Why Muslims are not free to interpret Koran?

[Guest M99]

How?

 

It is as if you come upon a starving, thirsty, and injured man. You offer him some water from your canteen. But he grabs your canteen and throws it into the grabage - claiming that it is drugged and that you are trying to rob him. So you offer him a piece of your food and he spits in your bag - claiming that you are trying to poison him. You offer him a bandage for his injury and he throws it back at you claiming that you have infected it with diesease and now you are trying to kill his entire family.

 

What do you do?

[Guest Alaa]

Islam is divided like any other religion; Islam is not unified as it is claimed by Muslims around the world. Islam has so many sects which may interpret Koran in many different ways, and even some sects tolerate to some extent the western values (e.g. shia for pragmatic reasons).

 

There are sects of Islam that claim the existence of a clash between Islamic values and non-islamic ones. These sects are quite fearful of the dominance of these values and get quite defencive and protective. On the other hand, the Shia are getting quite pragmatic in their analysis to the situation in Iraq, for instance. I heard Muqtada Al Sadar toning down his rhetoric's against the American presence for pragmatic reasons. There may be other sects in Islam which are tolerant to other values.

 

One of the main problems in Islam is that it needs to show the unity and solidarity of all its sects when it comes to confronting the West or any other set of values and principles. On the other hand, they have deep divisions among themselves in interpreting the Koran, in how the perceive Islamic history and in how they perceive the possibility of Islamic dominance in a world which is seen to be in decline. Muslim are desperate to show such unity and are not prepared to show the division because that contradict the Islamic myths and themes of united Muslims.

 

You see a Muslim from Pakistan condemning the killing of his/her brothers and sisters in Iraq, but as soon as s/he encounters a Shia s/he start portraying them as going off Koranic and Prophet Muhammad teaching. Of course the West is confused by such double bind message from Muslims. The West hear the rhetoric of united Islam and is not told clearly about the deep division of different Islamic sects. This in itself create a dynamic where the West tries to push toward the argument that all Muslims (Shia and Sunnis) are radicals, but Muslims (Shia and Sunni) push toward a tolerant, wonderful and united Islam without saying anything about their deep differences. Not talking about the deep differences can be interpreted as sharing the intolerance at the core of Islamic teaching. The Shia, example, are not confident yet to be open about their perception of a world of clashed values.

 

I learnt recently from someone who is a religious Shia and a very good friend of mine that she gets embarrassed when asked of her sect. She always replied "I am a Muslim" on the other hand she said Sunnis are pushing their Sunni identity very hard.

 

In Islam there was always the dominance of Sunnis who lead the Islamic global movement and the share of the Shia is minor. Here I am not promoting the Shia but to say that hiding divisions among Islamic sects send a mixed message to everyone in the West. This sort of mixed message is not an innocent one but done on purpose to confuse and control (this particular point needs further analysis).

 

One mustn't deny the fact that there are Islamic terrorist groups led by a radical and fanatic Islamic doctrines and driven by radical Islamic sects with radical interpretation of how to deal with the injustice, as claimed, inflected by the West on the Islamic world (I use the term Islamic world because that is how Muslim try to show a unified Muslims). The question is: is there an Islamic world? and if there is one what are the common grounds for such a world? Is just Islam? What about race differences, what about language difference? what about cultural differences? Are they all ignored because Islamic thoughts have more power than all these human factors?.....

[Guest Guest]

"He was a committed to peaceful Islam, but he was very angry about the killing of his brothers and sisters in Iraq";

If this is the reason, then he should go and blew him self in a Salafee Pakistani school in Lahoor who preach for killing the Iraqi kids and elderly!

 

That is redicolus.. If these criminals are driven by motives then why they didn't have any one terror act against Isreal. I read the article by A moslim British writer in LA times promoting to this Iraq link. Why Qaeda fled Afghanistan when they already have the strong hold and poor to Iraq where they shouldn't? Let us dig in the political aspect of this.. Islam has nothing to do with it.. In Iraq , the westren media called the Salafee terror act as "Sunni insurgence" in Britan they call it "Muslim terror" at a time same people admit responsipitilies.. I would call it "Qaeada terrorist" nothing to do with Iraq liberation/occupation , it has to do with drug / Isreali conflict.. Yes it has it's dimention deep in the some Hanbali sec of Islam teachings, but that is just as any other banner used by politicians..

