Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Is Democracy Compatible With Islam ?

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think it is. In fact, one must suffer for the other. So, if say a nation like Turkey pursues a secular democracy, Islam suffers. And when Islam is strictly adhered to, as in nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, democracy is undermined. Arguments and counter-arguments are welcome.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 6:00:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:09:57 PM, Iredia wrote:
I don't think it is. In fact, one must suffer for the other. So, if say a nation like Turkey pursues a secular democracy, Islam suffers. And when Islam is strictly adhered to, as in nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, democracy is undermined. Arguments and counter-arguments are welcome.

No, and I don't think Muslims will disagree. Since Islamic in inherently tied into politics,mpolicy and law, and it has been since its inception. Unlike virtually any other religion which operates as a personal system of worship, Islam is totalitarian, in that is dictates virtually everything, including how society ought to be run. Which personally is the biggest problem I have with Islam.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 10:46:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, totalitarian despotism will do in Muhammadanism as a universal religion or social rule of law system because modern people have learned to like freedom. And there's no real freedom for Muhammadan believers, they are all under the typical Puritan program totalitarian despots seem to favor, I mean we hear the same words used as were used by Communists about "decadent Western values" such as democracy and protection of human rights.

Muhammadanism has a built in Wall it always will meet in the West and probably in the East where religious traditions are old and strong. But now all people desire freedom more than allegiance to a fascist ideology that benefits who? There's no benefit for anyone with Sharia Law as it lacks attractiveness to anyone who values freedom, only desperate people would go for violent religious warfare, people desperate enough to forgo personal pride in self-determination to play follow the leader no matter what ditch the leader leads followers into.

Totalitarian mindset days are over for thinking peoples so modern Muhammadanism has a limited life-expectancy. Islamic Reformation is coming and Muslim women will lead it. Men had their chance and blew it. Now it's up to women to restore humanity to Islamic teachings.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:17:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:09:57 PM, Iredia wrote:
I don't think it is. In fact, one must suffer for the other. So, if say a nation like Turkey pursues a secular democracy, Islam suffers. And when Islam is strictly adhered to, as in nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, democracy is undermined. Arguments and counter-arguments are welcome.

You mean: is Democracy compatible with Islamic Rule?

- The answer to your question is more nuanced than you think. If it was: is Secularism (in the western sense) compatible with Islamic Rule? Then the answer would be a strait big fat NO.

- Long story short, Authority in Islamic Rule is divided between two groups:
> Religious Authority: the one that deals with Legislation, & it is reserved to the Scholars (those licensed in the Islamic Tradition).
> Secular Authority: the one that deals with Governing, & it is reserved to the Rulers (Caliphate or whatever stands for it).
- There is a third sort of Authority mixed between the above two:
> Judicial Authority: the one that constitutes the Judiciary, &, course, it is handled by Judges, who are in fact Scholars (among the Religious Authority) appointed by the Rulers (among the Secular Authority).

- That been said, the Secular Authority is also a very broad concept in Islamic Political Theory (Syasa Shar'yyah). To keep things brief, there are 3 major types of Political Systems:
1. Imamah: in which case the Ruler is the Caliph, who is essentially the head of the Secular Authority of the entire Muslim community.
2. Imara: in which case the Ruler is the Sultan (or Amir), who is the head of a muslim community.
3. Naq'aba: in which case the Ruler is the Naq'ib (literally: representative), who is chosen by the people as their leader.

- Now, without getting into details, these major three types of Rulership (there are several others not very relevant here) are fundamentally very different Systems. For instance, the conditions on the Ruler in:
1. => Must be: qualified, muslim, male, Qurashi, permanent (unless disqualified). . .
2. => Must be: qualified, muslim, (could be male or female), not necessarily permanent. . .
3. => Must be: qualified, period. (could be any gender, of any religion, & from any background).

=> In all these cases, the Ruler has no authority in the Religious Realm (i.e. Legislation), except for what the Scholars allocate to the Ruler. Therefore, Democracy in Legislation, that is to allocate the People or the Government the authority to legislate, is allowed as far as the Legislation is okayed by the Scholars.

- Other than the Legislative Power, Democracy can be applied in electing leaders or government officials in: type (3) no problem, sometimes in type (2), though never in type (1). A Caliph can not be elected by the People.

- The appointment of a Caliph is done through 3 processes:
1. Wisaya = Official Nomination (kinda).
2. Shura = Consultation: the process where Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd (literally: the Council of Knitting & Unknitting, i.e. those responsible of decision making) get to chose the next Caliph. "Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd" consists of 3 categories of people:
i. 'Ulama = the Scholars, including: jurists, theologians, sufis, philosophers. . .
ii. Ruasa = the Leaders, including: rulers, generals, governors, ministers, politicians, officials. . .
iii. A'yan = the Notables, including: influential figures, poets, clan elders, rabbis, priests . . .
=> Not all these people participate in the Council, but those in the Council must be among them. Though they all must fulfil 3 conditions first:
i. They must be Righteous (trustworthy, impartial . . .).
ii. They must have knowledge of the necessary conditions of what a Caliph should be according to Shari'a.
ii. They must have the judiciousness & wisdom to chose appropriately the right Caliph.
3. Bay'ah = Allegiance, where the Caliph is appointed & contracted.

