Islam and Democracy, which one is more Modern?

[Nur]

Naden:

 

You write:

 

" Shura by definition, is a heavily man-influenced set of legislation through the influence of qiyaas and igmaac. "

 

Naden:

 

That Definition is erroneous on many counts:

 

1.Shuraa is not LEGISLATION, its the deliberation that can lead to interpret the moral of the Sharia law ( Maqaasidul Shariica) as applied to a particular issue at hand.

2. Shuraa is A Devine Initiated (Allah ordered His Messenger: Wa shaawirhum fil amr)

3. Shuraa is Heavily Devine influenced (Wa maa kaana li muninin wa laa miminatin idaa qadaa Allahu wa rasuuluhu amran an an yakuuna lahumul khiyaratu min amrihim".

4. Shuraa ( Shaaral Casalu) is Human Extracted procedure from Quraan and Sunnah (Honey), and when ambiguous, like a collection of data points in statsitics, the best-fit-line to the Sharia ( MAIN HIGHWAY) is sought and discussed, the opinions pertaining to this discussion are prioritised according to their proximaty to the STANDARD ( QURAN AND SUNNAH) and then the best opinion becomes a defacto SHARIA adding to the ever increasing body of Dynamic Islamic sharia law.

 

 

So let us build together a better Definition of Shuuraa than yours, since you seem to have fun with definitions and logical premises that lead to a reasonable conclusion.

 

 

Sharia in Arabic language is composed of three letters: Sheen, Raa, and Cayn. It has a single root, which illustrates something that is unfolding ahead of an observer.

 

A. From that root, the following Linguistic meanings are derived:

 

Verbs:

 

1. Sharaca Nur sharcan: meaning; Nur Drank water direct with mouth ( without cup).

 

2. Sharacat Naden Al Madrasa: meaning; Naden approached school.

 

3. Sharacat Naden taktub: meaning: She started writing.

 

4. Sharaca Nur al calama: Nur raised the banner.

 

5. Sharaca al muqaawilu al tariiqa: meaning, The contractor levelled and spread the road ahead.

 

Nouns:

 

1. Shaaric: means INITIATOR, SETTER OF AGENDA.

2. Shaaric: means MODEL of NEW METHOD ( SUNNAH).

3. Shaaric: Main Avenue of a Town.

4. Shaarica: Water Supply, continuous without disruption.

 

 

B. Legal Meanings:

 

1. Sharc: Clear WAY, METHOD OF DOING THINGS.

2. SHARC: All that Allah and His Messenger ORDAINED to be FOLLOWED.

3. SHAARIC: LAWMAKER ( SOVEREIGN), who delegated His Messenger to deliver the law in writing ( Quraan), sayings ( Hadeeth) action or implied approva.

4. Mashruuc: An Ordinance, An Action driven by a law.

 

 

Now let us Define Shuraa:

 

The orgin of Shuraa:

 

A. Language:

 

1. Shaara al casal: meaning, purified and extracted honey from comb.

2. Shirtul casala, ishtartuh: I got net of honey (minus wax) or got the honey after paying money.

3. Ashaara: Pointed out, showed something with finger, words or body language.

4. Istashaara: Seek counsel

5. Shuuraa/mushaawara/tashaawur: Consultation.

 

So Based on above analyses, Shuuraa means,

 

Defintion of Shuraa:

 

"Activity of Extrating the best feasible opinion among many competing opinions submitted by those who are competent by virtue of their specific knowledge to set controls for the upholding of the Moral of Sharia on a given subject".

 

I have previously shown that all matters of concern to a Muslim community falls within the sphere of Allah's Sovereignty, thus, they are under His dominion and hence Muslims are naturally expected to surrender to His Law (Sharia) willingly.

 

Which neccessitates that all issues discussed by a comunity are in line with the wishes of the lawmaker ( Shaaric), in the letter of the law, the Sunnah, and when ambiguous, Qiyas and Ijmaac, both in the moral of such law and method of application.

 

 

Now let us go back to what I have written

 

 

"First premise: Shura is Consultation.

 

This is true, based on the verse " Wa amruhum shuuraa beynahum" "matters of concern to them, (are disposed by way of ) Consultation"

 

Second Premise: "Sharia means the law or the way to live."

 

Allah SWT says in Quraan: "He hath ordained for you that DEEN ( CODE of LIFE) which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the DEEN ( THE ONLY CODE OF LIFE ALLAH WISHES PEOPLE TO LIVE BY), and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou callest them."

