The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Samudera Darussalam]

He said Ijma', which is something akin to the results of this meetings of Ulama, so it's likely that you won't find it in the Qur'an or the Hadith.

Quran and ahadith are always more important than what the Ulama say. And if the so-called Ijma is not coherent with Quran and ahadith, it's not valid.

Why, is there any ayah in the Qur'an or the Hadith that oppose the practice of democracy?
If do you mean the Caliphate right after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), aren't the Caliphs from Abu Bakar to Ali elected democratically? Through voting?

[United States of Oceania]

Quran and ahadith are always more important than what the Ulama say. And if the so-called Ijma is not coherent with Quran and ahadith, it's not valid.

The only way it wouldn't be coherent with Ahadiith and The Quran would be if The Quran and the Ahaadith specifically said not to assemble a republic though. Which, they couldn't have, the Arabs of the Peninsula being tribal people not civilized enough to even build proto-states much less complex governing systems such as monarchy and republic. Essentially, since Muhammad and his ilk had no idea what a republic even was, they didn't mention it (you'll find that a recurring theme in Religious texts), and later, when they got introduced to the idea somewhere around 200-300 Hijri through the Persian translations of Greek Books, there started a debate on "would The Republic work in an Islamic Model" by the Ulema... the current Ijma is that "yes. It is possible." (and it has been so, give or take, for the last 100 years)

Keep your Anti-Arab racism for yourself. It's not a valid argument. I'm talking about Islam here. The Islamic view of government is well described both in Quran and ahadith, but it has nothing to do with Republic. Therefore Republic is an unislamic concept.

[United States of Oceania]

Quran and ahadith are always more important than what the Ulama say. And if the so-called Ijma is not coherent with Quran and ahadith, it's not valid.

Why, is there any ayah in the Qur'an or the Hadith that oppose the practice of democracy?
If do you mean the Caliphate right after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), wasn't the Caliphs from Abu Bakar to Ali are elected democratically? Through voting?

Shura is one thing, democracy is another. Democracy is rule of people, which is against Islam, because according to Islam only the Laws of Allah are valid, not those of the people.

Don't confuse Shura with the illuministic concept of Democratic Republic developed by Atheists in 18th century.

[Jackania yugo]

Why, is there any ayah in the Qur'an or the Hadith that oppose the practice of democracy?
If do you mean the Caliphate right after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), wasn't the Caliphs from Abu Bakar to Ali are elected democratically? Through voting?

Shura is one thing, democracy is another. Democracy is rule of people, which is against Islam, because according to Islam only the Laws of Allah are valid, not those of the people.

Don't confuse Shura with the illuministic concept of Democratic Republic developed by Atheists in 18th century.

People should be allowed to rule, people should not be blindly lead like sheep by a ultra-high up group who use the poor excuse of "big guy in the sky knows what's right" as a reason why they rule.

You think we haven't gone through religious rule, we have. It was called feudalism. The kings (most infamously king John) used "the divine right of kings" to have absolute power. Thanks to the barons and at least a dozen social reform movements we are a free and (mostly) equal and highly advanced group of nations. I am not a western apologist, I'm just using historical fact.

[Pilarcraft]

Keep your Anti-Arab racism for yourself. It's not a valid argument. I'm talking about Islam here. The Islamic view of government is well described both in Quran and ahadith, but it has nothing to do with Republic. Therefore Republic is an unislamic concept.

1- That Arabs were tribalistic back in 600-700 CE. isn't anti-arab racism. The people of the Arabian Peninsula were tribalistic. The semitic people in the rest of the Middle East had been part of the Roman Empire and later The Byzantine Empire for ages, and their Eastern neighbors had also been part of a Monarchist Empire for ages. The Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula had tribes. That's literally historical fact.

2- The Islamic view of Government is not as well described as you think. That's why every Islamic Sect has a different Argument for it. (Because of insufficient Data on succession laws, election laws, and legislature.) Law is also not as straightly non-democratic as you think, because (again, obviously) there is the concept of احکام امضایی and احکام تاسیسی.

3- The Concept of The Republic (democratic and otherwise) have been around since before The Roman Kingdom though. Greek City-states had Republics, Some of the Middle East was republican, some of the Far East too.

4- Yeah. It's not non-Islamic, because the actual authorities over what is and isn't Islamic agree that it can be Islamic, or otherwise.

[United States of Oceania]

Shura is one thing, democracy is another. Democracy is rule of people, which is against Islam, because according to Islam only the Laws of Allah are valid, not those of the people.

Don't confuse Shura with the illuministic concept of Democratic Republic developed by Atheists in 18th century.

People should be allowed to rule, people should not be blindly lead like sheep by a ultra-high up group who use the poor excuse of "big guy in the sky knows what's right" as a reason why they rule.

You think we haven't gone through religious rule, we have. It was called feudalism. The kings (most infamously king John) used "the divine right of kings" to have absolute power. Thanks to the barons and at least a dozen social reform movements we are a free and (mostly) equal and highly advanced group of nations. I am not a western apologist, I'm just using historical fact.

