Who wants to live in a theocracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wilberhum
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 206
  • Views Views 22K

Who wants to live in a theocracy?

  • Total voters
    0
ranma1/2 said:
true rights? as soon as you have a theocracy you lose rights, especially if you are not of that religion.
Click to expand...

The only time any human ever had full rights was when Adam(PBUH) was alone. The minute the second human was created his rights were cut in half to give equal rights to his companion.

So it is in any nation you never have any more rights than the rights of the majority. If your desires are not the same as the majority, you will loose rights even in a democracy.

Here in the US there are many people who advocate the use of marijuana and feel they have the right to smoke it. But, the majority says that is a no-no so they have lost their right to smoke it.

Us Muslims believe the sale of pork violates our rights. however the majority feels different so we have lost our right to live in an pork free nation. I know to many non-Muslims that sounds very trivial. However, it limits us highly. We can not eat in a restaurant that serves pork as even the vegetables may have come in contact with pork during handling back in the kitchen. many candies, and other enjoyable products are denied to us as pork gelatin and/or enzymes may have been used in the manufacture of them. We even have to be cautious of where we buy our meat and dairy products as even halal meat and cheeses may have come in contact with pork products as they may be sold and/or stored on the same shelves.

No matter what country we live in or what form of government we live under our rights are limited and dictated by either the majority or the strongest in power.

For those of us with a strong belief in God(swt) a theocracy serves us best. Although admitadly it may restrict the rights of those who do not believe the same. A Muslim or even a Baptist Christian would feel a lot of rights were removed if we lived in Vatican City. But, i will not deny The Vatican it's rights to be a theocracy even if I would feel unwelcome there. Then again I do not foresee myself ever living there.

True rights any place on earth are non-existent and a figment of our imagination. The closest possible is when all of the residents of a country have the same beliefs and ideologies.
 
glo said:
I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?
What do you think a 'Christian country' would be like?

I am asking, because historically most of the laws in most Western secular countries are based on Christian values - because at the time when the countries were formed, ground laws determined and constitutions written, the people in authority and in government were very clearly Christian. (That's my view, anyway)

So in my mind a 'Christian state' would not be all that different from our present 'secular state'.

What are Muslims so afraid of?

peace.
Click to expand...

Well for one thing The USA was not found on christian values anymore than it was buddhists or islamic values. There have been of course blue laws which thankfully are being slowly gotten rid of. I can think of no good "christian values" that did not exist before christanity. And a christian theocracy would be a horrible state. Of course which version of christanity are you talking about? So many to choose from so many differnt takes on what is and isnt moral or good and evil.

Not to mention how easily corrup a theocracy can be. Look at the spanish inquisition. or the crusades etc... darkages.....

Of course it depends on which version of which religion but still i see it as bad.
 
Woodrow said:
The only time any human ever had full rights was when Adam(PBUH) was alone. The minute the second human was created his rights were cut in half to give equal rights to his companion.

So it is in any nation you never have any more rights than the rights of the majority. If your desires are not the same as the majority, you will loose rights even in a democracy.

Here in the US there are many people who advocate the use of marijuana and feel they have the right to smoke it. But, the majority says that is a no-no so they have lost their right to smoke it.

Us Muslims believe the sale of pork violates our rights. however the majority feels different so we have lost our right to live in an pork free nation. I know to many non-Muslims that sounds very trivial. However, it limits us highly. We can not eat in a restaurant that serves pork as even the vegetables may have come in contact with pork during handling back in the kitchen. many candies, and other enjoyable products are denied to us as pork gelatin and/or enzymes may have been used in the manufacture of them. We even have to be cautious of where we buy our meat and dairy products as even halal meat and cheeses may have come in contact with pork products as they may be sold and/or stored on the same shelves.

No matter what country we live in or what form of government we live under our rights are limited and dictated by either the majority or the strongest in power.

For those of us with a strong belief in God(swt) a theocracy serves us best. Although admitadly it may restrict the rights of those who do not believe the same. A Muslim or even a Baptist Christian would feel a lot of rights were removed if we lived in Vatican City. But, i will not deny The Vatican it's rights to be a theocracy even if I would feel unwelcome there. Then again I do not foresee myself ever living there.

