Perfection of the Islamic state

Bump

Bookmarking.

format_quote Originally Posted by Azy

Are we talking theoretically or in actuality?

I believe steve meant theoretically, since in actuality, the large majority of so called Islamic states aren't Islamic (well, not 100% anyway)

Are we making any assumptions like everyone actually complying with the law 100% of the time?
How do you quantify the pros and cons?

I can give you some examples of pros:
* the Islamic state HAS to protect ALL places of worship and the worshippers
* less tax to pay if you are a non-muslim (1 out of the 4 main taxes in an Islamic state are applicable to non-muslims - I'll go into detail on this later on as I have to consult my book at home)
* non-muslims do not qualify for the hadd punishments (cutting of hands, stoning etc)

format_quote Originally Posted by Gator

Since I don't enough to judge an islamic state in its totallity of rules, could you point out the most "Islamic" state that currently exists in your view (and let's not derail the thread on which one, if there is diagreement I'll pick one). That way I'll have a good model to study and respond. Since I live in the US that is the one I know and will use.

The closest in my opinion is NIgeria but I haven't studied all of the ''islamic'' states that are around currently.

Also, so in an Islamic state my life wouldn't really be different than what I live now except I would pay lower taxes? That's the picture that's being painted here.

Thanks.

Pretty much, yes. You'd also have the added benefit of being considered as protected people as mentioned before. See also my post on this thread regarding dhimmis: --->>

I'm just taking a guess (don't know much about islamic law), but perhaps with each people (the christians of as-sham, the coptics of egypt, etc) an agreement is come upon, with a document such as this one. The muslims and non muslims agree to certain conditions, and that is the pact that keeps non muslims safe and protected, as dhimmis. If that is broken, then they are no longer considered dhimmis and can be fought. Again, just a guess, if anyone actually knows please tell us..

format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah

Since this is a recurring topic in many threads, I thought it might be helpfull to have a separate topic of this.

The starting statements of the thread:

1. The benefits of the Islamic state outweigh the downsides of it.
2. This ratio of benefit vs. downside outweighs the ratio of all alternative states.

I would like to invite people who disagree to disprove those statements. But please only do so seriously. Don't just isolate a serious rule, but look at the totality of all rules. Also don't judge the shariah itself based upon current states who implement shariah in their govenment. A law in which shariah is implemented is not the same as the shariah itself. And I know of no Islamic country that doesn't have un-islamic laws. (then again I don't know the laws of all Islamic countries)

Interesting! You could write whole books about this, so I think you might be asking too much .

What rules would this Islamic state follow exactly? We all know there is not just one interpretation of Islam. Islamic interpretations are like noses, everybody has one. How can we know which, if any, of the schools represent the "real" Islam? Clearly you consider countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia to not implement "Islam" properly. But IMHO that is merely your opinion. Both countries have institutions in place which are supposed to make sure no laws get enacted that run contrary to Islamic law.

1. The benefits of the Islamic state outweigh the downsides of it.

This entirely depends on your priorities of course. For example, do you value security over liberty? Do you believe in equality and minority rights? Do you think religion should be a private matter or the responsibility of the state? Do you believe popular will outweighs religious doctrine?

For example, if you political priorities are the following (in no particular order):
1. Individual liberty
2. Equality
3. Religious self-determination and freedom
4. Majority rule

In this case an Islamic state simply cannot satisfy your political needs. It falls short.

Some examples of "Islamic" policies that are in direct violation of these ideals:

• Women and non-Muslim testimonies in Islamic courts count less then testimonies of Muslim men
• Rules against apostasy and blasphemy and the unclear status of minorities that are not "people of the book", such as atheists, polytheists, animists, etc..
• Inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, for example non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat. Islam simply does not consider religions to be equal.
• The Islamic view on the division of labor between the genders
• Essentially all Islamic rules that punish "victimless" crimes are in violation of my belief in individual liberty and self-determination. Why can't consenting adults have a relationship? Why can't I eat pork? Why can't I pop a pimple during ramadan? Why can't I call Muhammed a fraud?
• Religious revelation matters more than popular opinion. Since the state can never implement un-Islamic laws, popular opinion simply doesn't matter. The state has no choice but to follow scholars, which means that an Islamic state will essentially be an oligarchic system, where a small group of religious scholars determine the rules.

Individual liberty is simply not one the core values in an Islamic system. Democratic rule is simply not one the core values in an Islamic system. Islam is all about so called social justice and obedience to Allah's laws. An Islamic state is almost totalitarian since it aims to control nearly all aspects of public and private life. My ethics are by and large based on the harm principle. This is simply completely contrary to Islamic ethics, which are all about submission to Gods law. I believe people have to make their own choices in life, including on religion.

I just can't see how these fundamental drawbacks could possibly outweigh the benefits. The benefit would supposedly be that society reaches some kind of harmonious equilibrium as soon as Islamic law is fully implemented. However, this is itself simply an Islamic belief. I don't see how a system in which one social group and their immutable ideology is so dominant could possibly be completely peaceful and stable. It might work in 100% Muslim countries, but in my opinion that still doesn't make it "right" to punish victimless crimes to such an extend.

2. This ratio of benefit vs. downside outweighs the ratio of all alternative states.

I assume you mean that it outweighs the ratio of all other systems of government? It might be better than some. But if you judge it by the principles I have set out, which are all about individual self-determination and liberty, than it just falls short.

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

Well, keep in mind the Steve's question is essentially comparative.

Well, I'll let steve clarify it then.