[Guest Mark]

Anyway, Islam evolved over the centuries, first it acquired the traditions of south asia in dess code especially for women, lots of our cultural habits were acquired as well from those cultures and not from Islam. In the past twenty years Islam has been evolving into a radical religion where people were able to justify their intolerence to others. I remember the days we used to read about "ahl alkitab" with reference to Christians and Jews, now they are being called "infidels" to justify violence against them. Listening to the what is called "muslim leaders", they say that they are against violence, but unfortunately talk is cheap, we have not seen any of these leaders take leadership position, I am sure they are the political front to the violent groups probably. Lots of muslims still believe that they should protect their own people from the westerners and this applies to the current bombing in London. I am sure there are at least 10 people who knew what these four homicide bombers were up to but would not tell the infidels about it so as not to betray a fellow muslim. Islam is not being hijacked, it has evolved, and there is a majority that although do not do this violence they do condone it. Look at the main street in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia etc. they do consider Bin Laden a hero, this means they do condone his type of violence. This hatred towards the west has evolved into a violent hatred, and where it is spreading through? in mosques, that is where it is being taught and kids are being recruited into blowing up themselves.

 

Lets not fool ourselves that majority of muslims are against the violent act of killing westerners, there is a large majority that approves that. There are lots of muslim preachers who are preaching this message of hatred, and Britain has a lot of such hatred breeding grounds. Look at the muslim leaders in the UK who are still trying to say the good deeds of the bombers rather than purging these mosques or at least cutting the money spigot off to these mosques. This hared against the west has many believers and not necessarily followers. Just get with a few muslim or arab groups and hear what they say about the west although they do live in the west and are enjoying the basic freedoms, they verbally attack the very society that provided them with the freedoms that their native countries denied them, that is the reason they try to contain their kids from being part of the society, and in the case of the fellows who blew themselves up their parents sent them to their native country to learn religion and some more hatred. Kids also learn from their parents, if the parents keep talking about how bad the west is that gets ingrained into the kids minds, and as they grow up they become an easy target for recruiters of hatred.

 

Again, these places that preach hatred and violence have money flowing in and this flow is from people who believe in what is being taught in these places of hatred (they are not places of religion anymore). Have you heard Shiekh Qarthawi in Qatar? the guy is interviewed several times on Aljazeera where he justified the violence, and if there were not that many people who approved of his views he would not be on TV in the first place.

 

In summary, Islam has not been hijacked, Islam has evolved. Violence is accepted by the majority of muslims. It is much simpler now to justify violence using the religion. Christianity went thru this phase in the 17th, 18th centuries where atrocities were committed in the name of religion. Now it is Islam's time to go thru this same phase

[Guest Moron]

Mark,

I may not agree with too much of what you said, but in the process you made me think that jamming Al Jazeera's satellite would be a good thing. Political Correctness be damned. It's just wrong to beam messages of hatred through outer space. Jam it, badWord. We should snag it with the shuttle and reprogram it to show smurf re-runs everytime the word resistance, martyr, Jooo, infidel, insurgent, or al-queda is mentioned. I went to AJ website and the tanker explosion only got mentioned after a handful of articles praising the resistance and blaming the zionists for everything. Then when I read their report about the schoolchildren they tried to make it sound like the murderer was going after americans ... like he couldn't have avoided the children. It's sick to see the spin they put on things. You ask me, AJ is the #1 promoter of terrorism in the world. Bin laden and Zarqawi are just their heros du-jour.

[Texas Gentleman]

Will Muslims Accept the Constitution of Al-Madina Al-Munnawara?

 

by Samir Hassan

 

A large majority of Iraqis (whether they are clerics, politicians, or citizens of different educational backgrounds) repeatedly mention the religious and historical character of Iraqi society and the rich heritage of traditions. This is against the concept of democracy - which this majority believes to be an American one.

