The Khilafah, is it a choice or required

[jb_1430]

How about you read my words instead of pondering the meaning of the blank space between the lines. Most of what you attribute to me, below, is a product of your own imagination.
Sounds like you recognize the need for reform but dont like me pointing that fact out. You want us to congratulate the moderates for not blowing us up, instead of criiticizing those who do. Odd.

Coyote summarized my response in fewer words than I would have used.

jb, how can you expect reform when you are claiming that the basis of the religion is inherently corrupt and you will not accept any reinterpretation of it... despite the fact that many Muslims have offered them?
You expect nothing less than a total denouncement of scriptures and of the Muhammed figure rather than a reinterpretation... This is not reform. This is destruction of the religion... And if that is your goal, why should any Muslim listen to you?
You do more harm than good when you deny the sincerity of Muslims that try to interpret Islam as a religion of peace. These are the Muslims that should be encouraged. They are the ones who can reform Islam... not you and not me.

 

[jb_1430]

Oddly enough....there are those that think Islam contains the framework from which Democracy could be created...

And some who do not.

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi-
It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...mocracy:+a+religion"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

 

[9sublime]

Man would have come accross democracy without religion, and a truely secular democracy would be better anyway.

 

[Coyote]

And some who do not.

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi-
It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...mocracy:+a+religion"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Basically, all this proves is neither the Bible nor the Quran legitimately promote democracy in any valid way. As I said, none of the Abrahamic faiths, taken literaly - set the stage for a democracy.

 

[jb_1430]

Basically, all this proves is neither the Bible nor the Quran legitimately promote democracy in any valid way. As I said, none of the Abrahamic faiths, taken literaly - set the stage for a democracy.

History would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Coyote]

History would seem to indicate otherwise.

Not really. The great democracies of past and present have not been based in Christianity but rather in secular ideals and/or the ideals of the Enlightenment. The great Christian empires have been monarchies.

It's the ability to take religion OUT of government and law that allows democracy to flourish. Christians may have a line saying "render unto ceasar" yada yada yada but they don't really believe that means a secular government and they don't really feel that means the Bible isn't law. That is evident in history and in the current actions of the so-called Christian Right.

 

[mustardayonnaise]

Ohh Im not saying Christianity created democracy. Just that it was a framework from which Democracy could be created.

Funny, when the Greeks had a functioning democracy 500 years before Jesus was even born.

 

[jb_1430]

??? you seem to equate secularism with Democracy

Not really. The great democracies of past and present have not been based in Christianity but rather in secular ideals and/or the ideals of the Enlightenment. The great Christian empires have been monarchies.

It's the ability to take religion OUT of government and law that allows democracy to flourish. Christians may have a line saying "render unto ceasar" yada yada yada but they don't really believe that means a secular government and they don't really feel that means the Bible isn't law. That is evident in history and in the current actions of the so-called Christian Right.

 

[jb_1430]

??? you seem to equate secularism with Democracy

In an 1829 letter to James Madison, Noah Webster declared: “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government....and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253, emp. added). The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, maintained; “Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation” (1893, 4:52, emp. added). George Washington proclaimed to the entire nation in his farewell address that religion and morality are the indispensable supports of political prosperity, the great pillars of human happiness, and a necessary spring of popular government (1796).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/308

Not really. The great democracies of past and present have not been based in Christianity but rather in secular ideals and/or the ideals of the Enlightenment. The great Christian empires have been monarchies.

It's the ability to take religion OUT of government and law that allows democracy to flourish. Christians may have a line saying "render unto ceasar" yada yada yada but they don't really believe that means a secular government and they don't really feel that means the Bible isn't law. That is evident in history and in the current actions of the so-called Christian Right.

 

[JavaBlack]

...

Sounds like you recognize the need for reform but dont like me pointing that fact out. You want us to congratulate the moderates for not blowing us up, instead of criiticizing those who do. Odd.

The two are not mutually exclusive... In fact in order for the latter to work, the former must be included.
Rhetoric has a lot of importance, especially when covering issues of culture and religion. It is extremely important to box our enemies into as small a box as possible so that others will be our allies or at least stay out of it.
Attacking the religion itself does not accomplish this.
In order to bring change, you must propose an alternative that is acceptable to the masses, has support from some leaders of the masses, and that can conceivably work. Without alternatives, we cannot expect the status quo to change. And if we create alternatives that are not acceptable to the people who must live under them, we are making more enemies.

So in short, yes, we do need to praise and support the people who don't blow us up... otherwise our criticism of those who do accomplishes nothing.
Standing against something is pointless if you stand for nothing (or nothing feasible).

 

[Coyote]

??? you seem to equate secularism with Democracy

Indeed, and a bunch of out of context quotes (some of which do not even have a direct bearing on democracy) doesn't change that - all they do is express the religous opinions of some of the nations founders. I can throw up a handful of quotes that say the opposite and have just as little meaning by themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not think there are any examples historically or modern, of a democracy based upon religious values and religious law. Even Israel is secular in it's courts and legal system.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

 

[JavaBlack]

In order to be stabilized a democracy must have ways for the minority to address the government and be heard (it's even more devestating when a very large group is illegitimized as in many Middle Eastern countries). Otherwise they have no course but to resort to violence. It's basically the same reason a democracy needs a middle class. Moderation is necessary for a stable democracy... and compromise.
But of course our nation didn't start out that way. Thankfully we had a system and liberal culture that allowed us to address these problems without a full-out revoultion (except perhaps the issue of states seceding).
But that basically comes out to say that even a religious democracy must be de facto secular.
The Shariah Law of Indonesis is likely to be ditched for the segregation it is given time. Muslims there lack the rights that non-Muslims have... and sooner or later they'll notice and call for change.
Pakistan has already done much to get rid of these laws (by a dictator, true, but one with popular support at the time) and Turkey finds them laughable. Even the religious party of Turkey finds it ridiculous (but this did not stop the Turkish military from overreacting to their last election).
Two of the largest and most religious democracies on the planet have secular governments. In the US case it is due to liberal culture. In India it is due to diversity in religion and support for secularism in the popular Gandhian philosophy. The BJP (Hindu nationalists) won only one election over the entire history of India... The secular Congress Party dominates.

So a nation mustn't necessarily be secular to be a democracy... ut it will be secular in the long run.

 

[jb_1430]

Well I guess, had I argued that Democracy was "based upon religious values and religious law" you would of had a point. Christianity doesnt dictate a theocracy as the proper form of government. Quite the opposite.

Indeed, and a bunch of out of context quotes (some of which do not even have a direct bearing on democracy) doesn't change that - all they do is express the religous opinions of some of the nations founders. I can throw up a handful of quotes that say the opposite and have just as little meaning by themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not think there are any examples historically or modern, of a democracy based upon religious values and religious law. Even Israel is secular in it's courts and legal system.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

 

[Coyote]

Well I guess, had I argued that Democracy was "based upon religious values and religious law" you would of had a point. Christianity doesnt dictate a theocracy as the proper form of government. Quite the opposite.

There is nothing in Christianity that dictates a democracy.

 

[jb_1430]

There is nothing in Christianity that dictates a democracy.

Well I guess, had I argued that Christianity dictates a democracy, you would of had a point.