 

Allah also says in the same Suraa Shuuraa:

 

"Or have they partners (of Allah, a.k.a Secular Lawmakers) who have made lawful for them in DEEN (CODE OF LIFE) that which Allah allowed not ? And if it was not for a decisive DECREE (gone forth already), it would have been judged between them. Lo! for wrong-doers is a painful doom"

 

 

based on the above verses and definitions, my Conclusion is also true.

 

Conclusion: So a Muslim is not free to have a consultative meeting that conflicts with the Sharia as Sharia is the broad ball park shuraa takes place

 

 

Secondly you write:

 

"Your comment that a muslim is not free to have a consultative meeting at odds with Sharia, though that very Sharia is being developed by other muslims, is very strange."

 

 

Answer:

 

Walaalo, Let us agree that we are discussing Shuraa concept from an Islamic Perspective, not from the Athenian " COMMUNE" concept that influenced emergence of Democracy, because as I warned you before there lies your confusion. Because Democracy is the other side of Sovereignty which belongs to the people who have the right to legislate anything they see fit with majority of votes, while Shuraa is quite the opposite, it begins with acceptance of the Sovereignty of a Devine Law Maker, therefore it does not legislate, Shuraa is just the Devine inspired venue to get a consensus on any matter that causes difference of opinions on the Maqaasidul Shariica ( Moral of the Devine Law)

 

Shuraa in Islam is a deliberation, in which the OBJECTIVE is to reach CONSENSUS ON a MATTER OF CONCERN to A STAKEHOLDERS, with full awareness that there is no matter of real value to humans without a Devine directive ( Quraan and Sunnah) that serves as a broad outline for tackling any propblem.

 

These stakeholders are SUBJECTS of a SOVEREIGN, whose Revelation is the STANDARD GUIDELINE and thus SUBJECTS ARE NOT FREE to DEVISE NEW STAND-ALONE LAWS that CONFLICT with the MORAL or the LETTER of SHARIA LAW. Their role is to argue best interpretation of an AMBIGUOUS ordinance in the SHARIA to tackle a problem faced by the STAKEHOLDERS.

 

In Islam, the first thing we need to make a judgement on any issue is KNOWLEDGE, the more complex an issue the more knowledge is required, since it would be ( darbun minal junuun)( Insantity is trying to get different result by doing the same thing) to try to solve a problem with the exact set of knowledge/information that lead us to that situation in the first place.

 

The purpose of the Devine Revelations, on which we Muslims base our actions, is to satisfy Allah SWT, a.k.a (Cibaada) which is the objective our exisitence on planet earth. Our comfort in this life and the next is what satisfies Allah (...wa in tashkuruu Yardahu lakum), Allah does not want hardship for us, but expediency, haste and cutting corners can be tempting at times with unbearable price tag to pay, both in this life and next, and here is where the concept of Shuraa and Sharia play an important role to make sure that we adhere to the Sharia as close as possible, thus Shuuraa it is a DEVINE INFLUENCED DELIBERATION ( Two angels on our shoulders.

 

Shuraa is a deliberation activity, and like any activity, it has requirements.

 

1. Particpants in Shuraa must have done their homework, they should have a cerfication in the area of their expertise to offer an expert advice.

 

2. Participants pledge allegiance to Supremacy of the Sharia which is Allah's law, not a man made law, man's contribution being only its detailing, structuring, clarifying and getting it close to the Moral of the Devine Law Framework which we have discussed previously ( Protection of the Faith, Life, Property, Offspring, mind)

 

3. Participants base their opinion first on Quraan, secondly on Hadeeth, and then on Qiyaas, Ijtihaad and Ijmaac, each of these stages has requirements to be fulfilled.

 

4. Proofs to any argument in a Shuraa session can be one of four combinations.

 

A. First the SOURCE of Proof can be:

 

i. THUBUUT: AUTHENTICITY

ii.DALALAH: MEANING

 

B. Second, the meaning of Proof can be:

 

i. QADCI: EXACT PRECISE MEANING

ii. DHANNI: AMBIGUOUS/BASED ON GUESS WORK.

 

 

So any issue on the Shuraa table can be one of the above four outcome.

 

1. Qadciyu Thubuut, Qadciyu Dalaalah. ( Authentic Source, Single meaning)

2. Qadciyu Thubuut, Dhanniyu Dalaalah ( Authentic Source, Ambibuous meaning).

3. Dhanniyu Thubuut, Qadciyu Dalaalah (Ambiguous source, Single meaning).

4. Dhanniyu Thubuut Dhanniyu Dalaalah (Ambiguous Source, Ambiguous meaning).

 

Quraan and Hadeeth ( Saheeh category) are Genuine Sources, and when they have a single linguistic meaning, This is the primary sphere of the Sharia which has no room for discussion, followed by the second case which has a room for Shuraa, and the last two have no judicial significance at all.