 

One could conclude that the people who hold this view oppose freedom and the basic rights and responsibilities of human beings to this freedom.

 

One could also conclude that this majority (most of whom are Muslims) have probably never heard of the constitution of Al-Madina Al-Munnawara which was established by the prophet Mohammed in Yethrib at 622 A.D.

 

This reminds me of the famous observation made by Islamic scholar Mohammed Rifa'a Al-Tahetawi about France during the 19th century. He mentioned on his return that he had "found Islam but with no Muslims."

 

What Tahetawi had actually found in France was nothing more than a society living under a constitution based on respect of human rights, with democracy as its main feature.

 

Tahetawi did not know at the time that the French constitution was largely drawn upon the draft of the French Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration dates back to 1789 and is regarded as one of the most important human rights documents in history. The document had many additions and amendments in its footnotes made by Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the constitution of the United States of America.

 

Another thing that Tahetawi was unaware of (like most Muslims today) is the existence of another document protecting human and citizens' rights - which is much older than the constitution of the United States - dating back to 622 A.D. This was the constitution of a civil society in Arabia made by the prophet Mohammed under the guidance of God.

 

Muslims somehow dropped this document from their history even though it was named the "Paper" - which suggests it was written to be declared and published, not ignored and forgotten.

 

This state established by the prophet at Yethrib was named "Al-Madina" (which means "The City") and was based on a kind of civil governance free from coercion or oppression.

 

The constitution protected this right for groups and individuals. There is no reference anywhere in the "Paper" to the state's religion or that of its ruler.

 

Articles 2-10 clearly mention several groups within the state enjoying full autonomy. Articles 24-38 mention the main religious minorities such as the Jews from the tribes of Bani Awf, Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al-Harith, Bani Sa'ida, Bani Jashm, Bani Aws and Bani Tha'laba.

 

The writer of the "Paper" did not neglect smaller groups such as the clan of Jafna (Article 33) or the slaves of Tha'laba and the Jews. There was no marginalization of any kind nor cryptic phrases such as "other groups and ethnicities."

 

The above description of the constitution of Al-Madina Al-Munnawara and Tahetawi's experience in France should be enough for us to ask those who want us to preserve our religious character in the constitution to answer the question at the top of this article.

 

http://www.friendsofdemocracy.info/2005/07...muslims_ac.html Al-Madina Al-Munnawara?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Guest Alaa]

So we have "Evolution of Islam" (Mark); "Different school of Islamic teaching Salafee, Hanbali...etc ; "The Unreality of United Islam" (Ala). I personally don't see much difference among these thoughts. Evolution stems from difference and change not from stagnation of thoughts and believes. This would lead to an important point and that is: because of the unreal united Islam there are sects that hide behind this mask despite the fact that their teachings and interpretations are radicalised through a Islamic Jihadist doctrine which is different from many other Islamic sects whose teaching may not fall in the domain of this Jihadist doctrine. But because they cannot spell out their differences with the Islamic Jihadists and staying within the boundaries of united Islam, they are label ed or I should say seen like the rest.

 

Hypothetically speaking if Christianity is in the position of Islam (which generally weak position) it would act exactly like the Muslims today. And since Christianity is in a better position then it is quit open about its different sects and factions and their debates. There are so many debates about so many issues Including women as bishops (it would be interesting to see a woman Imam as an evolutionary step in Islamic thoughts)

 

Therefore to isolate the Islamic terrorists or Muslims of Jihadist doctrine, then all other sects must be absolutely open and transparent about their position from the Western values in general and religions such as Christians, Jews, Hindos...etc in particular.

 

On a TV program I listen to a Muslim Imam who literally said that many of what is mentioned in the Koran is applied at that time and cannot be applied nowadays. This particular point is a positive evolution in the interpretation of Koran since it opens the doors of tolerant Islam if we dig deeper into the statement. These sort of statement or ideas must be talked about quite often, but it may contradicts the united Islam myth or theme, but I am pretty sure that such thought would be fought to death by other sects

[Texas Gentleman]

Living in Harmony with Religious Diversity: Islamic Perspective

 

by Uzma Mazhar

 

The Qur’ân gives Muslims and non-Muslims the right to worship in accordance with their own faith and to have their own beliefs. This freedom of conscience cannot be taken away from any human being, whatever his or her beliefs may be. Islam not only accepts the legitimacy of religious pluralism but also considers it quite central to its code for a just and harmonious co-existence.