- In short, Democracy is cool as long as:
1. The Caliph is not concerned.
2. The resulting legislations don't go against Shari'a.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:19:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 6:00:24 PM, Envisage wrote:

No, and I don't think Muslims will disagree. Since Islamic in inherently tied into politics,mpolicy and law, and it has been since its inception. Unlike virtually any other religion which operates as a personal system of worship, Islam is totalitarian, in that is dictates virtually everything, including how society ought to be run. Which personally is the biggest problem I have with Islam.

- Why is that a problem? Islam rules Muslims, where is the problem??!!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 9:01:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 11:19:05 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 6/19/2015 6:00:24 PM, Envisage wrote:

No, and I don't think Muslims will disagree. Since Islamic in inherently tied into politics,mpolicy and law, and it has been since its inception. Unlike virtually any other religion which operates as a personal system of worship, Islam is totalitarian, in that is dictates virtually everything, including how society ought to be run. Which personally is the biggest problem I have with Islam.

- Why is that a problem? Islam rules Muslims, where is the problem??!!

Yeah, a big one. Muhammadanism teaches Muhammadans to war against all non-Muhammadan worshipers. And non-Muhammadan worshipers find Muhammadanism a frightening throwback to primitive oriental despotic rulership that tolerates no dissent from absolute rule of a few, of elites, claiming absolute authority.
No democracy allowed, no human rights advocation as only one man's mind is allowed to rule absolutely over every other human mind on earth, i.e. the ultimate in totalitarian dictatorship. Only small minds without comprehension of the values of freedom to be oneself, to develop one's self without any straight-jackets put on you from birth to make you into someone else, a clone of another person, a dupe of another person, a patsy and minion of another person as is the case of all Muhammadan followers following the one man's ideas into trouble with everyone else who disagrees with the one man's ideas.

Some day Muhammadans will wake up to the fact that here they are in the West in sizable numbers now and getting nowhere trying to convert Westerners to Muhammadanism. Muhammadanism is a too foreign both in doctrine and in social temperament for Westerners now who have gone through their dictatorships, religious and secular and had enough of that sort of deadly nonsensical social rulership that installs gang warfare and gangsters as leaders, men who use killing rivals as their means of social climbing. After all, Muhammad gave the model for this type of primitive behavior..
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 9:42:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:09:57 PM, Iredia wrote:
I don't think it is. In fact, one must suffer for the other. So, if say a nation like Turkey pursues a secular democracy, Islam suffers. And when Islam is strictly adhered to, as in nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, democracy is undermined. Arguments and counter-arguments are welcome.

Response: Not only is it not compatible, but it should not be compatible, since democracy is subjective and insufficient compared to Islam. For Islam is the law set by Allah, who is the objective standard or truth and decency. Whereas democracy is the law based on the subjective views of a majority. So what is good today can be considered bad tomorrow.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:09:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 11:17:43 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:09:57 PM, Iredia wrote:
I don't think it is. In fact, one must suffer for the other. So, if say a nation like Turkey pursues a secular democracy, Islam suffers. And when Islam is strictly adhered to, as in nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, democracy is undermined. Arguments and counter-arguments are welcome.

You mean: is Democracy compatible with Islamic Rule?

- The answer to your question is more nuanced than you think. If it was: is Secularism (in the western sense) compatible with Islamic Rule? Then the answer would be a strait big fat NO.

There is no such thing as "secular in the western sense', it is simply secular, which means NOT related to anything of a religious nature. Hence, secularism would offer morals, ethics, respect, freedoms, rights, thinking... those traits that are void in religions, especially Islam.

- Long story short, Authority in Islamic Rule is divided between two groups:
> Religious Authority: the one that deals with Legislation, & it is reserved to the Scholars (those licensed in the Islamic Tradition).
> Secular Authority: the one that deals with Governing, & it is reserved to the Rulers (Caliphate or whatever stands for it).
- There is a third sort of Authority mixed between the above two:
> Judicial Authority: the one that constitutes the Judiciary, &, course, it is handled by Judges, who are in fact Scholars (among the Religious Authority) appointed by the Rulers (among the Secular Authority).

- That been said, the Secular Authority is also a very broad concept in Islamic Political Theory (Syasa Shar'yyah). To keep things brief, there are 3 major types of Political Systems:
1. Imamah: in which case the Ruler is the Caliph, who is essentially the head of the Secular Authority of the entire Muslim community.
2. Imara: in which case the Ruler is the Sultan (or Amir), who is the head of a muslim community.
3. Naq'aba: in which case the Ruler is the Naq'ib (literally: representative), who is chosen by the people as their leader.

- Now, without getting into details, these major three types of Rulership (there are several others not very relevant here) are fundamentally very different Systems. For instance, the conditions on the Ruler in:
1. => Must be: qualified, muslim, male, Qurashi, permanent (unless disqualified). . .
2. => Must be: qualified, muslim, (could be male or female), not necessarily permanent. . .
3. => Must be: qualified, period. (could be any gender, of any religion, & from any background).

