Islamic Government

A Muslim:-

Siyasah neither means, nor implies, democracy, just as the there is not and can be no such thing as an Islamic State. Democracy is a kaffir term, a kaffir concept, a Taghut which the kuffar obey, and has no place in Islam, just as the State is a kaffir term, a kaffir concept. To use such terms - to try and understand Islam in such terms constitutes an imitation of the kuffar.

Critic:-

This problem was addressed by Muslims a long time ago and the answer agreed upon is not the answer you propose. Hence what you are telling us here is not traditional Islam and should be called neo-Islam. And we all know this is something that should not exist.

The ideas of democracy and state came to Islam from the Greeks, most notably Aristotle. But the Muslims had a perfectly good idea of a state before they even heard of Aristotle. Democracy, as defined by Aristotle (which is not the current definition), was not, so far I can tell, practiced by the early Muslims, but their habits of mutual consultation bordered on democracy.

Comment:-

Abdul-Aziz is correct. You pointed out that the idea of State and its government came from the Greeks. They are alien concepts not found in original Islam or the Quran. They represent the corruption of Islam.

The rejection of these formal ideas is not neo-Islam. But the adoption of original Islam though reinterpreted or applied to modern conditions is the way forward and it does not require confinement to any particular State or country. It can be an international community like commercial firms and cultural societies are (but not like them in purposes and organisation.

However, "Democracy" is a word that can be and is defined and understood in numerous ways. We can use it to refer to an organisation based on "mutual consultation".

A Critic:-

I cannot see anything in the US Constitution that is incompatible with Islam. Perhaps the US system is already an Islamic one.

Comment:-

It may be so in part and in intention, but it is certainly not so in practice and morality. The people do not submit to God and the primary aim is not spiritual development but wealth and power. It is those who have it that control all affairs to promote their own interests.

Another Critic:-

The difference between the US constitution (and for that matter the French, German, Russian, English and all other national constitutions)and the Quran is indicated by the phrase in the US version's preamble 'We the people declare these truths to be self evident...'

That phrase 'we the people' refers to the people of the USA; they are the 'we' whose will is being invoked. So who are they? They are the people of the USA; that is, the people - white or black, Christian, Muslim or Jew - who live within the borders of the land known as the USA, as defined by the leaders of those people as the victors of a war of independence with another nation state, the United Kingdom. In every case, before constitutional law or the 'law of the land' is defined, the LAND ITSELF must be defined, and therefore the people who LIVE in that land must be defined.

Therefore, for the Quran to fulfil the same role as a national constitution, a given land must be defined to which the Quranic constitution would apply, and a given people within that land. This cannot be done without declaring that there are geographical limits to Islam's 'spread' around the world. If this is unacceptable to Muslims, your defined area of land - your would-be Quranic nation - must be the entire planet: a worldwide caliphate.

You would then have a choice: either you must secularise the Quran so that all the people of your caliphate - black and white, Christian, Muslim or Jew - are included as equal citizens. Or you must force all of the people of your caliphate to become Muslims. The first of these options is a contradiction in terms; the second is immoral, because it denies free will (which is blasphemous incidentally because, in your terms, free will is God-given), if not impossible.

It follows that the creation of a 'true' Islamic state is impossible except by violence and oppression of the people of that state, just as it was impossible to create 'true' Marxist states - or for that matter, 'true' Christian stattes.

In simple terms, religions and politics don't mix.

This is the lesson Muslims are learning today. Those Muslims who refuse to accept this truth are turning to violence and, in doing so, are destroying themselves. Unless they are stopped by those Muslims who accept democracy and the nation state, they will destroy their faith too.

Comment:-

You come to false conclusions based on false assumptions.

Islam is surrender to God and that implies surrender to objective Truth. It is not about what people might declare or think self-evident, especially as different people have different opinions. None of these different people were consulted.

The Islamic Way of life is not about territories but about the community, the Umma. Therefore, your arguments do not apply.