 

"Unto every one of you We have appointed a (different) law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; but (He willed it otherwise) in order to test you by means of what He has given you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ." (Qur’ân 5:48)

 

“Every community faces a direction of its own, of which God is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another towards all that is good. Wherever you may be, God will bring you together; for God has power over all things.” (Qur’ân 2:148)

 

The Qur’ân is very particular about freedom of conscience as it teaches respect for everyone regardless of any differences and that is the key to pluralism. The Qur’ân clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion (Qur’ân 2:256) and maintains that all children of Adam are honorable (Qur’ân 17:70).

 

God has created different communities, cultures and religions on purpose; to try and test human beings in what has been given to them (i.e. different scriptures, laws and ways of life). In the last part of the verse (5.48) God says that everyone will return to Him and it is He who will make us understand these differences. It is not for human beings to claim being right or wrong as it leads to disturbances and breach of peace. Therefore these matters should be left for God to decide. The differences of laws and ways of life should not become the cause of disharmony and enmity. The test is to live in peace and harmony with each other, which is the will of God. Furthermore, God directs us to learn to live with these differences and compete with each other only in our acts of goodness, as that is what will bring everyone together. The Qur’ân mandates a peaceful co-existence. It is the best way to resolve inter-religious and inter-cultural conflicts and to promote acceptance of the ‘religious and cultural other’ with dignity and grace.

 

The Qur'ân does not take a narrow sectarian view. Its view is very broad, humanitarian and its emphasis is on good deeds; it strongly condemns evil deeds, which harm the society and humanity at large. In this respect also it makes no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

This inclusive approach is very vital, for only in accepting the rights of the 'religious other' can there be a just society. The laws, beliefs and the ways of life may differ and yet the Divine Essence, the Divine Truth is the same. It is reflected in all religions, in all spiritual traditions and we humans have no right to judge or reject the 'other' as illegitimate, much less, false. Thus it is our human ego that rejects the religious other.

 

Some prophets are mentioned by name in the Qur’ân, while making clear that there were many that are not named.

 

“God has ordained for you the faith that He commended to Noah, and that which We inspire in you [Muhammad], and that which We commended to Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: "Establish the religion, and be not divided therein.” (Qur’ân 42:13).

 

“Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians, and the Sabaeans—whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right—surely their reward is with their Lord; no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve.” (Qur’ân 2:62).

 

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is the one who believes in God, and the Last Day, and the angels and the Book and the Prophets, and who gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and who set slaves free, and keeps up prayer, and pays the poor rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in the time of conflict; and these are they who keep their duty." (Qur’ân 2:177)

 

In a straightforward and direct way God makes it very clear that:

"The most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you." (Qur’ân 49:13)

 

No religion can claim God as their personal property. Religiosity and piety is also a test when it leads one to arrogance in thinking of themselves as better than others, leading one to judge or condemn without knowing the reality. Thus no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, can claim any exception from the universal law of God; one who does good will be rewarded and one who does evil will be punished.

 

"It will not be in accordance with your vain desires, nor the vain desires of the people of the Book; whoever does evil, will be requited for it and will not find for himself besides God a friend or a helper." (Qur’ân 4:123)

 

"So he who does an atom's weight of good will see it and he who does an atom's weight of evil will see it." (Qur’ân 99:7)

 

The Qur’ân encourages inter-religious dialogue with respect. God commands that Muslims cannot enforce their religion on anyone, nor can they disrespect other religions. God knows that religion is a matter in which emotions take over and hence He is very clear about directing us to be respectful and sensitive when discussing such issues.

 

”And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is man’s foe. We have not sent you with the power to determine their faith.” (Qur’ân 17:53, 54)

 

"And discuss not with the People of the Book except by what is best, save such of them, as act unjustly. And Say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit." (Qur’ân 29:46)

 

"Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did." (Qur’ân 6.108)

 

The theme of oneness of humankind is repeated in the Qur'ân in different ways. We are told that all human beings have been "created of a single soul" (Qur’ân 4:1); and that all descended from the same parents. (Qur’ân 49:13).

