Islamic Political Thinking

[Nabeel Saiyer]

New Civilisation Foundation Presents Islamic political thinking, hitherto unrecognised in the western world, and invites honest incisive responses. It is a unique forum, offering to bring together divergent views and serve as a crucible for all shades of political thought.

We believe that the old labels of left, right and centre on the one hand and fundamentalist and moderate on the other are now inadequate.

A fresh objective forum has now come of age, where the world's thinkers can explore the prospect of alternative solutions to common political problems.

We have thereby created a timely window of opportunity within a polarised post-secular world for the emergence of new voices of requisite reason.

[Nono]

Who exactly is "we"? All this suggests that Islamic thought is a monolith. Of course it isn't anything of the sort.

Anb by the way, when you "write" a post, you should use your own words, with anyone else's words duly encased in quotation marks.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

"We" is the Muslims behind this foundation, called "New Civilisation Foundation."

[jeffl]

Quote by: Nono Who exactly is "we"? All this suggests that Islamic thought is a monolith. Of course it isn't anything of the sort.

Every perspective looks like a monolith to those inside of it. And to me, every viable perspective is as good as a monolith; so Islamic thought is something of the sort, i'd say.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

Jaffl, what about those outside the monolith? Like me you and everyone else is out side this monolith....so what is its perception?

[jeffl]

Quote by: Nabeel Saiyer Jaffl, what about those outside the monolith? Like me you and everyone else is out side this monolith....so what is its perception?

I'm not sure i understand the question, Nabeel. I can only speak for me; and to maintain the analogy, i'd say each of the traditional perspectives looks like a megalith and we like grains of sand. I think the megaliths ultimately crumble if they are not grounded in Truth.

Ofcourse, we'd have to talk about the traditional spiritual megaliths, the national megaliths, the kinship megaliths, the cultural megaliths, etc.etc.. And we all find ourselves in a Global economic megalith of proportions never actually seen before, but clearly imagined.

[bishop]

there is no such thing as islamic political thinking/philosophy.. the turks are muslim and seem pretty happy with their democracy.. the palestinians even went for democracy.. and oppositely, others have opted for theocratic rule.. the only common thread amongst people in the middle east is that they don't like their governments. if that's to be characterized as being a political philosophy, then....

[Nabeel Saiyer]

Bishop,

What was the model implemented in Turkey before Mustafa Kemal? Was that not an Islamic Poilitical Philosophy? All of the muslim lands we see the Muslims wanting the Shareeah (Islamic Law), and we see the governments appeasing the populace by fooling them that they will implement Islam through democracy, In your post you mentioned Turkey, the party in ower there is an islamic party, so is the one in pakistan, in iraq we have just seen people wanting islam. In algeria people wanted islam, the list goes on....point being in the mind of the people there is a strong uderstanding of islamic political philosophy, and they are longing it, however it is the governments in those lands that are hindering, and securing thier own interests.

[Matt W]

Nabeel, you neglect to mention Indonesia - the largest Islamic country in the world - where in the recent free elections the populace overwhelmingly rejected any party even remotely thinking of Sharia Law. There's also Malaysia, of course.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

Matt, How does one gauge the "overwhelming majority neglected the Sharia law?" If it is only via the elections, then Mr. Husni Mubarak of Egypt has been elected for 3 terms with 99% votes, Not event Bush, Blair, and Chirac can claim this.

It was the Malaysia the rejected the IMF and adapted the Gold standard, Indonesia has had massive rallies in 8 provinces for the implementation of Sharia. Can you please show me the source of your argument?

[Matt W]

How exactly do you class Golkar as a Muslim party? 61% of the vote. In Indonesia, that is a HUGE number of people. As for your 'huge rallies' in 8 provinces, I ask, where's your source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/3712478.stm

As for Egypt:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...les/737642.stm

The key quote here is:

The country holds presidential referendums on a single candidate approved by parliament.

How exactly is this in any way similar to the elections that Bush, Blair and Chirac have fought?

And finally...here's a brief article on Malaysia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4232451.stm

[Nabeel Saiyer]

Matt, I am not sure what you are driving at, I have met Indonesians, Egyptians, and am involved with the politics of the muslim lands. The media will portray what is in its interest the way it wants to. On Egyptian TV, Mr. Hosni Mubarak is praised, on the streets he is hated, On Pakistan TV, Mr. Musharaf is Praised, on teh streets he is Hated. Anyways, the point of discussion here is that Capitalism is failing, and Islam can be a viable alternative to save the non muslim vicitis of Capitalism too.