 

 

Wa Allahu Aclam

 

 

Nur

[Naden]

Nur, walaal, you’ve misquoted me in your first paragraph. Perhaps you’d like to change that and then modify your first point built on the misquote.

 

You write:

" Shura by definition, is a heavily man-influenced set of legislation through the influence of qiyaas and igmaac. "

First, let me thank you for the thorough explanation of the terms ‘sharica’ and ‘shura’.

 

Second, we have some fundamental disagreements on several of your assertions. For instance, sharc (as in the Quran) and sharica (it’s loosely based interpretation) are two different things. I think of the meat stew metaphor. God tells people not to put pork in their stew but beef. This is the sharc. The remaining 9 ingredients (veggies, spices, oil), the person who prepares it, the manner in which it is served, and who is fed, are all decided by a number of people and may vary from place to place. This is the sharica. And this is an instance where an instruction (no pork in stew) is clear. Even then, the space for manoevuring is large.

 

Another example is that of lashes given out at the discretion of a judge in the KSA. Suppose 2 unmarried people are caught on a date in a cinema. They are punished with 50 lashes each. Where is this particular punishment for this particular offence in the Quran and/or Sunnah? It is at the discretion of the judge. Another muslim society may choose to fine people for public lewdness (holding hands, etc.). And this particular offence may not be an offence at all in other Muslim societies. The sharc (zina, witnessed by 4, 100 lashes) is clear. The sharica, on the other hand, is a group-specific effort to reconcile 1-part God law in the clearest of circumstances and 9-parts human input.

 

My main disagreement remains to be your narrow definition of shura as a process operating within an interpretation of Quran and Sunnah in developing sharica. Shura is much broader than that, may not necessarily refer to the Quran & Sunnah, and is open to everyone in society and not just people who ‘should have a cerfication in the area of their expertise to offer an expert advice’ , though I agree with you that they should do their homework.

 

Shuraa is just the Devine inspired venue to get a consensus on any matter that causes difference of opinions on the Maqaasidul Shariica ( Moral of the Devine Law)

This means that shura is limited to the religious class in most societies because who else is involved in understanding Maqaasidul Shariica or providing new legislation and fatwas to respond to modern concerns. Deferring to this class creates the high priests of Islam (a religion that does not recognize it).

[Johnny B]

Intresting exchanges here !!

Despite my lack of belief in certain doctorine one must be senseless to not have enjoyed the amount of cincere attempts made towards what seems to be innocent subject matter, namely a comparasion between Islam and Democracy.

 

A failure to cincerely define Islam as Theocracy has led the exchanges into a narrow path where the only seed left to the debators seems to be semantic hair-spilitting , namely what certain Arabic word means and what it's "rea l" meaning is in it's "real" context...... and so forth.

in short, a real Scotishman fallacy savehaven.

 

In an attempt to relive the thread i'd say the comparasion of Islam to Democracy is unfair to boot and biased as it camouflages Islam(a religion) as a widespread contemporary governmental system.

 

Islam is a belief systam, therefore it falls under the category of Theocracy, hence a comparasion between Theocracy and Democracy would be more fair and into the level, though what is more unfair is there're different types of Democracies which are not mentioned.

 

In Theocracy (Religious authority) the ultimate ruler is God ( Allah if you must) and God's wills and laws will be interpreted by totaliterian ecclesiastical authorities ( Human beeings who claim to KNOW what God wants), first off is ofcourse God's messenger(s) and those who understand "the messenger(s)" best, the rest have no say whatissoever in how and why they have to conduct a life of devotion to that authority due to their ignoranc and inability to crack "the code".

A code obviously meant ONLY for the elite to crack and the wrath of God is scary enough to keep the masses at bay, while the love of God is sweet enough to lock them with whatever they desire in this life but can't attain, in an imaginary next one , be it food, wine, sexuality etc etc.

 

This my freinds is the Authority brother Nur is talking about when he said:

"Islam is an Arabic word that means among several meanings, Surrender, submission, acceptance and reverence of a Sovereign Authority etc"

 

With the messenger(s) gone, a direct link to God's wills and laws is impossible, what is left is the so called "learned" or "Ulema" whose only common denominator is a claim to a belief in what exactly the messenger(s) said and did and vague one at that, most religioins have those "learned" Munks specefically the Abrahamic religions, The "Ulema"s, the Archpishops, the Rabai's and so forth.