 

Apart from oneness of humankind the Qur'ân also lays stress on racial, linguistic and national identities. Diversity is projected by the Qur’ân as a sign of God and hence to be respected. Different identities are for recognition and hence necessary and it should not lead to any conflict. Thus the Qur’ân clearly accepts the legitimacy of diversity.

 

"And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors. Surely there are signs in this for the learned." (Qur’ân 30:22)

 

"O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other." (Qur’ân 49:13)

 

It also makes it clear, quite forcefully, that all places of worship should be respected and protected. It is significant that the Qur’ân maintains that be it church, synagogue, temple or mosque, God's name is much remembered in these places. No single religious place is privileged in this respect. Thus here too religious pluralism is stressed.

 

"Had not God checked one set of people by means of another; cloisters, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, in which the name of God is remembered in abundance; would have been pulled down." (Qur’ân 22:40)

 

When Prophet Muhammad (saw) migrated from Mecca to Medina he found himself in a pluralist situation. There was religious as well as tribal diversity. He not only accepted this diversity but also legitimized it by drawing up an agreement with different religious and tribal groups and accorded everyone, through this agreement, a dignified existence and rights. This agreement, known as 'Misaq al Medina' or the Constitution of Medina; accorded Muslims and non-Muslims the right to live in peace and together protect each other from external harm and danger.

 

As a matter of fact in the daily prayers Muslims send blessings and peace on the followers of Abraham (as) in exactly the same manner that they pray for the followers of Muhammad (saw). This is repeated numerous times depending on the cycles of the five daily prayers - (morning prayer 2 times, noon 4, afternoon 2, evening 3 and in the night-time prayer it is repeated 7 times, ie: total of 18 times daily):

 

“O God, bestow Your peace and abundant favors (blessings) upon Muhammad (saw) and his people, as You bestow Your peace upon Abraham (as) and upon his people. Indeed You are Glorified and Praised.”

 

We have only to look at the Qur’ân and our history to know that Islâm encourages a religiously diverse and pluralist society, ensuring dignity and freedom of conscience to all. Islâm protects the right of non-Muslims and guards their freedom to exist with their own beliefs. Islamic history shows that Muslims and non-Muslims existed in peace, and it tells Muslims how to conduct themselves in dialogue with non-Muslims. Promoting divisiveness and hatred based on religious differences is absolutely against Islâm. Based on such clear guidance, Muslims cannot ignore this Islâmic teaching and must practice and teach their children to be respectful, civil, polite and genuinely friendly with non-Muslims to promote and achieve universal peace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those are honorable words above for Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike who believe in God, ... unfortunately that is NOT THE PREDOMINATE MESSAGE coming from most Islamic countries today. Radical Islamics are polluting Islam with vile hatred even directed at a majority of Muslims who might disagree with them. Their messages of hate brings nothing but destruction upon the Islamic World far worse than it does the West. Honorable Muslims need to salvage their religion from that evil. The near silent majority of Muslims in the Middle East can no longer sit on the sidelines blaming the West for all thier troulbles and believing that is true.

 

The Iraq people have the best possible chance for rebuilding your free country to prosperity for all and rescuing your religion from the clutches of the terrorist than any in the Middle East today The USA cannot do it for you, nor should we be expected too. We can only assist you with your full co-operation and request ... in the end it is up to you. -- Tex

[Guest Guest]

Mark,

 

As for the evolve , my concern is not about your point of Islam is evolving now, indeed it is that I though that Islam is a religion of evolve always. That is the streanght of islam..

Through history we noticed diffrent people/groups trying to encap islam under certain rules of tyrany, both political or religious. But it always survived.. What Mark points to Qaeada terrorist as a new evolvment was not 100% correct. Alqaeda salafee based teachings is not evolvment , it is retreatment to a discontinued old evolvment of Khawarej at the early days of islam. Retreat might be considered as backword evolvment though!

