Islamic Political Thinking

[Matt W]

Another thing to consider - the 'hudud' laws - why should Westerners subject themselves to corporal punishment once more?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4394863.stm

[Nabeel Saiyer]

ok. Who defines the limits of freedom? surely absolute freedom is the view of an anarchist? The point of disagreement here is not that society needs laws, rather the disagreement is why should legislation be based on a devine text, as opposed to some suits who sit in parliament, or senate, and decide based on what of interest to them.

There is a distinction to be made here. If the topic of discussion is whether a state should invest in modern technology, and design a Super Concord, Hish speed communications via the internet, or a cure for AIDS & Cancer, and the peoples vote is needs both Islam and other political philosophies undertake this, i.e. Administrative poicies. If the discussion is whether peadaphelia should be legalised, or cannibalism, or incest...the we are definitely in disagreement.

If you look at man's needs 1400 years ago, and today, you will see that inherintly man has the same needs, the only things that have changed are the means. (i.e. the instincts and organic needs in man are the same, only the means by what he fufills them have changed)

Instincts in man are:
1. Survival Instinct: Man NEEDS to survive, We build a house, they built a house,
2. Procreational Instinct: Man NEEDS to Reproduce, We marry, they married
3. Religious Instinct: Man NEEDS to revere something, We revere somthing, they revered something too (the difference is in what is being revered, aside form the obvious, some revere money, some fame, some women, some football, others secularsim)

We communicated in the past, we communicate today, we travveled in the past we travel today, goods were transported in the past they are transported today. Point being, no one is claiming to go backwards in time, this is a naeieve comment for those who have not understood the topic of discussion.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

With regrads to hudud laws, do you know the conditions for them? do you know the statistics of how many were carried out?

Let me ask you this, why should muslim face anti terror laws, i.e. stop and search, arrests with not grounds. The recent paedophile who was let out 4 years earlier.

In teh 1400 years there were only about 200 hands cut off for stealing (this is recorded in the university of Baghdad. Did you know the conditions for these hudud to be implemented are that the property being stolen has to be in a secure place, above a certain value, and requires 4 witneses. an exampe of this is when Ali (the prophets nephew was caliph) he saw his coat being worn by a jew, he took the jew to the judge, who asked Ali to bring witnesses, to which Ali responded he did not have any, the judge passed a ruling in the Jew's favour. If you pointed a finger at me today, and said that I was a terrorist, what do you think would happen?

Similar rulings apply in all the other hudud. Point being the punihment system is for the protection of society. Another example is at the time of Draught in Africa, the Caliph at the time, suspended the hudud as, the basic needs were not being fulfilled by the state.

[Matt W]

Naive?? Really? I must disagree....but then I would, wouldn't I?

I am not proposing we go backwards in time. I am asking you to justify the reversals of several political & social freedoms that have been gained by the peoples of Western Europe and America, often by armed struggle. That, to me, is going backwards socially, and no arguments I have seen merit this.

As for hudud, I am not concerned with the statistics. I am, as above, concerned with going backwards. Corporal punishment (of any variety) is pretty much an abomination in Western culture these days. Again, I see no reason for us to regress to these medieval punishments. I see no reason for people to be hung from cranes & flogged, either, if you want to talk specific cases.

Regarding anti-terror laws - they apply to everyone, or hadn't you noticed? I could point to an Irishman, I could point at a single Father (Fathers For Justice), I could point at a member of Greenpeace - any of these people could be detained under the laws. Had you also noticed the consistent destruction of their application by the judiciary? On both sides of the Atlantic? Secular government allows this. It allows flexibility, it allows independence. Theocracies don't - what is written, is written.

A question for yourself - how much say did 'non-Islamic' citizens have in the government of the Caliphate? Was it required for the Caliph to be a Muslim? If so...then we're back on religious discrimination, which is again, an abomination in the eyes of the West.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

On paper, and in theory the "seductive" notion of freedom, is very good, but when it comes to practice it falls short on many fronts. Since democracy was founded have we seen a Black man in presidency in a predominant white nation? Have we ever seen a woman president in USA? Will a Muslim be allowed to be president in any european, or western nation? We are seeing trouble to just get turkey into the European Union. So yes, you are right, there are six criterias that a caliph has to fulfil, one of them is that he has to be a muslim, has to be a male, free, sane, competant, etc etc.

Unlike the current democratic systems where an illusion has to be created amongst the masses, and then in the end it is the select few elite who stay within the circle.

With regards to Non Muslim citizens, they have held positions in governement, and high level judges, have accounted the Caliph, etc etc.

Going back to Hudud, you are telling me you prefer women to be paraniod at night as they could be a victim of rape (statistics reveal how high the rape level is in USA/UK) Even though none of the muslim lands implement the shariah, we still know that the level of rape there is far less.

Same argument is applicable to theft, murder, gun crimes, paedophilia. Even the infamous wife beating which is always linked to muslims is resasonably high in the "civilised" western free societies.

However, Matt, I am not interested in pointing fingers at the problems in societies, rather the intention was that these problems exist in every society, some societies witness it more, others less. As a concerned human, I would expect sincere non muslims to be looking for an alternative, and as muslims we know the alternative, and now the objective of this discussion was to perhaps answer any questions you may have of how Islam would deal with these problems.