 

To compare a governmental system where citizens can and have the right to say what they think is best for the themselves by having their say on any subject matter that is of concern to them and a self-appointed totaliterian ecclesiastical authority that interpretes the supposedly God's wills and laws for them and imposes on them is obviously pregnant and begers blind belief at best and beeing apologetic towards the so called "learned" in fact, but brother Nur is onto something one might assume.

 

Theocracy have failed itself in the ancient nations,it gave birth to a line of totaliterian dictatorship dynasties, kings,sultans,kalifs, and more, whereas democracy survived and gave people back their rights to conduct their lives as they see fit and compete about their God's sympathy against the elite's monopoly on it on equal basis and that explains both the hatred the religious elite harbours against Democracy and what is generally wrong with Theocracy, though that doesen't absolutely mean Democracy is the best system mankind has come up with but anyone who want to venture a responsible idea can and will see the difference.

 

If Islamic theocracy( or any other religon's for that matter ) was purely devine and robust, the very people who lived with Mohammed ( pbuh ) woulden't fight among themselves and kill each other in pursuit of power.

 

The ploy "It's God's will, so obey it (read obey me )" has long been undressed,people's sentiment to obey what their Gods will is genuine innocent attempt of having a shot on that God's paradise but the price is too high as the middleman's wills and laws melt into Gods.

 

In simple terms , In theocracy , you either obey the interpreted supposedly Gods laws and wills or be punished in this world and probably in the hereafter if you believe that , while in Democracy you vote for a politician (who does just about anything to get elected ) and hope he keeps his words

 

For anyone who is familiar with the Arab history, the dynasty of the Arab Clan "kureish" and the Islamic khalifas dynasty , the war of the Camels, the birth of the Shiites etc etc , speaks its language of truth.

 

This is not to bash any religion from my part but an attempt to show where brother Nur went wrong in his comparision and to enlight where it should go.

[Nur]

Naden sis

 

The full paragraph of the Quote is:

 

"Your conclusion does not follow your 2 premises. Sharia, by definition, is a heavily man-influenced set of legislation through the influence of qiyaas and igmaac."

 

Answer:

 

Please clarify how I misquoted, I cant see it?

 

 

On your second point, we have no disagreement, I agree with you that there is a general framework and detail work for shuuraa which leaves a lot of room for interpretation, which in turn gave birth to the science of Fiqh as we know it today and the four schools of thought ( Madhaahib).

 

 

You write:

 

"My main disagreement remains to be your narrow definition of shura as a process operating within an interpretation of Quran and Sunnah in developing sharica."

 

 

Yaa ghaliya; it was reported that the Prophet SAWS said, "I have left for you two sources if you abide by them, you will never get lost again ( Like people of the book, Christians and Jews, who took freedom to follow conflicting human ideas, when clear Devine instruction was at hand, as a result we got lost just like they have lost the way)

The Two sources are Quraan and Sunnah.

 

You write:

 

" Shura is much broader than that, may not necessarily refer to the Quran & Sunnah, and is open to everyone in society and not just people who should have a cerfication in the area of their expertise to offer an expert advice, though I agree with you that they should do their homework"

 

 

Yaa Ghaaliya, Shuraa has many levels of application, the higher level of shuraa is Strategic, it sets vision and mission (Purpose for which we exisit), second level is Tactical, which translates the mission to actionable goals, third level is Operational, processes and procedures and the last level is Executive. Mixing between these levels spells confusion.

 

At the highest level, the Strategic level ( Maqaasidul Sharica), here is the equivalent of the Constitution, its similar to Constitutional Scholars in a Democracy, in Islam we need scholars well versed in Quraan and Sunnah ( our Constitution) to set the general scope of the Sharia, as it trickles down, more detailed requirements are debated in Shuuraa, the Tactical Scholars are those who can translate the broad direction of the strategies ( Maqaasidul Sharica) to current questions in theory, again they are expected to know two main issues, the current affairs that calls for the Shuraa and the output from the (Maqasidul Sharica) in the form of fatwas and supporting verses and hadeeths, the next level down is the Operational level, which bridges between the Strategic/Tactical and the Executive, their role is like the committee of ways and means, and their output is passed to the executive branch who discuss ( Shuraa)how to best execute the sharia on specific daily affairs of the public from traffic ligt, social issues to Business law.

 

And finally you can have a neigborhood shuraa, PTA (parent Teacher Association) sport commitee shuuraa, etc. which are equivalent to the last level (the executive level), in this last level, professionals are needed not Jurists, no need to know the higher level stuff, just accept to always work within the framework of the Maqasidul Sharia wich validates all actionable activities, examples of Suraa here for example are how to control crime, waste management and recycling, and domestic violence among many other issues in any community.