True rights any place on earth are non-existent and a figment of our imagination. The closest possible is when all of the residents of a country have the same beliefs and ideologies.
Click to expand...

You havent stated what true rights are. You have brought up your opinon about creation and such but no mention of what true rights are.

In the US there are ideally barriers in certain aspect so majority does not necessarily make the rights. We have in the US certain rights that can not be voted away by the public "idealy" The freedom of religon or to not have one is important.

The right to sell pork does not go against your rights. You can "not sell" pork if you dont want to. Also we dont make you eat pork. As with any limitation you have to accept the problems associated with it. I myself have a vegitarian for a GF and there are certain things you have to work for. Think about it this way, your not eating pork means more when you have to try not to. Of course it sounds like what you think of "rights" is different than others.
 
Pygoscelis said:
To me the question "Would you like to live in a theocracy" is no different from "Would you like to live in a repressive dictatorship".

Keep in mind that any theocracy is going to have high priests who interpret the religious creed and tell you all how to live your lives. Not only will nonbelievers in the state religion be ostracized but so will those who DO believe the state religion but just not in the "proper way" (ie, the way the guy in charge decides things must be).
Click to expand...

well said.
 
Hey ranma. This was from a previous post of mine;

First of all, let's see the rights of non muslims in an Islamic state (which follows the authentic teachings, just take a look:
Rights of Citizens in an Islamic State


Islam protects the rights belonging to the citizens of an Islamic state, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.
  • The first is the right to security of life and property. Islam prohibits killing except for that which is done in the due process of law at the hands of a God-fearing court. No government has the right to murder its citizens, openly or secretly, because they oppose its unjust policies and actions or criticize it. Furthermore, Islam confers the right of security of ownership of property.
  • Another right is that of the protection of honor. Under Islamic Law, if one is proved to have said things that could have damaged the reputation and honor of the plaintiff, the accused is declared guilty of defamation — regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is able to prove that he is respectable and honorable in the first place.
  • Citizens of an Islamic state have the right to the sanctity and security of private life. Thus spying on others, reading their mail, tapping their phones, etc., is illegal. Espionage on the life of the individual cannot be justified on moral grounds. In fact, when a government does begin to spy on its own people, the common citizens cannot speak freely even in their own homes, and society begins to suffer from a state of general distrust and suspicion — which in turn leads to more dissatisfaction and eventually unrest.
  • No citizen can be imprisoned unless his guilt has been proven in an open court in which he has the opportunity to defend himself.
  • Citizens have the God-given right to protest against the government’s tyranny, whether that abuse is directed against individuals, groups, or the entire population.
Citizens have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law regardless of their religion
  • Islam grants the right of freedom of thought and expression on the condition that it should be used to propagate virtue and truth, not to spread evil and wickedness. Further, no one has the right to use abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism. In fact, the citizen not only has the right of freedom of expression in order to propagate virtue, but also the duty to propagate virtue and stop the spread of evil.
  • Islam gives people the right to freedom of association and formation of parties or organizations, provided that this right is exercised to spread virtue and righteousness, not to spread evil and mischief.
  • Citizens of an Islamic state have the right to freedom of conscience and conviction. Non-Muslim citizens cannot be forced to accept Islam, and no moral, social, or political pressure can be put on them to make them change their minds.
  • Religious sentiments are to be protected. Discussion and debate on religious matters can be held, but these must be conducted in decency with no abusive language. This applies to followers of all faiths.
  • An individual cannot be arrested or imprisoned for the offenses of others. Every person is responsible for his own acts.
  • Citizens have the right to the basic necessities of life. It is the responsibility of the State to provide the basic necessities for the poor and needy, invalid, orphaned, elderly, unemployed, et cetera. Even a dead person with no guardian or heir has the right to a proper burial by the State.
  • The citizens of an Islamic state have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law, regardless of their religion.
  • In an Islamic state, the rulers are not above the law. All officials of the state, whether they are the head or ordinary employees, are equal in the eyes of the law. None can claim immunity. Even an ordinary citizen has the right to forward a claim or file a complaint against the highest executive in the country.
  • Citizens have the right to avoid sin. No government, or administrator, or head of a department can order another person to do wrong. A person who is so ordered has the right to refuse to comply, and this would not be seen as an offense under Islamic Law.
  • Islam grants the right to participate in the affairs of state. Thus every citizen has the right to have a direct say in the affairs of the state or a representative chosen by him and others.
The issue of there being an Islamic State in the world today has already been discussed in different parts of the forum, and the answer is no - there isn't today as it's been prophecised.