[Guest moron99]

There is a thing called "us and them". It is a mentality that builds barriers between people. It is a thing that bankrupts western business when managers become "us" and workers become "them". It is a thing that drives nations to war when Germany becomes "us" and Poland becomes "them". It is a thing that denies justice when the Israelis become "us" and the palestinians become "them". It is a thing that tore apart Vietnam when democracy became "us" and communism was "them". It is a sickness that eats at Iraq when the terrorists become "us" and the shia are "them".

 

Islam expanded the "us" from a tribe to a nation to a global presence. But now it struggles with the inherent limits of the "us" it has defined. The Northern hemisphere and parts of the southern have redefined their "us" to be any hairless ape that walks on two legs, uses tools, and speaks a language. Now they engage in robust trade and mutual tolerance. The wahabi and some others say that the rest of the world has disriminates against muslims. In reality, it is the wahabi who will not expand their definition of "us" and forces others to become "them".

 

The solution is to stand up and acknowledge the imam as a man. Just a man. An ordinary man who does his best but makes mistakes like any human. It is he who has the power to redefine the meaning of "us". And question his wisdom of "us" so that all may gather together and discuss openly what they believe is the truth. On that day the Imam will lose his divine control and the meaning of "us" will become much larger.

 

So that's my little philosophical meandering for the day. Wuppidy-frickin-doo.

[salim]

Radical Islamics are polluting Islam with vile hatred even directed at a majority of Muslims who might disagree with them

 

Have a look to the original threatening letter text "in Arabic" to the moderate islamic writer Mr. Alquomni asking his to take back what he already wrote or five "lions" are ready to kill him or any of his family member

 

http://www.aljeeran.net/viewarticle.php?id...pg=index&art=mp

[Guest Ala]

Though I believe God has create man (human) with tremendous faculties and sensibilites to put varieties of interpretations to his book/books and (this is a big AND) to bear the responsibilites for any wrong doings; I may agree with the fact that if Islam and Koran do not/did not evolve and eveerlasting but their interpretations must have been. Nevermind all that, the major point I made or have made is the importance of separating Islam (or religions in general) from politics, and if that doesn't happen then there is no way that religions can cater for modren societies' man liberities. I see these liberties as the blessed gift from God and any religion that prevents them is denying this gift. I also belive that choices and expriences are manifestations of some gifts given to us by God. As for the questin of punishable sins (since they can be choices and experiences) I believe that God and only God knows their nature and no one on earth and on the behaof of God is capable of defining them and s/he punishs others.

 

Modern societies require fierce debates about issues that may need to be disputed with no restrictions even the essence of God. This is not Kufr, by the way, since God has given us essential faculties that may question his/her essence to be better humans.

 

I could see that the author (Uzama) had touched on modren issues in her attempt (or others attempts) to interpret Koranic teachings. Nevermind all that again....my and many other major concern is that there maybe attempts to make Iraq as a laboratory for as, it may have be claimed, a religiouns model that may not be able tocater for all citizins of the country. I believe would affect me and many others....My intentions are well and good.

[Guest Guest_Safaa]

Ala,

 

OK.. Let me put done some of my understandings about Religion and State from Islamic point of view

 

Islam never called for State.. There are alot of writers who wrote about this, most famous are

 

READ "Islam and State" by Shiekh Dr. Ali Abdoul Raziq..He used to be the head of Sunni Alzhar School in the fourties.. They got expelled and accused of laspheming.. His book got abondond, but republished in Iraq last year..

 

 

 

READ"The ISLAM and Usol Alhukum" by Shiekh Mohamed jawad Maghinia, the promenent head of Shia religious judarifiction committe in Lebanon in the sixtees.