Islamic Theocracies have always been the most advanced countries in terms of Science and Technology. It's secularism that ruined us.

[Jackania yugo]

People should be allowed to rule, people should not be blindly lead like sheep by a ultra-high up group who use the poor excuse of "big guy in the sky knows what's right" as a reason why they rule.

You think we haven't gone through religious rule, we have. It was called feudalism. The kings (most infamously king John) used "the divine right of kings" to have absolute power. Thanks to the barons and at least a dozen social reform movements we are a free and (mostly) equal and highly advanced group of nations. I am not a western apologist, I'm just using historical fact.

Islamic Theocracies have always been the most advanced countries in terms of Science and Technology. It's secularism that ruined us.

And can you back that up or are you a Islamic version of Paul Joseph Watson?

[Pilarcraft]

Islamic Theocracies have always been the most advanced countries in terms of Science and Technology. It's secularism that ruined us.

And can you back that up or are you a Islamic version of Paul Joseph Watson?

No actually he's surprisingly correct on this one. The Golden Age of Islam was relatively ahead of its time in terms of science, technology, and otherwise. But even the most advanced age of the Abbasid Caliphate had nothing if compared to the Chinese Government.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Why, is there any ayah in the Qur'an or the Hadith that oppose the practice of democracy?
If do you mean the Caliphate right after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), wasn't the Caliphs from Abu Bakar to Ali are elected democratically? Through voting?

Shura is one thing, democracy is another. Democracy is rule of people, which is against Islam, because according to Islam only the Laws of Allah are valid, not those of the people.

Don't confuse Shura with the illuministic concept of Democratic Republic developed by Atheists in 18th century.

Right, it's different, and I just forgot the Shura term, thanks.
But what I means is this: just open it, if you wanna know.
In my opinion there is no harm in the practice of a democracy conformed with Islamic values, not the Western definition you took.

[Aulus Maximus]

Shura is one thing, democracy is another. Democracy is rule of people, which is against Islam, because according to Islam only the Laws of Allah are valid, not those of the people.

Don't confuse Shura with the illuministic concept of Democratic Republic developed by Atheists in 18th century.

People should be allowed to rule, people should not be blindly lead like sheep by a ultra-high up group who use the poor excuse of "big guy in the sky knows what's right" as a reason why they rule.

You think we haven't gone through religious rule, we have. It was called feudalism. The kings (most infamously king John) used "the divine right of kings" to have absolute power. Thanks to the barons and at least a dozen social reform movements we are a free and (mostly) equal and highly advanced group of nations. I am not a western apologist, I'm just using historical fact.

It's a good thing then that the Quran said;

''Oppression is worse than murder''

Although many scholars have instilled the notion that deposing tyrants in Islam is haram, and that we should instead pray for a better president or his change of behaviour, I am in disagreement and I think that Muslims have the duty to depose unjust rulers.

Furthermore, Islam is different than Christianity and Catholicism in particular. Protestants for example never accepted the divine right of kings, Calvinists in particular. I believe this is due to the fact that there is a lack of priests, or atleast a very decentralized ''church'' together with a strict obedience to scripture. This is the same case with Islam, apart from Shi'ism.

[Jackania yugo]

And can you back that up or are you a Islamic version of Paul Joseph Watson?

No actually he's surprisingly correct on this one. The Golden Age of Islam was relatively ahead of its time in terms of science, technology, and otherwise. But even the most advanced age of the Abbasid Caliphate had nothing if compared to the Chinese Government.

Sorry, I was referring to modern day Islamic nations. If that was the case then he would defiantly be wrong.

But you are right about China, they did invent rockets and gunpowder after all.

[United States of Oceania]

Keep your Anti-Arab racism for yourself. It's not a valid argument. I'm talking about Islam here. The Islamic view of government is well described both in Quran and ahadith, but it has nothing to do with Republic. Therefore Republic is an unislamic concept.

1- That Arabs were tribalistic back in 600-700 CE. isn't anti-arab racism. The people of the Arabian Peninsula were tribalistic. The semitic people in the rest of the Middle East had been part of the Roman Empire and later The Byzantine Empire for ages, and their Eastern neighbors had also been part of a Monarchist Empire for ages. The Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula had tribes. That's literally historical fact.

2- The Islamic view of Government is not as well described as you think. That's why every Islamic Sect has a different Argument for it. (Because of insufficient Data on succession laws, election laws, and legislature.) Law is also not as straightly non-democratic as you think, because (again, obviously) there is the concept of احکام امضایی and احکام تاسیسی.

3- The Concept of The Republic (democratic and otherwise) have been around since before The Roman Kingdom though. Greek City-states had Republics, Some of the Middle East was republican, some of the Far East too.

4- Yeah. It's not non-Islamic, because the actual authorities over what is and isn't Islamic agree that it can be Islamic, or otherwise.

1 - Most of the world was tribalistic at that time, even Europe. Not only Arabs. Franks and Germans, Slavs, Celts are just a few examples. So what?

2 - The concept of Caliphate is the official Islamic form on government. Even the Shia agree on this.