 

 

Nur

[Nur]

Johnny Boy

 

You write:

 

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Intresting exchanges here !!

Despite my lack of belief in certain doctorine one must be senseless to not have enjoyed the amount of cincere attempts made towards what seems to be innocent subject matter, namely a comparasion between Islam and Democracy.

Great openning line indeed JB!

 

 

A failure to cincerely define Islam as Theocracy has led the exchanges into a narrow path where the only seed left to the debators seems to be semantic hair-spilitting , namely what certain Arabic word means and what it's "rea l" meaning is in it's "real" context...... and so forth.

in short, a real Scotishman fallacy savehaven.[/QB]

If I recall the scottishman fallacy, it went like this:

 

1. No Scottishman lie

2. Mr. Hollaway lied

3. Therefore, Mr. Hollaway is not Scottsh.

 

 

I fail to see the above fallacy or any similar analogy to it anywhere in the discussion., If you can find, please alert me, I will remove it!

 

You write

 

In an attempt to relive the thread i'd say the comparasion of Islam to Democracy is unfair to boot and biased as it camouflages Islam(a religion) as a widespread contemporary governmental system.[/QB]

Answer:

 

In comparison, we only compare the context, In Islam, a Devine System is followed, as believers have accepted His Sovreignty, while in Democracy, the wishes of the majority of voters is followed, even if the minority objects to it.

 

You write:

 

 

Islam is a belief systam, therefore it falls under the category of Theocracy, hence a comparasion between Theocracy and Democracy would be more fair and into the level, though what is more unfair is there're different types of Democracies which are not mentioned..[/QB]

Answer: That is a fallacy, not all belief systems fall under Theocracy. Another implied fallacy is that Islam is like Christianity or Judaism, who have never developed a system of government, applied civic laws, economic system, just like any temporal government. So grouping Islam with other religions and then putting all of them in a box called Theocracy is over simplification.

 

"Christianty" accepted separtion of state and church, while Judaism, a nationlaist religion regulates the lives of Jews only according to the Torah.

 

You write:

 

In Theocracy (Religious authority) the ultimate ruler is God ( Allah if you must) and God's wills and laws will be interpreted by totaliterian ecclesiastical authorities ( Human beeings who claim to KNOW what God wants), first off is ofcourse God's messenger(s) and those who understand "the messenger(s)" best, the rest have no say whatissoever in how and why they have to conduct a life of devotion to that authority due to their ignoranc and inability to crack "the code".

A code obviously meant ONLY for the elite to crack and the wrath of God is scary enough to keep the masses at bay, while the love of God is sweet enough to lock them with whatever they desire in this life but can't attain, in an imaginary next one , be it food, wine, sexuality etc etc.

 

This my freinds is the Authority brother Nur is talking about when he said:

"Islam is an Arabic word that means among several meanings, Surrender, submission, acceptance and reverence of a Sovereign Authority etc"

 

 

Answer:

 

 

Islam begins with the definition of who is Sovereign, SAMAD, who weilds power and must be followed, thus Messengers have delivered the messages to humans and thus some followed and some rejected.

 

Demcoracy, begins with the Definition of of Who is Sovereign, it assigns the PEOPLE to be the Sovereigns, who are masters of their destiny, thus, since they have to share this Sovereignty, they settled to vote for every issue and the wish of the majority to be followed.

 

Who is in greater ERROR then, someone who follows a GOD, or someone who claims to Be GOD?

 

As you can see, both are belief systems, at odds I may add.

 

You write:

 

To compare a governmental system where citizens can and have the right to say what they think is best for the themselves by having their say on any subject matter that is of concern to them and a self-appointed totaliterian ecclesiastical authority that interpretes the supposedly God's wills and laws for them and imposes on them is obviously pregnant and begers blind belief at best and beeing apologetic towards the so called "learned" in fact, but brother Nur is onto something one might assume..[/QB]

Answer:

 

Governmental system is defined as: "The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation.

 

 

1. Islam had gooverned the lives of people for 1400 years, the Caliphate just ended in 1924 in Turkey.

 

2. Allah is teh Sovererign, the authority is by virtue of Devine mandate according to the teachings of the Prophet.

 

3. Administration of Laws ( Sharia) is in effect to this day though watered down .

 

5. Dirction and Regulations: Islam is the only system that actually shows a clear direction, that connects this temporal life to the next, through Devine regulations.