As has been pointed out several times, the Quran recognises other religions and their way of life and accommodates them. Islam also recognises that there is no compulsion in religion as everyone is responsible for their own souls. But there is no free will, there are causes for behaviour, either coming from the Spirit or more usually from lower or malfunctioning mental and physical sources.

Some Muslims are turning to violence either because they think rightly or wrongly that they are fighting evil; some might be using religion for political aims or making excuses to indulge in criminal behaviour. But much is a reaction to US and US instigated and supported global terrorism. It is generally asserted that in a Democratic system people ought to settle differences of opinion through votes and elections and not through violence. But the fact is that the people do not create the policies and those elected to carry out government policies do not represent the majority and that the policies are enforced and violence is used by the government against people within the nation and against other nations.

The fact is:- (a) that there is a war between good and evil, and between spiritual and secular materialist values, truth and the spinning of lies and illusion, (b) that Religion can be practiced without identifying it with territory or nationality or race, (c) that Islam is much more likely to get purified and make progress through the struggles that now exist.

Critic:-

You say: It is for Muslim scholars who practice the religion and have experience in it to determine what the Shariah consists of. The opinions of others can hardly matter to Muslims. A better statement of intolerance towards those who do not share one's beliefs it would be harder to imagine.

Comment:-

Now that is intolerance, particularly when the word is misused.

So you do not allow Muslims to have their own opinions? They are to accept other peoples opinions? Does belief in Truth constitute intolerance? Do the opinions of non-scientists matter to science? Is science to abandon its evolution theory because of the opinions of Christian fundamentalists?

Or does the word "intolerance" refer to disallowing others to have their own beliefs and behaviour and persecuting those who differ?

Critic:-

The subject of this discussion is Islamic government. There is not one nation in the world that consists only of Muslims. In your statement that 'the opinions of others can hardly matter to Muslims', you imply that non-Muslims can have no say and no equality in any nation governed by Shariah law, because their wishes and beliefs 'don't matter'. This is intolerance.

Comment:-

The opinions of non-Muslims about Islam cannot matter to Muslims as a Muslim is by definition someone that accepts Islam. As for Islamic government, it is not like Western governments where there is a single law made according to the whim or expediency of the winning party and imposed on everyone.

The Islamic Sharia applies only to Muslims, not others. Islamic government is to be based on mutual consultation and allows the existence of non-Muslim communities governed by their own laws and treaties made between different communities.

Critic:-

I would like each Muslim to enjoy the freedom to express his or her opinion, and to dissent from the opinions of their rulers, as the rest of us do. If a group of 'scholars' interprets Shariah law in one way, I want them to be free to interpret it in another. This is only possible in a democracy.

Comment:-

So you want to impose your opinion on Muslims. You want people to be free to express their opinions no matter how ignorant or foolish, but you do not want people to be free to behave according to their beliefs? This is one of the reasons why there is much psychological inner contradiction, psychological suppression, disintegration and paralysis, and hypocrisy.

Islam is about seeking and acquiring knowledge and understanding and behaving accordingly. But it does not impose this on others and wishes that Muslims be left alone without interference to live according to their faith. Therefore, different communities are allowed to live according to their own laws.

I do not believe there is any real Democracy in the West, nor real freedom and there is a tendency towards greater violence, crudity and barbarism. There is a struggle for power and those who get the power make the laws and manipulate events, people and opinions. True Democracy means the people are allowed to live according to their faith and their affairs are governed by mutual consultation. This is certainly not the case in the West. It is the Political and Economic masters that make policies.

But yes, Western systems are better to various degrees than complete Autocracies, Dictatorships and Tyrannies. But the State is increasingly becoming more powerful as are the commercial Companies whose interests it promotes and protects, and recently they are becoming more like Police States.

Critic:-

There is no Truth, only different truths.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you wish to create a nation in which only the opinions of a group of 'scholars' of a single sect within a single religion dominates all of the people of that nation.