Now, if we're to look at a religion on it's teachings, instead of some who claim to follow it, then we can say that these Islamic Teachings which i quoted above are way more advanced than even the world we live in today! Yet alone 14 centuries ago.

That was a time when one wasn't even allowed to follow another religion apart from their rulers, and if they did - they would be beheaded. Yet God/Allaah sent His servant and final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - a man just like us - who was well known for his honesty and trustworthiness, to free the world from the oppression it faces.



That's what Divine revelation is supposed to do - it's supposed to free mankind from the hardships and oppression they are facing. And free the weak and the oppressed. This is Islaam, and without a doubt without Islaam, mankind is oppressed, since the rulers (i.e. of today) may say that we are 'freeing people from the oppression of religion' - when in reality, all they're doing is forcing people to accept their ideology, and anyone who speaks out - they get locked up.

So is this really freedom, or is it not? If God can send a perfect law to mankind 14 centuries ago which is more advanced than the laws of today, then i'm sure that it is even more perfect and suitable for the future also.
​
 
Last edited:
ranma1/2 said:
You havent stated what true rights are. You have brought up your opinon about creation and such but no mention of what true rights are.
Click to expand...

True rights are very individual. I do not believe there can be any rule as to what are universal rights. There are some thing we all need and want, but as far as being rights, that probably varies with the time and the people. I doubt if what you consider to be rights would be all the same as to what I believe to be rights. I think we would have a difficult time to find any two people to come up with what they see as the same rights in all aspects. We do have universal needs that probably can not be disputed, but rights will vary. Of course I feel it is my right to say that.

In the US there are ideally barriers in certain aspect so majority does not necessarily make the rights. We have in the US certain rights that can not be voted away by the public "idealy" The freedom of religon or to not have one is important.
Click to expand...

Actually they can be voted away by the majority. It is only by law that any rights become available. It was not long ago segregation was the norm, woman could not vote and Native Americans could not live where they chose. But, laws that where voted for changed that. Yes, the constitution does have it's "Bill of Rights" that are supposedly inalienable. yet we know that ammendments have been added to most of them, thereby changing some from the original intent.

The right to sell pork does not go against your rights. You can "not sell" pork if you dont want to. Also we dont make you eat pork. As with any limitation you have to accept the problems associated with it. I myself have a vegitarian for a GF and there are certain things you have to work for. Think about it this way, your not eating pork means more when you have to try not to. Of course it sounds like what you think of "rights" is different than others.
Click to expand...

Like I said in my post most people would consider that a trivial matter.

And yes what I think of rights is probably different than what you think of as rights and what you think of rights is probably different than what your neighbor thinks. But, that is our right.
 
north_malaysian said:
In Malaysia, the government doesnt care whether you perform the 5 daily prayers....but there are so strict with Friday prayer observation.... you can be fined for not performing the Friday Prayer in Malaysia. But as all religious officers are at the mosque during that time, thus nobody been caught for that offence.

Yeah... in Ramadhan, the religious officers would go to the streets and would catch any Muslims who are eating in the public .... in some states, they would be paraded around the town in funeral cars.... That's why Ramadhan observation is so high in Malaysia... even those who never pray... also fast.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a totalitarian methods to me. So i see that a Malay born doesnt have other opportunity but to be a muslim.
 
I have a question- which one of these countries is closer to pure islamic state?:
-Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under taliban rule,Somalia under taliban rule.
Could you explain also why they are not close to islamic states ( if they are not of course).
Regards.
 
Andorra
Andorra's government is in some aspect nominally theocratic in that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Urgell is one of its co-princes, although the role is virtually entirely ceremonial.