 

 

 

The evolve of Quaran into State was after the death of the prophet by some early moslims who wanted to build on the power of faith to establish the state of religion.. There was a serious objection to this specially by Imam Ali.. Anyhow this is a long story .. What I want to say that the evolvement to the state of religion was an early one, so many thought of it now as the core teachings of Islam

 

 

Calling for societies requirement for fierce debates about issues that may need to be disputed with no restrictions, is not yours and many who like it, it is the Islamic core teachings fourteen hundreds years ago.. I would refere you the tens of such calls in Quaran.. The Mobahala that I commented on was one example of such free discussion.. There is no one incident in Prophet history where he apply his teachings by force..Some historians mix between the Islamic experiences after Mohamed and come to conclusion that Islam is a religion of sword, they amight be right but it is more accurate to say, Islam had evolved to be such

 

Even after the defeat of Mushrekeen in Mekka, he never put changing faith as condition, he rather put one condition " Who ever entred Abo Sufian house is safe, Abo Sufian was not claiming Islam yet"

 

I think Islam like any other religion had run into a severe forced evolvment through history, it is time now to let it evolve , may backward freely

 

Cheers!

[Guest moron99]

The history of Saddam begs the question - "What path do you follow if you find a murderous thug sitting upon the throne?"

 

I know of no acceptable answer if the thug also has the power to draft his own rules. Every path leads to the shedding of blood.

 

However, I do know of a solution. In the west we have a saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". This saying has much meaning in all walks of life but takes on great importance in the fashioning of governance. Let us be honest with ourselves. There are bad people everywhere. In the furthest reaches of the amazon rainforset, to the halls of government, to the sanctuaries of religion, to the playgrounds of schoolchildren (bullies) - there will always be those who are willing to advance themselves upon the sufferring of others.

 

One solution is to never allow a murderous thug to sit upon the throne. But how is this accomplished? It requires seeing into the heart of a man. This is something that no earthly entity can reliably accomplish. Even the requirement of piety is not sufficient for two reasons. The obvious reason is that many clever thugs will pretend to be pious in order to gain the throne. The other reason is that power creates within all men the desire to keep power. At the moment when power feeds the desire to retain power, regardless of intention, the heart of man is no longer pure. So even the man who is pious when ascending to power will quickly find himself compromising his piety. It is human nature.

 

Another solution is to assume that sooner or later a muderous thug will sit upon your throne. The problem then is not to prevent a bad leader, but to remove him as quickly as possible with a minimum of blood. The challenge that lies in front of the Iraqi government is to devise such a system of governance. One that places the system itself above the leader himself and allows for the prompt and peaceful removal of bad leadership.

 

So, I believe, the essential argument for separation of church and state is not to be found within religion. It is to be found within the heart of man and the ease with which he can be corrupted. The seperation of church from state protects the people by not by not granting divine powers to man that would place him above the rules of governance and it protects religion from absorbing the corruption political power.

[aldoctor]

"Is democracy compatible with the teachings of Islam?”

 

“Before answering please give adequate thought to the details.”

-PLEASE DO US THE COURTESY OF DOING THE SAME.”

 

“Modern democracy is a social agreement among people to create a government that serves the common interests of all, protects the weak from persecution, and abides by the concensus will of its citizens.”

 

- PLEASE GIVE ME A REFERENCE FOR THIS DEFINITION.

 

 

“By definition, modern democracy is the law of man and is required to adapt to the changing desires of its citizens. The primary task of a democratic government is to assist each and every (law abiding) member of society in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.”

 

-THE ORIGINAL READS:“LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY” AND THAT WAS TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONARIES.

 

In the original contract between people and governemnt there will be guarantees of rights and freedoms. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens from other nations, groups, organizations, or individuals who wish to deny these rights to any living person within its territory or seeks to displace the concesus social contract.

 

- THIS IS CALLED LIBERALITY. NOW YOU ARE CONFUSING DEMOCRACY AND LIBERALITY.

 

It is implicitly understood that the governemnt and all of its possessions belong to the people and that the people may, through popular mandate, repeal the government's powers at any time.

- I BELIEVE THIS IS A PART OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. OR AT LEAST AN EXTENSION OF ROSSEAUS THOUGHT.

 

Additionally, it is further understood that if the

citizenry is comprised of multiple ethnic groups then each group will have to accept the existence and beliefs of the other as valid and make no effort to destroy or harm them except in self defense.

- THIS IS LIBERALITY AGAIN

 

 

So, again,

 

Is Islam compatible with modern democracy?

Does the Koran allow people to adopt and follow man made social contracts as a form of governance? "