Comment:-

That is your opinion. We do not accept it. Truth requires self-consistency. There is Truth and we seek it and people have various amounts of it.

You are wrong. I do not want any sects but only people who are willing to seek the truth, adopt the techniques to achieve this, and live by it, and for such people to be able to control their own affairs without interference from others. Others can do as they like. People should be able to migrate to places where they can find better self-fulfilment.

Within a nation there should be treaties and agreements between the various communities which will define:- (a) That which is common to all members e.g. criminal laws. (b) That which applies only to each community. (c) That which relates to the interaction between members of different communities.

The Shariah should ideally be defined by persons who have studied and applied the Quran and Sunna in their lives, have a wide knowledge and experience of conditions and affairs. They are not ordinary scholars in the purely academic sense. They are independent and impartial, not being controlled by any interest or power groups. In any Islamic nation those who are qualified will have consult with each other and come to a consensus. The Judges should be selected out of this group and though each case is decided by the individual judge, the case should be referred back to the organisation of such Judges for the final judgement.

Critic:-

If individuals are capable of wishful thinking, then since an Islamic republic or system is managed by individuals, is the same not also possible for an Islamic republic or system? In that case, when an organisation claims to be an Islamic republic or system "imposing God's Laws" might it not in reality be imposing its own wishful thinking? Couldn't this lead to a despotic government that oppresses opposing views?

Comment:-

It already the case in all nations that those who have the power and control affairs do so according to their wishful thinking, prejudices and fantasies. But it is increasingly the case in Industry, and sometimes in politics, that scientists and other researchers are consulted. Whereas research, the search for truth, is done in science and industry it has not been applied to daily life and the management of societies and the environment to any extent. This is likely to change in future.

But though (a) the running of affairs becomes a matter for experts this cannot be allowed to become a tyranny. (b) Changes would have to be brought about gradually through education, making education part or an aspect of the whole life-time. (c) The whole population would need to have a positive attitude towards the seeking and applying knowledge rather than whim. (d) It would be necessary that affairs are run through mutual consultation. This includes a dialogue between those who are given authority to make and apply policies and all those whom it affects.

This would be a system much more compatible with Islam than that which now exits.

Critic:-

Someone said that the United States could claim to be an Islamic State because its Constitution is compatible with the Quran. But this cannot be so because the US is not a religion or a constitution of a religion. However, the constitution allows men freedoms, even when those freedoms can mean that people say things that offend others.

Comment:-

The US as any other nation or State has laws that forbid some things, allow some things and make other things obligatory. These rules differ between nations and are approved of or tolerated by people. There are ethical rules. Crimes are not allowed, people are not allowed to deal in drugs that harm, and certain unjust business practices and social interactions are prosecuted and so on. There is, therefore, nothing about the Islamic Law as Law that is different from others. The difference lies only in what is regarded as unethical. That which is harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual welfare and development is to be removed and what is beneficial is to be encouraged. It applies to those who consent to it.

Critic:-

Theocracy is tyranny. It is the dictatorship by people claiming to act for God. Though Theocracy implies that there is an objective truth, it also means that that truth is known only to God because if we were able to comprehend this objective truth, we would be God-like.

Comment:-

No. If people consent to be ruled by it, then it cannot be a tyranny.

There is Truth that has been revealed through those who are close, more conscious of God and there are those who seek Truth. There is a difference between these and those who are satisfied with opinion, prejudice, fantasy and guesswork. Islam has no priesthood or organised Church, but only scholars who seek truth. The consensus of these is required and so is that of the people.

Critic:-

Democracy does not mean "mutual consultation" as you think. For someone who claims to believe in 'Absolute Truth', you have a strange attitude to the meanings of things. Democracy has a definite meaning. It does not mean 'consultation of the people', it means *rule by the people, i.e. in a state in which the people make their own laws.

Comment:-

That is your opinion. You have fixation on words.

Absolute Truth is by definition that which the Absolute (God) knows, creates or decrees.