=> In all these cases, the Ruler has no authority in the Religious Realm (i.e. Legislation), except for what the Scholars allocate to the Ruler. Therefore, Democracy in Legislation, that is to allocate the People or the Government the authority to legislate, is allowed as far as the Legislation is okayed by the Scholars.

- Other than the Legislative Power, Democracy can be applied in electing leaders or government officials in: type (3) no problem, sometimes in type (2), though never in type (1). A Caliph can not be elected by the People.

- The appointment of a Caliph is done through 3 processes:
1. Wisaya = Official Nomination (kinda).
2. Shura = Consultation: the process where Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd (literally: the Council of Knitting & Unknitting, i.e. those responsible of decision making) get to chose the next Caliph. "Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd" consists of 3 categories of people:
i. 'Ulama = the Scholars, including: jurists, theologians, sufis, philosophers. . .
ii. Ruasa = the Leaders, including: rulers, generals, governors, ministers, politicians, officials. . .
iii. A'yan = the Notables, including: influential figures, poets, clan elders, rabbis, priests . . .
=> Not all these people participate in the Council, but those in the Council must be among them. Though they all must fulfil 3 conditions first:
i. They must be Righteous (trustworthy, impartial . . .).
ii. They must have knowledge of the necessary conditions of what a Caliph should be according to Shari'a.
ii. They must have the judiciousness & wisdom to chose appropriately the right Caliph.
3. Bay'ah = Allegiance, where the Caliph is appointed & contracted.

- In short, Democracy is cool as long as:
1. The Caliph is not concerned.
2. The resulting legislations don't go against Shari'a.

Even shorter, no democracy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 3:57:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 9:42:10 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:09:57 PM, Iredia wrote:
I don't think it is. In fact, one must suffer for the other. So, if say a nation like Turkey pursues a secular democracy, Islam suffers. And when Islam is strictly adhered to, as in nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, democracy is undermined. Arguments and counter-arguments are welcome.

Response: Not only is it not compatible, but it should not be compatible, since democracy is subjective and insufficient compared to Islam. For Islam is the law set by Allah, who is the objective standard or truth and decency. Whereas democracy is the law based on the subjective views of a majority. So what is good today can be considered bad tomorrow.

"Islam is the law set by Muhammad's words about his god, Allah." No one else needs to go through one man's words about his god as God created human beings to be capable of individuality and self-contained social instruction via social educational avenues, i.e. teachers in public secular schools teaching universally applicable knowledge and not instructions on how to be members of one man's religious cult.

Muhammad was just another man and his relationship with his Allah god is his business but it has nothing to do with my Jewish Christian beliefs and my own spiritual relationship with God and the Spirit of Christ. Both of which Muhammad had no clue about because of not being Jewish and not knowing the background religious roots of his own religion taken from Jewish religious beliefs.

Only weak minds turn to men making claims of absolute authority. We see this in cultures that have weak or non-existent democracy and human rights traditions and this is where religious dictatorship looks to for followers of religious totalitarianism which Muhammadanism is a prime example.

Weak mind, Fatihah, and the rest of you Muhammadan idolators, go for a Strong Man dictator to tell them how to think and act because they are afraid to think for themselves, afraid to buck superstition that tells them to fear hell if they don't follow the religious dictator's words. Weak and fearful minds, ones that must hide themselves behind masks as they violate God's goodness by killing for their religious dictator because he supplied the words for them to think and do so. "Simon says, 'Jump" and jump do Simon's followers. Muhammad says "Jump" and jump do Muhammad's followers, because they forgot their brains actually work independently quite well and don't need one man's brain to instruct them in how to think and act.

The strategy of spiritual instruction God follows is the same as seen in Nature which never puts all of a species eggs into one basket unless it is a Mother of humanity, no fathers can give birth to life and no males can dictate religious life to human beings.

Oh, they can try and have tried and succeeded in humanity's superstitious past where social authority was handed over to religious dictators but after Democracy and Human Rights movement got going in the West the ancient way of following religious dictators is over with for all thinking Westerners. Not so, for our rock, gravel and sand land Muhammadan dictatorship followers who are still weak and afraid minds afraid to challenge religious authority because of fear of both hell and real punishment, even death.

Move out to lands of trees and greenery and water and Life. Leave the spiritually waterless lands to their killers and killer ape religious beliefs. Go back to the Garden and the Goodness of God and leave violence and intolerance behind as relics of a begone Age.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 3:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 9:42:10 AM, Fatihah wrote:


Response: Not only is it not compatible, but it should not be compatible, since democracy is subjective and insufficient compared to Islam. For Islam is the law set by Allah, who is the objective standard or truth and decency. Whereas democracy is the law based on the subjective views of a majority. So what is good today can be considered bad tomorrow.

SMH. And Islam is objective, right ? A religion that sees women, such as you as lesser beings. One wonders why the West gives Muslims much leeway when they believe nonsense such as this.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.