caliphs had.

 

But this can be developed. For example, the people can have a one-man-one-vote system to elect their community representatives, ie a pious person or a politician with good morals. And these representatives can then deliberate over who can be the leader of the state. This would very close to the way of the salaf. The problem with giving everyone in the empire a vote to decide who should be leader is that it will be based on very superficial perceptions of the candidates. Since the constitution is fairly rigid and changes only happen when the ulema allow it to happen, the function of the caliph would be to make sure everything runs smoothly. Righteousness and good leadership qualities canot be determined by people who have never met the candidate and therefore it is pointless giving everyone a vote.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So youre talking about a sort of parliamentary system like in the UK for example. A system where the people choose the people who vote for the leader.

 

salam

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

Sign in to follow this  

×