People cannot rule if they are not consulted. But I did not say merely "consultation of the people", but "mutual consultation". People who run their affairs by mutual consultation govern themselves.

Critic:-

A State whose laws are derived from scripture, irrespective of whether it's people are 'consulted' or not, is called a 'theocracy'. Theocracies are tyrannies run by a clergy or church.

Comment:-

That is your opinion. I am interested in realities not verbal jugglery.

If the people in a community consent to live by a law derived from scripture then it is a democratic system, in exactly the same way as people who consent to live by any other law.

If you call it a "Theocracy" then it does not mean rule by a clergy or organised Church because Islam does not have these. It means that the Laws are made on objective grounds by recognised knowledgeable, able and virtues people.

Critic:-

You say that you want the laws to be made on objective grounds by knowledgeable, able and virtuous people. And how do you know who these people are?

Comment:-

By their deeds and behaviour and effects. And when one has studied and understood what that should be. Does not your scripture say something similar in Matthew 7:17-20?

Critic:-

I do not have a 'scripture'. I have no religion. I know Muslims who would disagree vehemently with your interpretation of their religion.

Comment:-

Do you make up your own subjective opinions, learning nothing from elsewhere?

I doubt that you know any such Muslims. But even if you do it does not affect my opinion based on my studies. There can be no valid denial that only truth can be beneficial for the welfare and development of human beings. Secular law is not made to promote human spiritual development nor for human welfare or justice but to create social order and usually to promote the interests of commerce and industry or those who control it.

Critic:-

Would you bring up your children to choose their religion, or to choose no religion at all? If not, you are imposing Islamic belief on them.

Comment:-

Children have to be educated and this includes giving them knowledge of facts and values and developing their capacities for consciousness, conscience and will, to enhance their ability to perceive, discriminate, think, feel and do so that they can achieve their welfare and fulfil their potentialities. Do you want to dismantle the educational system? Human progress has taken place because the accumulating experiences of mankind have been transferred from generation to generation.

Nor can Democracies exist without a law that enforces them.

Critic:-

Yes that is the Law which all citizens of the nations must obey.

Comment:-

What do you mean by "nation"? Does your idea of nation recognise diversity or not. Does it require that the ideas of one section should be imposed on others?

If by "nation" you mean only a particular geographical territory then that is correct. But if you mean a community then you are wrong. Laws apply to communities. Individuals live according a moral code. Each nation has many different organisations and departments and each has its own rules. What applies to members of one does not apply to members of others. The same can apply to different religious communities.

Critic:-

You can make Shariah law your 'moral code'. After all, if you are forced to live by such a law, you effectively abdicate your responsibility to be a Muslim. Instead of trying to be a 'good Muslim' yourself, you leave it up to someone else to tell you what to do.

Comment:-

It is amazing that the critics are unable to see their one-sided prejudices!!!

Have you abdicated your responsibility by being forced to live by the law of your country? Or do you accept it?

The Law exists as a guidance and to create a social system in which people can live harmoniously to fulfil themselves free from the interference of miscreants. The Sharia law when properly understood and applied is meant to facilitate real benefits, human welfare and development as opposed to arbitrary laws based on whim or expediencies that arise from a power struggle. Muslims consent to live by such a law. They undertake the responsibility to establish and maintain such a law.

Critic:-

But if you and I lived in a country under Shariah law, we would not be equals under that law because I am not a Muslim and under Shariah law, atheists are mistreated. Moreover, because the law of the land would be devised by a narrow band of people who represent a single religion rather than all of the people, neither of us would be able to change those laws.

Comment:-

Laws are always made by a narrow band of people. It is a question of whether they are made for the real benefit of the people or not. Sharia Law applies only to Muslims. But according to you Democracy means that Muslims must recognise the laws that the others adopt but these others must not recognise the laws of Muslims.

As I said, Theocracy in the sense of rule by a Priesthood or organised Church does not apply to Islam which has no priesthood or organised Church and where no separation is made between the religious and the secular.