 

 

You write:

 

Theocracy have failed itself in the ancient nations,it gave birth to a line of totaliterian dictatorship dynasties, kings,sultans,kalifs, and more, whereas democracy survived and gave people back their rights to conduct their lives as they see fit and compete about their God's sympathy against the elite's monopoly on it on equal basis and that explains both the hatred the religious elite harbours against Democracy and what is generally wrong with Theocracy, though that doesen't absolutely mean Democracy is the best system mankind has come up with but anyone who want to venture a responsible idea can and will see the difference..[/QB]

Answer:

 

What you fail to understand is a system and the human application of the system. It would have been just if you have mentioned that Islam initially was applied correctly to flourish and conquer, as the miracle of the 7th century, later, due to failure of the Caliphs to live up to Islams ethics, the Caliphs failed, the system did not.

 

 

You write:

 

If Islamic theocracy( or any other religon's for that matter ) was purely devine and robust, the very people who lived with Mohammed ( pbuh ) woulden't fight among themselves and kill each other in pursuit of power. .[/QB]

Answer:

 

This is a Scottishman never lie Fallacy!

 

Devine systems dont fail if the Devine directions are followed. In your examples, people failed to follow the Devine direction.

 

You write:

 

 

"For anyone who is familiar with the Arab history, the dynasty of the Arab Clan "kureish" and the Islamic khalifas dynasty , the war of the Camels, the birth of the Shiites etc etc , speaks its language of truth.".[/QB]

Answer:

 

So do the endless stories of the Romans and Greeks, lotts of killing, robbery and ruthless slavery, it was the hallmark of the Jaahili system wherever and whenever found, to this day.

 

You write

 

This is not to bash any religion from my part but an attempt to show where brother Nur went wrong in his comparision and to enlight where it should go. [/QB]

Answer:

 

If that was not bashing, I dont know what an objective comment is.

 

Here is what I call an impartial western philopsopher's objective statement about Islam and Muhammad;

 

" I have always held the religion of Muhammad (read Islam) in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

 

----Sir George Bernard Shaw

 

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

Brother Nur,

As always , your cincere answers are deeply appreciated .

You coulden't have been more wrong regarding the Scotsman fallacy, but then that doesen't neccessarily warrant a removal of your perception of it,

It could be of intrest to those who're not familiar with it.

You're making a common innocent mistake made in the comprehension of the Scotsman fallacy,namely, you misunderstand that it is a combination of several fallacies and a form of equivocation, not to mention that it begs the question, but basically it rests on shifting the meaning of terms.

 

Now , if you go back to your example and add "real" or "true" beteween the "No" and the "Scotsman" in #3 you'll have a whole different meaning in assertion # 3.

 

Incase this is not clear enough let us take another example , a Somali example this time ,and why not SOL member names as well?

 

1:You say: No SOL member smokes.

2: I counter: NGONGE smokes "shisha" .

3:You then say : (a) yes, but no "true" SOL member smokes.

or

3:You then say: (b) yes, but no "real" SOL member smokes.

 

 

You see my brother , there is difference between " a SOL member " and " a TRUE SOL member" or " a REAL SOL member", the difference between a sol member and a TRUE or REAL sol member shifts the meaning of the challenged assertion, namley assertion #1, and there is where you've lived far shorter within your comprehension capacity regarding this otherwise well known fallacy.Q.E.D

 

Now this may not even make sense if i can not relate it to the exchanges between you and sister Naden, becouse that is the whole point behind why i mentioned the fallacy in the first place, bear with me for a second or two , hmmmm , what was the term " Shura", what was the other ? hmmmm, got it ... "Consultation" yeah , that is it.

 

My brother, your assertion, and i quote "The role of a Muslim in the institution of Islam is a SUBJECT, A SLAVE who has to fulfil his Masters commandments. So, the power is NOT FOR THE PEOPLE. The role of the slaves in this institution is consultation of best interpretation of the Devine Commandments, aka (Shuuraa)"

has been valiantly challenged by sister Naden and from there on, you were revelling in an ambiguous definination of " Shura", shifting its meaning, just to shore it up.

To jug ( read refresh) your memory the following definations are your definations of the term " shuraa" , all are in this single thread.

 

1: (Shuraa) is the right way to realize Allah's wishes

2: Shuraa in Islam is the problem solving process

in Shuraa, regular Joe with no understanding or acceptance of supremacy of Sharia is not qualified to cast his opinion.

 

3: Shuraa means consultation, sharia means the law or the way to live.

Shuraa is not LEGISLATION, its the deliberation that can lead to interpret the moral of the Sharia law

 

4: Shuraa is A Devine Initiated (Allah ordered His Messenger: Wa shaawirhum fil amr)

 

5: Shuraa is Heavily Devine influenced

 

6: Defintion of Shuraa:

"Activity of Extrating the best feasible opinion among many competing opinions submitted by those who are competent by virtue of their specific knowledge to set controls for the upholding of the Moral of Sharia on a given subject".