...Within Islamic circles there is still debate on whether churches can be repaired for example. So that is indeed a pro, but no more 'pro' than liberal democratic systems.

From what I have read, churches would be allowed to be repaired under an Islamic state - considering it is the DUTY of the Islamic state to help the dhimmis an' all.

Yet, at the same time non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat, which is essentially the social security system in Islamic countries. It's like not giving Muslims unemployment benefits because they are Muslims. It's fundamental discriminatory.

They would benefit under the jizya tax, which is the social security system. Zakhat is to do with charity.

Which again is discrimination. Positive discrimination for non-Muslims, but negative for Muslims. Why are people judged based on the social group they belong too? Why aren't they judged as individuals? I strongly disagree with the idea of the state or justice system discriminating based on the group you were born in.

They'd still be punished under those laws (of the land) - they'd just not receive the hadd punishment. Reason being is that it is a greater sin for a muslim since those crimes go against Islam (the very thing they follow).



You mentioned some other things that I'd like to address:

Women and non-Muslim testimonies in Islamic courts count less then testimonies of Muslim men

Not too sure on this. I'll have to consult my book.

Rules against apostasy and blasphemy and the unclear status of minorities that are not "people of the book", such as atheists, polytheists, animists, etc..

Apostacy has been dealt wih before. It's for treason not for simply changing religion. Athiess, polythiests etc would be treated as dhimmis.

Inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, for example non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat. Islam simply does not consider religions to be equal.

Zakhat is a form of charity - it would go to muslims, yes. Hence the reason non-muslims don't pay it. Whilst non-muslims can pay for charity, it is not an obligation to as is zakhat for muslims.

The Islamic view on the division of labor between the genders

...What division of labour?

Essentially all Islamic rules that punish "victimless" crimes are in violation of my belief in individual liberty and self-determination. Why can't consenting adults have a relationship?

Leads to break downs in society unless they are married. (though, in every society that adultery is not a crime, polygamy seemingly is...which is a greater BS than any thing you or anyone I've conversed with has pointed out from sharia law so far)

Why can't I eat pork?

There's a thread on this matter explaining why this is so.

Why can't I pop a pimple during ramadan?

Never heard of that one before - probably due to it breaking your fast or something.

Why can't I call Muhammed a fraud?

Blasphemey ruling.

Apart from that first one the rest are not arrestable offences.

Religious revelation matters more than popular opinion. Since the state can never implement un-Islamic laws, popular opinion simply doesn't matter.

If we look back into the history and specifically how certain rulings came to be (e.g abolishment of alcohol) we see it went through stages. I see no reason not to apply this style in a modern setting such as today. In other words, public opinion does have some power but no more than say in the UK's democractic system (which is actually a hybrid between democracy and dictatorship)

The state has no choice but to follow scholars, which means that an Islamic state will essentially be an oligarchic system, where a small group of religious scholars determine the rules.

These scholars (who form the caliphate) are not brain dead - certain characterisics are required (namely, common sense, good knowledge of Islam and Sharia etc). It's not like how the politicians are of today; promise to remove debt and then build 100 super casinos.


Someone mentioned earlier the tafsir. I am no scholar so cannot provide any explanation towards that link. Sorry.

[QUOTE=aamirsaab;985818]

The closest in my opinion is NIgeria but I haven't studied all of the ''islamic'' states that are around currently.

You mean northern Nigeria. A pure example of perfection. Country leading in all world rankings,one of the best places to live. not to mention how great they treat their religious minorities.
:blind:

Pretty much, yes. You'd also have the added benefit of being considered as protected people as mentioned before. See also my post on this thread regarding dhimmis: ]

If it is so great so why it is so bad?
In history we had example of Islamic State, Ottoman Empire, and we know how it ended.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

You mean northern Nigeria. A pure example of perfection. Country leading in all world rankings,one of the best places to live. not to mention how great they treat their religious minorities.
:blind:

Like I said, I haven't studied all of the Islamic states. I know only a little about Nigeria but it's more than I know of than say kazakhistan or Egypt.

If it is so great so why it is so bad?
In history we had example of Islamic State, Ottoman Empire, and we know how it ended.

Human corruption. Basically, after the second caliphate it all went downhill from there: leaders of the countries decided to change the rulings here and there. Today, we have only pseudo islamic states (since most of them only practice like half of the sharia and mix it with common western law). If you want an example of True Islamic state you'd have to look towards the Prophet [saw] rule and the immediate caliphate that followed it.

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

...How feasible is Islamic rule if apparently no state, except during Muhammed time has actually managed to implement it properly? Is it even a realistic option if it requires humans to transcend their apparent natural state of being.

It is fairly feasible - we aren't even talking about much big changes really (to existing ''islamic states'' anyway). But first and foremost, a caliphate is required. Since there is no caliphate in current existence, there is noone to keep everyone in check. Think of the caliphate as really well learned scholars (who as a result are just and fair).

Secondly, it will require education on Sharia. I myself know quite a bit (thanks to a really good book on sharia law) but a caliphate is not made up of one pakistani who spends his spare time on an Islamic forum .

format_quote Originally Posted by Gator

Which leads me to ask, if the first caliphate was as close as you can get to Islamic perfection and it was destroyed by human corruption, what makes you think this "state" would "fairly feasbile" now.

It is more of a hope and a wish. I do believe it can occur - just need enough muslims with the right knowlede and willing to actually study the sharia properly and then bam we've got ourselves a caliphate.

Anywho, I think we've derailed this thread long enough. Let's get back to answering the questions laid out in steve's first post.