With regards to the source, (which I am sure you will contest)...here it is: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...ves/001025.php

Point of this discussion is not to entertain whether Muslims want Islam or no, We feel based on ears of on the ground sensation that the muslim world wants Islam. The point of the discussion is whether the Non muslim populace is blinded by the meida, and has a negative perception, or do they feel that Islam could solve the Rape problems, gun crime problems, drug problems, wife beating problem, and the globalisation problem, or is it simply that the non muslims did not even know that Islam was an alternative?

[Matt W]

Ok, I see what you're driving at now. However, I will take this quote from your source:

The country's largest Muslim groups have also repeatedly opposed making it state policy.

As well as the fact that a grand total of 2000 demonstrators marched in Indonesia. Having lived there for 5 years, I can happily tell you that that is nothing. If the people really wanted Sharia Law, there would have been hundreds of thousands. As it is, this is by the by.

As for whether the 'non-Muslim' world wants Islam...I very much doubt it. Perhaps, as you say, they are blinded by the negative perceptions of the extremists. However, on the other hand, countries such as the UK, France, the Netherlands, have their own rich tapestries of multi-culturalism and secularism which they will not give up. I, for one, would heartily oppose anyone who tried to install any religion as a 'State' religion that attempted to bind the country to its' own sets of morals & values that have no linkage to our tradition. I don't mean by any means that I oppose Islam, I merely say that no religion at all should be involved in government. And for me, the Anglican church doesn't count - it's a dying beast with no influence on our politics. And that's the way it should be.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

Good, we are making progress. Why is it that when the notion of Islamic State is mentioned it is twined with Pre enlightened period of the west. Christaianity is, was, and will remain a religion, with no detailed laws about society, i.e. how to buy and sell, what type of cotracts, distinguish between private and public property, how to treat NON MUSLIMS, how to act in war fare...where as Islam has regulations in all these aspects, hence it is compared to Capitalism rather than christianity. Thousands of Christains and Jews lived in the Caliphate, so why will they not be aloowed to now. It will be the duty of the state to provide, education, health, and security to every citizen (Muslim or non muslim), non muslim can continue to practice their religion as they wish, even to the extent that if alcohol was a part of the reigion, it is permitted, however in the confinements of your home, rather that in society.

[Matt W]

Ah, but Christianity (and by extension Judaism) did/does have laws for society. The eating of pork, the stoning of witches, for example. What has happened with the Christian nations is that they have evolved (in some cases violently - witness the 30 Years War in the 17th century as Protestants struggled to escape the dominion of Catholicism) so that the Church no longer had the power to regulate their lives. What you are suggesting is that these nations take a step backwards, of several hundred years. Unfortunately, Sharia Law also clashes with numerous traditions & laws of the West. Execution of criminals, for example - how do you equate this with the staunch opposition of the death penalty in the EU? How about Freedom of Speech - do you suggest bringing back blasphemy trials, such as in Iran?

The trouble is, is that each mainstream religion was developed over a thousand years ago. These religions place rules upon humanity which may have been valid when we were nothing but goat herders or farmers barely scratching out an existance, but make absolutely no allowance for the vast leaps in technology and knowledge that we have made since.

Also - how do you propose imposing 1 culture upon a world that has literally millions of different cultures?

And as for the Caliphate - that was bloated & corrupt, in the end - witness the ease with which the Western powers held it at bay after the 1600s, and its' eventual slide to defeat & partition in 1918.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

Agreed tha the Islamic State did deteriorate towards its demise.

However, with regards to the Societalk laws, I disagree that Judasim and Christianity had laws aside from Individual, and moral laws.

Give you an example:

From the traditions of the prophet we have learnt that muslim can not harm women and Children, and to the extent that not even trees and shrubs (i.e. indicriminate killing is not permitted) Unlike what we see in todays very advanced modern warfare.

Islam has a detailed explanation of company structures, and what types of businesses are not allowed to be privatised, and explains how the contracts between 2 parties are to be drawn up.
e.g. There is no concept of PLC (Public Limited Companies) as there is no particular body that is held accountable, and can easily dissolve itself and the public is at loss.