 

Now , Which one is it my brother?

 

To answer your fantastic question of

Who is in greater ERROR then, someone who follows a GOD, or someone who claims to Be GOD?

i'd say someone who claims to Be GOD is is in greater ERROR, but wait a minute ,

does people who live under Democracies claim to BE GOD? exactly my thoughts .

Could demanding a little more cincerity regarding this be much to ask?

 

 

If Islamic theocracy( or any other religon's for that matter ) was purely devine and robust, the very people who lived with Mohammed ( pbuh ) woulden't fight among themselves and kill each other in pursuit of power. .

 

Answer:

 

This is a Scottishman never lie Fallacy!

 

Devine systems dont fail if the Devine directions are followed. In your examples, people failed to follow the Devine direction.

Now that we've covered your perception of that specefic fallacy we understand why you think so , but if devine systems don't fail if devine directions are followed, who can possibilly know more or better than the very people who lived with Mohammed ( pbuh ) the very link to God? you?, Sheik Joe?.

for you to be able to say that , you've to consider yourself more knowledgeable than the people who knew, lived with, and believed in Mohammed?

 

 

As for reliving the thread i think despite your attempts to seperate Islam from its sources namely Judaism and christianity you seem to understand that its Theocracy that you can compare to Democracy and not a particular faith in particular Deity.

The obvious problem that fails theocracy and all you advocate for here is since your merciful God "Allah", for a reason or another does not or cant come down to earth and lead those he chooses to the right path and lead those he dislikes to the helfire, he must be represented by human beeings like you and me and that contradics the credibility of such almighty.

 

And as for beeing impartial and a philosopher , i'm neither Bernand Show nor a philosopher but most important i know the difference between bashing and beeing impartial.

[Nur]

Johny boy

 

 

I thinks we have enough dough on the table to last for a long time on this issue, I really appreciate that you have taken the time for a very useful discussion, something that is rarity at SOL Islam board fo late ( since 911).

 

Some of your responses were on the mechanics of the discussion like the Scottsman fallacy for which you have reminded me what I have forgotten (In my philosophy class, years ago) " TRUE SCOTSMAN" but again, the ball was on your court to show were did I uses such logic. You have not shown were I used such a statement after your lengthy discourse, so let us leave it at there, its not worth more sweat, so we can get into the real issues of this dialogue about Islam and Democracy, on which your poistion is that they are not comparable, rather, you suggest Theocracy and Democracy, so let us stay on this track as much as possible.

 

You write:

 

"To answer your fantastic question of

Who is in greater ERROR then, someone who follows a GOD, or someone who claims to Be GOD?

i'd say someone who claims to Be GOD is in greater ERROR, but wait a minute ,

does people who live under Democracies claim to BE GOD? exactly my thoughts .

Could demanding a little more cincerity regarding this be much to ask?

 

 

Johnny Bro.

 

I am glad that you ask, and this is precisely what I expected you to question.

 

You see saaxib, we have a system called Islam, which we both know gives Sovereignty to Allah, and by virtue of that Sovereignty, Allah reserves the right to pass laws for His slaves.

 

In Medieval Europe, the Church ( Found on concepts that are pagan in nature plus some remnants of the old testament ) which initially ceded power to Pagan Roman Kings, just to reclaim it back later in the form of established Churches like the Catholic Church and the Kings who strengthend their Power by claiming to represent the Devine by way of the Pope who ordained them, the Public had to follow and be loyal to the King if they wanted salvation, hence the birth of what you call THEOCRACY in Medieval Europe. Which does not apply to the emergence of ISLAM.

 

Now, many Principalities and Kingdoms in Europe claimed Sovereignty, and to make it short, the French Revolution took away that Sovereignty and gave it to the people, so the public under Democracy become THE Sovereign. RE ( means KING) PUBLIC ( means PEOPLE) so people are the SOVERIGN KINGS collectively that is.

 

So what is Sovereignty:

 

In this discussion my goal is to answer your question, so dont lose sight if I take a long winding road, at the end, I want to show that Democracy is a new form of religion, and those who adhere to it claim to be members of multiple Gods, Dieties, on one hand and its slaves at the other.

 

To show this, I will first explain Sovereignty, which is the other face of Democracy that legitimizes its power. I will then Explain what Diety means from Islamic perespective and the Arabic language ( Ilaah) and then examine if my claim was a far fetched or reasonable.