[Matt W]

as muslims we know the alternative

No. You have an opinion about 1 possible alternative. There is never just the alternative.

you are telling me you prefer women to be paraniod at night

No. You're twisting my words. I am telling you that the West fought long and hard to ensure corporal punishment was no longer an option. There were reasons for that. I believe that the reasons for re-implementing corporal punishment are insufficient. If we're talking about women, though, I prefer them to be able to dress the way they want, to go where they want by themselves, and to have equal rights to men.

statistics reveal how high the rape level is in USA/UK) Even though none of the muslim lands implement the shariah, we still know that the level of rape there is far less

Got a source for that?

have we seen a Black man in presidency in a predominant white nation? Have we ever seen a woman president in USA? Will a Muslim be allowed to be president in any european, or western nation?

No to the first, no to the second, but I'd like to point to Margaret Thatcher if you want an example of women in power in the West. When will a woman ever be in power in the Caliphate? As to the third - not yet. Soon, I believe, but not yet. Predjudice dies. It's an ugly monster, but it dies. And that is why anyone can become president - not just a Muslim. I fail to see why you would insist on excluding non-Muslims from being Caliph. Surely it's all about ability?

Basically, whilst I feel that Islam has an awful lot to commend it, there is still the fact that it is based on tenets drawn up 1400 years ago. And that's the latest 'mainstream' religion. No religion is capable of regulating modern society - human nature doesn't work like that. Certainly, it wouldn't work in Europe or the US. As I have pointed out, we have too many freedoms & rights that conflict fundamentally with Islamic Law. And we will not give those up.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

ok, in my opinion we are making progress, not sure what you think. My question to you? Is the world at large facing problems? Are the problems growing? What do you think is the way froward for mankind?

I would appreciate a thought out and practical answer. As mentioned the concept of absolute freedom is quite seductive, but impractical. Even in these societies we have limits those limits are decided by the powerful elite, who are prone to their own whims and desires (which conflict with other people's whims and desires).

[Matt W]

I object - we're not duelling - merely having a fairly frank discussion about Islam and whether or not a modern 'Caliphate' could address the issues in modern societies any better than what's currently on offer. I haven't responded to Nabeel's last question because a) home internet connection is down, and b) because I want to give him the courtesy of a fully thought-out answer.

We've managed to avoid hurling insults at each other, and we're pulling out all sorts of examples to help our individual positions. Pretty much the definition of 'heated debate', I thought!

[Nabeel Saiyer]

I double Matt's point. The reason I got onto this forum, is because we (New Civilisation Foundation) believe in an intellectual discussion between the various thoughts, and this forum facilitates that. The official defiunition of an ideology is "A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system." i.e. an IDEA (about Man, Life and Universe) from which a SYSTEM emanates. Hence I will repeat, Religions are NOT an ideology, as systems do NOT emanate from them. Communism, Capitalism & Islam are an Ideology, because they have a IDEA (About Man, life, and universe) and from this idea a system emanates.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

The argument of Islam being compared to a religion has come up quite frequently. I hope the last post defining Ideology will remove the vague understanding of Ideology. I would like to further clarify this by giving a brief description of the 3 Ideologies:

Communism - hold the IDEA there is NO god, and everything is matter, and Man, Life and universe is a part of this matter which is eternal. And that everything just takes shape of this matter. Hence in their view is a DR. and a Bus Conductor enjoy the same standrard of living, everything is CONTROLLED by the government, and the way the government reaches its ideal situation is by 'dilectics.'

Capitalism - holds the IDEA, there is a God, and HE has no influence on the running of man's affair (government) i.e. separation of Religion from life. Hence, they believe in 4 main freedoms;
Freedom of Belief - Man can believe that there is NO god, he can Believe that there are 100 gods, he can believe God is human, and the God is a woman/black. Man can believe Religion causes wars, can believe believers Bin Laden is a Hero/terrorist, and the Pope was sincere/corrupt
Freedom of Opinion - Man should be allowed to his opinion of having a relationship with a young boy, or his sister, or allow abortion at 8 months of pregnancy, allow Cocaine to be legal, Kids can own guns
Freedom of Ownership - Own rights to a rare plant of medicinal significance in a foreign land, preventing other pharmaceutical companies to use its properties. Can own Oil, Water (natural resources) and sell at whatever prices they feel are right.
Personal freedom - so man can act as he likes, however he desires, as long as he sees his happiness in that action. So he can cross dress, he can sell drugs, he can rape someone, he can lie/embezzle. (Point being if he is not caught there is NO accountability)
I.e. the ONLY people who will do good deeds are the ones who have good morals. But the Ideology, stresses more on freedoms, than morals.

Islam - Holds the IDEA there is a God, who knows man better than himself, and this God has provided us with a code of conduct, i.e. a sysyetm, which is based on a constitution i.e. the Quran. Hence Man will submit to His (God's) commands in ALL his actions. So, my heart MAY HATE George Bush, but, if he was a P.O.W I have strict guidelines from God how he should be treated. My heart may desire another man's wife, but I have to abide by God's orders. I may own land on a coal/gold/oil deposit and can not use it for personal gain (i.e. sell to foreign powers). I may want to degrade/kill all non muslims, but am restricted by God's command. Simlarly, I may want to forgive the adulterer, or the thief [keeping in mind the conditions for punishments have been met], but by the rulings, the culprit has to be punished, even if he/she is related to me. (Point being FULL submission) Cause the heart may desire something that is not fit for the society at large.

The problem here is, and hence the discussion, that many from the West, who hold on to the alluring notion of "Freedom", how do/will they percieve the Caliphate. Is it just a group of Mad Mullah who have their own interpretation of Islam, and Impose it on others, or is it "an" alternative to the current decadence that all societies are facing. Can it truly survive in the 21st century. I would like to refer you to this article, called Ijtihad: Applying Islam in the 21st century. http://www.newcivilisation.com/index...rticle/23/P0/5