The state owns the Oil, Water and Gas (natural resources) and is in charge of utilising it to benefit the state as a whole [it is a separate discussion, of how is the state regulated, and accounted]

Islam has defined how inheritance is to be split up in all the various circumstances [This is what gave rise to Algebra (Al Jabbar a)...which was created by a person who used to calculate the inheritance, named Jabbar

Islamd has given us how to put a leader in place, and how to account him, and a detailed government structure of with deputy caliph, the Peoples representattives (Majlis Al Shura), the various courts, i.e. Penal Court, the court that deals with accounting the Caliph, etc etc

Islam has stipulated the types of taxes
For all muslims (except those under a certain threshold) is Zakat which is 2.5% of their annual money not spent. (Compare this to 22.5% - 40% of income, plus all the other taxes.

For non muslims it is a security tax (which is upto the discretion of the Caliph, however it is capped at the Zakat i.e. 2.5%) Again this is ONLY impose on the WORKING Males.

And there is Land Tax.

The only oither tax system is when there is a state emergency like Tsunami, where the State reaches out to the Rich, and then if still more is required, the state appeals to the Middle class, and then finally all the rest.

Just as any other ideology, which seeks to advance itself, and get its message to the rest of the world (Like we see Bush & his cronies trying to implement the free markets, and Democracy) Islam too seeks to spread its message, Indonesia for example was liberated from ther pre Islamic system with not a drop of blood, rather the muslims who went to trade there explained Islam, and the people accepted it. Can any other ideology make such a claim?

Point being,

Islam has a detailed Economic System, Social System, Ruling System, Eductaion System & Foreign Policy

Although I agree Judaism, Christianity, and other will claim Budhism, and Hinduism also have rules and laws, but they are more individualisitic, to do with Morals, and rituals not to govern a society.

I guess for this to become a fruitful discussion, we should ask that is man able to make laws better of is there a need for divine texts to regulate human life. I.e. Does Man know himself better, or does the creator? Or another worthwhile discussion would be that Capitalism is progressing and is definitely the system that will save man from misery.

[Matt W]

Possibly. Humanity, at this point, has found itself greater and has survived in spite of any religious or economic dogma imposed upon it by world leaders. Therefore, I fail to see why we should make a choice, but rather adopt pragmatism as our viewpoint. What will be, will be.

As for Islam reaching Indonesia - the same could be said of the South Sea Islands & Christianity - no real bloodshed, save a few missionaries being eaten.

The trouble with adopting a religion as a political system to govern all is that, for starters, the more extreme 'unbelievers' will not accept it. I'm not just talking about extreme Christians, Jews, etc - I'm talking about pretty much the entier population of Western Europe, who are used to non-intervention by the church. Why should we step backwards? Why should we give up our hard-won rights?

[jeffl]

Quote by: Nabeel Saiyer I guess for this to become a fruitful discussion, we should ask that is man able to make laws better of is there a need for divine texts to regulate human life. I.e. Does Man know himself better, or does the creator? Or another worthwhile discussion would be that Capitalism is progressing and is definitely the system that will save man from misery.

Here we go. The story of Saul as the first king of Israel is at issue here, and why they needed a king, and how it played out. Also relivant to a discussion of political expression in a spiritual context is the dichotomy of 'right and left' generally. The Mahabharat deals at great length with the proper expression of politics; and juxtaposed, makes it clear that the hebraic religions have more to do with justice than with politics (which is what you'd expect from the truth.)

I don't think that capitalism can save man from misery; because it provides no mandala. What's worse, it destroys mandalas long enough to help them be forgotten.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

All the arguments being presented are either refering to how Christainity failed, and linking that failure to Islam. Until one acknowledges that Islam is more comprehensive, or acknowledges that they do not know, we will go around in circles. The 2 points I agree with you are:

1. Political systems in Muslims lands are in turmoil. (I agree, because they are not the Islamic political model)

2. Christianity was unable to govern people en masse, and hence had to enforce its dogma, which resulted in bloodshed. (I agree, becasue Christianity [unlike Islam] is ONLY a religion for the christians, with no comprehensive form of governance for the entire populace [Muslim & Non Muslim])

[Matt W]

Islam is indeed more comprehensive. But it does not address that people in Western lands have freedoms that Islam does not allow, that they can practice in public rather than merely in private. I say again, what is the point in going backwards?