 

 

SOVEREIGNTY"

 

Sovereignty is defined as "supreme authority within a territory"

 

Its attributes/qualities:

 

1. Authority with Absolute Power ( No other power is greater than it)

2. Self dependent Authority, not by virtue of others

3. Irresistible Authority whose wishes must be obeyed by force.

4. Authority whose power controls its Domain.

 

Some of the attributes of Sovereignty:

 

1.( Absoluteness), Immune to any law, above law, no one escapes its law.

 

2. Supremacy, no other authority is higher than it.

 

3. Unity, the only authority to reckon with.

 

4. Originality, its orginal in its existence, has not borrowed its exisitence from another Sovereign, nor is continuation of another.

 

5. Non Transferable Authority, no one can take it away, it will never become legitimate if anyone else claims it.

 

6. An Authority that is always right, since it sets the criteria of what is right and what is wrong.

 

 

Now what is Deity is Islam:?

 

Allah in Surah Ikhlas desribed Himself as:

 

1. SINGULAR ( AXAD), single

2. SAMAD , Everything Absolutely depend on Him, He Absolutely Depends on Himself ALONE.

 

SAMAD has the Follwing Variations:

 

3. PROVIDER OF PROTECTION

4. RESCUER ( in times of distress)

5. Highest authority, no one scapes from His Jurisdiction and Sovreighnty.

6. Leadership. ( ZACIIM UL QOWM)

7. Anything one follows, even desires are called ilaah in Quraan.

 

Thus SOVEREGNTY aka (SAMAD) is a Devine trait and those who excercise it unwittingly claim Deity like Pharoah of Egypt.

 

So, Sovereignty and Democracy are two faces of the same coin, Sovereignty being the legal face while Democracy is the political face.

 

So following Democracy is following someone who claims to be a GOD. While following Allah is following the TRUE GOD.

 

Allah teaches us to say to people of the Book ( Jews and Christians who adopted polytheism : "let us strive to agree to converge to a common ground : That we do not worship other than Allah in any form, that we do not make associate with him other Sovereigns, and further that some of us should not take others for Lords (vested with Sovereignty)." If they turn away, then say: Be witness that we are MUSLIMS, (those who have willingly surrerndered to Allah's sovereignty)"

 

Therefore man should not worhsip man, by giving im a Devine Character, instead man should follow His creator, because a " A problem is not solved at the level it was created" Albert Einstein.

 

 

You write:

 

"The obvious problem that fails theocracy and all you advocate for here is since your merciful God "Allah", for a reason or another does not or cant come down to earth and lead those he chooses to the right path and lead those he dislikes to the helfire, he must be represented by human beeings like you and me and that contradics the credibility of such almighty."

 

 

Johnny saxib.

 

You are 1430 years late on this suggestion, Qureish the tribe that rejected Islam before you had the same suggestion, but they are no longer here, and Islam is here and kicking ( The Undisputed Fastest Growing Faith On Planet Earth).

 

Here is the verse Allah SWT is narrating some of Qureish's requests:

 

"Or that you make the heaven fall upon us in pieces as you claimed, or that you bring God and the Angels before us."

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

Thanks for the kind words my Sheikh,

 

Despite Josephus Flavius truning twice in his Grave regarding Theocracy,and my willingness to debate, i can not cede legitimacy to the following grotesque piece of reasoning,

 

"So following Democracy is following someone who claims to be a GOD. While following Allah is following the TRUE GOD."

 

 

therefore i concede.

[Nur]

JB

 

Are you Jewish?

 

 

Nur

[Cara.]

That would explain everything!

[Nur]

Now I know what gets you to visit, Cara you have been missed sis, the excitemet is back at SOL Islam boards!

 

No, it does not explain everything, just your connection to Johnny and Jesuphus Flavius!

 

Nur

[stoit]

Democracy is what people adopt when they lack faith. Deciding on what you know and leaving what you dont until enough knowledge is available is i believe theist. Deciding by the throw of the dice as is democracy is skepticism full blown ie is athiest. Democracy is ultimately fueled by doubt while Islam meaning submission is driven by thrust.Democracy has no direction and lust overides restraint almost all the time.In democracy the good is decided by the individual and every individual of age has an equal say in this.Democracy is a system that is only good at a particular stage of developement and is not suitable for those that must lay a foundation. Islam has a direction as in a moral code and thus lays a clear target as the GOOD.In Islam we all move towards the same goals. Islam lays the foundation for a better society.

[Naden]

Democracy has no direction and lust overides restraint almost all the time.

Classic.

[stoit]

Are you saying that what i have said has been said by the ancient. Or that such a comment is typical of my stereotype.

[Nur]

Naden sis

 

Democracy has a direction, its followers are still out trying to figure out, I know where its not going. The rest I leave it for your imagination.

 

 

Nur