3 - We can't compare ancient Republics with modern ones. The ancient ones where actually dictatorships or oligarchies. But Iran is a modern republic following the illuministic atheist invention of the 18th century.

[United States of Oceania]

No actually he's surprisingly correct on this one. The Golden Age of Islam was relatively ahead of its time in terms of science, technology, and otherwise. But even the most advanced age of the Abbasid Caliphate had nothing if compared to the Chinese Government.

Sorry, I was referring to modern day Islamic nations. If that was the case then he would defiantly be wrong.

But you are right about China, they did invent rockets and gunpowder after all.

Most of modern day Islamic nations are secular.

[Jackania yugo]

Sorry, I was referring to modern day Islamic nations. If that was the case then he would defiantly be wrong.

But you are right about China, they did invent rockets and gunpowder after all.

Most of modern day Islamic nations are secular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musl ... ligion.svg

You sure about that?
Red=Islamic state
Orange=state religion
yellow=unclear
blue=secular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

[United States of Oceania]

Most of modern day Islamic nations are secular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musl ... ligion.svg

You sure about that?
Red=Islamic state
Orange=state religion
yellow=unclear
blue=secular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

Sweden, UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands are all theocracies and have State Churches, but somehow you don't complain about that. It's needless to say that writing "Islam" in the constitution doesn't make a government islamic, since the laws are still decided by the people.

[Jackania yugo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musl ... ligion.svg

You sure about that?
Red=Islamic state
Orange=state religion
yellow=unclear
blue=secular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

Sweden, UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands are all theocracies and have State Churches, but somehow you don't complain about that. It's needless to say that writing "Islam" in the constitution doesn't make a government islamic, since the laws are still decided by the people.

They don't have the religion fused with the state...either that or they are actually democracies and have a lot of right and freedom.

[United States of Oceania]

Sweden, UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands are all theocracies and have State Churches, but somehow you don't complain about that. It's needless to say that writing "Islam" in the constitution doesn't make a government islamic, since the laws are still decided by the people.

They don't have the religion fused with the state...either that or they are actually democracies and have a lot of right and freedom.

Saudi Arabia is the only Islamic nation remotely similar to an actual theocracy.

[Jackania yugo]

They don't have the religion fused with the state...either that or they are actually democracies and have a lot of right and freedom.

Saudi Arabia is the only Islamic nation remotely similar to an actual theocracy.

Yeah, shame we can't "deal with it" since it has a massive monopoly over oil...damn.

Actually, sorry for acting like a stupid, self righteous bastard. So, what do you think of SA?

[United States of Oceania]

Saudi Arabia is the only Islamic nation remotely similar to an actual theocracy.

So, what do you think of SA?

It's too moderate.

[Aulus Maximus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musl ... ligion.svg

You sure about that?
Red=Islamic state
Orange=state religion
yellow=unclear
blue=secular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

Sweden, UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands are all theocracies and have State Churches, but somehow you don't complain about that. It's needless to say that writing "Islam" in the constitution doesn't make a government islamic, since the laws are still decided by the people.

The Netherlands doesn't have a state church.

[Jackania yugo]

Sweden, UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands are all theocracies and have State Churches, but somehow you don't complain about that. It's needless to say that writing "Islam" in the constitution doesn't make a government islamic, since the laws are still decided by the people.

The Netherlands doesn't have a state church.

Also, I live in the UK and it's...pretty secular to be honest.

[Aulus Maximus]

The Netherlands doesn't have a state church.

Also, I live in the UK and it's...pretty secular to be honest.

Technically speaking the head of the state is also the head of the church as far as I know in the UK, so....that'd make it a theocracy.

[Jackania yugo]

Also, I live in the UK and it's...pretty secular to be honest.

Technically speaking the head of the state is also the head of the church as far as I know in the UK, so....that'd make it a theocracy.

But religious laws don't impact us, or at least not to a noticeable extent.

[United States of Oceania]

Technically speaking the head of the state is also the head of the church as far as I know in the UK, so....that'd make it a theocracy.

But religious laws don't impact us, or at least not to a noticeable extent.

Just like modern day Islamic countries then.

[United States of Oceania]

Islam has no place for Anarchism/Leftism either.

Where did I say I am a leftist? I take Sharia in my heart and I hope God will apply it everywhere where Muslims live. That said it cannot be forced nor is it human law, it's voluntary contract between man and God. Whoever wishes to sign it should sign it, because the Quran says (2:256) there is no compulsion in religion.

We are called to depose tyrants, 42:39 And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves.

Everyone is equal in faith except in piety; Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention ) said: "O mankind, your Lord is One and your father is one. You all descended from Aadam, and Aadam was created from earth. He is most honored among you in the sight of God who is most upright. No Arab is superior to a non-Arab, no colored person to a white person, or a white person to a colored person except by Taqwa (piety)." [Ahmad and At-Tirmithi ]

I'm only against White kuffar not White Muslims. Please stop the drama and don't get so easily offended.

And no, fyi supporting Black Nationalism doesn't make me a Khawarij.