England
England has a minor theocratic aspect because the monarch is "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England and "defender of the faith." This has been the case since the Protestant Reformation in England, under Henry VIII. It should be noted however, that the monarch has virtually no real power and their positions as head of state and of the church are purely ceremonial. Hence, the ruling government is not subject to any religious interference, and England is a multi-faith society. This does not apply to Scotland, whose Church of Scotland does not have the same relation to the state, nor to Wales and Northern Ireland, which have no established church. Queen Elizabeth II, however, is a member of the Church of Scotland and appoints a representative to the General Assembly of the church if she cannot attend personally.

Iran
Most observers would consider Iran a theocracy,[citation needed] since the elected president and legislature are constitutionally subject to the supervision of two offices reserved for Shia clerics: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Rahbar) and the Guardian Council, which even decide who may run for office.

Iran is also considered a "semi-democracy", like China or Russia.[citation needed] However, Iranian authorities themselves consider Iran a theo-democracy or religious democracy.[citation needed] The Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of state and government, whereas the President is granted as the prime executor of policy. However, in the recent years Mohammad Khatami has called Iranian political system as an alternative democratic model so called religious democracy.[citation needed]


Israel
Israel can be regarded as somewhat theocratic given the state promotion of Jewish institutions for the purposes of the country's integrity as the 'Jewish Homeland'. There is a small amount of intertwining of rabbinical law (Halakha) and civil law, particularly with regards to the enforcement of orthodox Jewish weddings for Jewish citizens, rather than allowing freedom to have a civil marriage (although these sorts of laws are being fought and revoked on a constant basis). Another promoted institution is that of the 'yeshiva'- an Orthodox Jewish, rabbinical learning centre, often funded in whole by the state. Israel's Law of Return grants any Jew the right to become a citizen of the country with the aim of facilitating their immigration to what the State of Israel views as their ancestral homeland. Israel's Basic Law: The Knesset (1985, Amendment No 9) states that a political list may not participate in elections if its party platform implies the "denial of the existence of the state of Israel as the state of Jewish people".[1] A member of any religion can be a citizen of Israel with full and equal rights under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
 
saira-k said:
what is a theocracy :S :$
Click to expand...

For believers in a religion whose institutions have been more or less equated with the state's institutions in a theocracy, a theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (for example, in monotheisms, the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g., as incarnation in a human being) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g., church, temple), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s). [1]

Most modern descriptive dictionaries explain that the word is used in most carefully edited texts in English to mean either government by doing immediate divine guidance (close to the usage described above) or, more commonly, as government by or subject to religious institutions and priests (or a state ruled in this way). In other words, for people who do not believe in a theocracy's religion or feel that its religious institutions do not represent the religion well, a theocracy is a form of oligarchy or even tyranny that purports to fulfill a divine intention but instead simply fulfills the goals of the ruling priests.
 
A theocracy is a form of goverment where a religious institution and the government are for all intents and purposes one and the same. Neither the U.K. or Israel are a theocracy.
 
Keltoi said:
A theocracy is a form of goverment where a religious institution and the government are for all intents and purposes one and the same. Neither the U.K. or Israel are a theocracy.
Click to expand...

Israel have laws from Judaism, the country enforce the laws to Israeli jews. There Is religious party that enforce the laws to the judical system England have Church of England, there ruling is very influcial to the nation.
 
To the muslims who have selected other:

do you not wish to live in an islamic state>? (i mean a truelly islamic one, not the fake ones we see today?)
 
Wow who dug up this old dirt?
It was interesting going through the new posts. As this is a subject that is near and dear to the hart of “The Defiant Dhimmi”.

Two things I still find note worthy:
First, still only Muslims want a theocracy. But when you stop and think about it is an article of faith.
The other one is the standard stupidity where some one thinks that
[MAD]Being a Dalit in the Islamic cast system was so wonderful.[/MAD]
[PIE]And it would be so wonderful that I would love to give up my cherished freedoms and gladly become a third class citizen of his vision of Utopia.[/PIE]
Oh well, not too worried though. Muslims can’t even get it right in Muslim countries. The West is safe from the ideology of the minority and the Christian majority doesn’t want it.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top