Critic:-

That is precisely why Muslim-majority nations always tend towards theocracy.

Theocracy means literally 'rule of God' (theo = god, -cracy = rule), and a theocracy in practice is a state ruled by laws derived from scripture by 'guardians of the faith', such as mullahs or imams.

Comment:-

No. Properly understood, Theocracy implies the application of Truth, Compassion, Justice etc. which are the attributes of God and objective values. This means that persons who by a spiritual discipline have acquired those characteristics are followed. It also means that human beings who have the spirit of God in them obey that spirit and that they manage their affairs through mutual respect and consultation.

I am speaking now of the ideal just as you speak of your ideals of Democracy. In practice, however, the secular governments are far from the ideal. The same, of course, applies to Muslims.

However, in so far as people are truly Muslim and not just in name, but strive to obey their scripture and ideals then they are likely to be better off than the Western "Democrats" because these do not follow an Ideal but on the contrary make an Ideal out of their own whims, self-interest and prejudices. This is not to say that there are no exceptions.

Islam does not have labels such "Theocracy", but if that word is to be used then it refers to rule by an objective law, the law of God.

Critic:-

1.Unless the existence of God is proven, the existence of God's law is unproven, and therefore this law cannot be described as objective.

2. If there is a God, then only God can be said to have an objective perspective; that is, if the believers of religions are correct, all human perspectives are subjective.

3. It follows that Islamic law is man-made or else it ceases to be Islamic. But if it is man-made (subjective) it ceases to be Islamic anyway.

Comment:-

1. What nonsense. Proven to whom? A Muslim is one who surrenders to God and this implies that he already knows that God exists. He is the origin of all that exists and since things exist it is proved.

2. Correct. But as the Spirit of God is in man giving him consciousness, conscience and will, though these are dormant in "fallen" man, then it is a question of the proper spiritual discipline and obedience to the guidance. Are human beings capable of searching for and acquiring truth or not? What is science for?

3. No. It does not follow. See above. If it is man made then it is not Islamic by definition and it would then be just like the Western Law, which you think is ideal.

Critic:-

You say Government under Islam should be through mutual consultation. This is impossible. If I lived in Saudi Arabia and I were consulted, I should advise that Islam be ignored by the government. I would be overruled.

Comment:-

You are not Muslim. Mutual consultation is an Islamic Law and that establishes Real Democracy as opposed to Sham Democracy.

Critic:-

It is theocracy. There is no such thing as 'sham democracy'. There is either democracy or something else.

Comment:-

Theocracy is rule by Objective Values and these benefit man. All systems of Government, including Democracies, require obedience to Law. If Democracy means rule by the citizens then Sham Democracy is that which is practiced in the West. Real Democracy requires that affairs are run through mutual consultation for mutual benefit. These are the definitions I accept.

Critic:-

Perhaps it would help if I more clearly define what I mean by theocracy: A theocracy meets all or most of the following criteria:

1. One particular faith is endorsed as the "right" religion.

2. All laws and government officials must accept and be accepted by that faith.

3. Believing, expressing or practicing ideas counter to that faith is actively discouraged or even expressly forbidden.

4. Citizens who do not accept the faith are punished or treated differently by the laws of that state.

According to this definition, the Caliphate was a theocracy.

Comment:-

None of these points are derived from the definition of Theo + cracy.

But Islam (1) recognises the validity of other religions, (2) allows different communities to be ruled by their own laws, (3) protects the right of these other communities to follow their own faith, and (4) treats all communities in justice according to the treaties between them. Caliphate was obviously not a theocracy according to your definitions.

I have stated that Islam does not have such a label as Theocracy. It has the word "Islam" which means submission to God which is a state of being or a way of life. And in its more specific sense it means obedience to the Word of God in the Quran. So if the word Theocracy is to be used for an Islamic system then it means obedience to objective values such as Truth, Compassion, Justice and respect for person as one containing the spirit of God, and this implies that affairs are run through mutual consultation.

----------<O>----------

Contents