If Allah is the only Sovereign, why do Muslims accept many sovereigns?
-
Salam,
so you think the Qur'an is stating a clear and defined contradiction, it states clearly you may have no earthly sovereign of any sort, not even Muhammad can be your sovereign and you believe it states you must have sovereigns to dictate upon you?
Would you mind showing where the Qur'an says you can have no earthly 'sovereign'?
-
Salam,
2526 On that Day it will become obvious to all that the Sovereignty belongs to the Most Gracious alone. Hence, a Day of distress it will be for all those who had been rejecting the Truth.
Thanks, but that wasn't really what I was looking for. That's because what I was looking for doesn't exist in the Qur'an anyway.
It's important to define what we mean by sovereign. Although there may not be a single, comprehensive definition, we can agree that a true sovereign has the power to rule and make laws with no obligation to provide an explanation or justification. So a monarch, like the old royalty of England, could decree any law with absolutely no checks in place. The contradiction you've identified in Qur'an and attitudes of Muslims doesn't exist. Even in today's corrupt world, there are no governments that can pass any law without potential backlash from the people. In an Islamic system, the state indeed has authority over the people, but it is not a true sovereign, as it is bound by the laws of the Qur'an. A shariah compliant state could not pass unQuranic legislation because the people would not stand for it. The state acts as a guardian of the people. It is not sovereign the way you want to understand it. If you want to argue semantics, then yes I will concede that in political terminology such a system would be considered a sovereign state, but that's not what sovereign means in the Qur'an. Allah swt is the ultimate sovereign. Only He does what He wills with no reason required. He has no obligation to anyone. A Muslim state does not have this sovereignty, as it must justify all its acts in the light of Islamic teachings. If it does not, it is no longer an Islamic state but a dictatorship.
The are numerous verses in the Qur'an which call for a system of leadership, and thus a state.
One of the most beautiful is the following
And He hath cast into the earth firm mountains that it quake not with you, and streams and roads that ye may find a way.
(1615)
The common interpretation of this verse is a literal one ie the mountains stop the Earth's crust from shaking. But a deeper reflection of the verse reveals a possible alternative meaning; that the firm mountains are actually governments or civil institutions, to stop our world 'shaking.'
Are you suggesting that the deen advocates anarchy?
-
Salaam Mushu,
I suggest freedom, you are the one advocating Chaos, government enslaves the population, extracting the labour from the population and suppress all true growth and development.
The education system and media implant the idea that without a sovereign all would be chaos and anarchy, war and starvation would fill the earth they suggest, when with sovereignty all is anarchy, war and starvation fills the earth, people view things within their own experience, few look wider, examine the results of the lie of democracy and sovereign control, see the misery within this small world, examine the past, filled with murder and hardship.
Have you considered the concept of democracy, let me give you a simple example.
You have a group of 10 people who have decided to follow the will of the majority as a system of governance, two of the members Bob and Joe find Ann very beautiful, so vote to rape Ann, the other three men in the group, when presented with the prospect of having sex with such a beautiful women, consider this a good idea, having now the majority Ann is raped by the men.
This is the corruption of democracy, it is not freedom or justice, it is enslavement and exploitation.
You should consider the next two models of Islam, all four work together, before making a conclusion. -
Salaam Mushu,
Walaikum assalam Abdun Nur
I suggest freedom, you are the one advocating Chaos,
To be fair, I said anarchy, not chaos. That is what you seem to be suggesting. You're equating governments with chaos, which I don't agree with.
government enslaves the population, extracting the labour from the population and suppress all true growth and development.
Although I'm more than willing to have a philosophical debate about governments vs anarchy, I think there's much benefit in clarifying the Qur'anic position. Clearly, ultimate sovereignty belongs to Allah swt, as demonstrated by the numerous verses you have referenced. However, limited or conditional 'sovereignty' has been granted to governments as well, as also demonstrated by Ayisha with
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
459This 'limited sovereignty' is not the same as true sovereignty as these leaders are bound by Qur'anic injunctions and will be held accountable for their actions. This is unlike Allah swt, who is accountable to no one. So will you concede that there is in fact no contradiction in the Qur'an regarding sovereignty of Allah and authority of governments? If you do, we can go on and explore the merits of anarchy.
The education system and media implant the idea that without a sovereign all would be chaos and anarchy, war and starvation would fill the earth they suggest, when with sovereignty all is anarchy, war and starvation fills the earth, people view things within their own experience, few look wider, examine the results of the lie of democracy and sovereign control, see the misery within this small world, examine the past, filled with murder and hardship.
I don't actually think conditioning is what maintains nation states and sovereign institutions. You're implying that with better education and freedom of thought, people would reject governments and freely choose anarchy instead. I would argue that this opinion ignores what is the fundamental nature of humans i.e. sheep mentality.
We are told that all Prophets were shepherds because the caring of sheep is much like caring for people. Sheep huddle together because they feel safer in numbers. Not only that, sheep look for guidance. Humans behave in similar ways, albeit with greater variety and complexities. But the core concept is the same.
The shackles of government are self-imposed, if you will. From birth we can only survive through recognising the authority of our mothers. From a young age we are able to identify the positive roles of our elders; they protect us, sustain us and enjoin good on us. It would be impossible for a child to grow up with all their faculties intact without this system of authority and 'subjugation'. Thus, the desire for system and hierarchy is part of the human psyche and is ineluctable. This manifests as the natural phenomena we see all around us people who lead and people who choose to be led. The arrangement is 99% of the time mutual. There is little or no coercion involved in the vast majority of instances when leaders emerge who gain the acceptance of those wish to be led.
Have you considered the concept of democracy, let me give you a simple example.
You have a group of 10 people who have decided to follow the will of the majority as a system of governance, two of the members Bob and Joe find Ann very beautiful, so vote to rape Ann, the other three men in the group, when presented with the prospect of having sex with such a beautiful women, consider this a good idea, having now the majority Ann is raped by the men.
Then consider this
You have a group of 10 people who have decided to govern themselves and are accountable to no one for their actions. They agree that they can do whatever they want, provided they do not infringe on the rights of the others to do the same. Bob and Joe find Ann very beautiful. They wish to have sex with her but she refuses. Having identified that violating the one condition they promised to uphold cannot actually be enforced, they go ahead and rape Ann. The rest of the group, after finding out about this violation are presented with a dilemma. If they are to punish Bob and Joe, they would require some sort of structure and organisation to ensure some sort of fair trial and a mechanism to come to a conclusion in the event of split opinions. If they go ahead with this, they end up creating the very thing they were trying to avoid. The group are at a loss. The weaker amongst the group, particularly Ann who has had a horrific experience, are wide-eyed and scared. They look to the most dominant character in the group, Muhammad, to see what he has to say. Muhammad, who doesn't want to be a leader, is perplexed that the group are now looking to him to provide a solution. He tries his best to be inclusive and keep the group as a flat organisation, but he is fighting a losing battle. The group want him bring some justice to the situation, as he comes across as just and measured, and they have raised his status. Muhammad agrees to chair the trial and ends up having to decide what the punishment for Bob and Joe is. After this episode, the group go back to anarchism, putting the sorry affair behind them. But as the years go by, every time a problem arises, the group look to Muhammad to provide a solution, even though he has no desire to take on a position of leadership.
This is the corruption of democracy, it is not freedom or justice, it is enslavement and exploitation.
You should consider the next two models of Islam, all four work together, before making a conclusion.Okay bro, I'll wait to read what you post.
-
Salaam Mushu,
your analogy ignores the lawful model I presented of surety, with a Rex, who holds no authority to legislate only functions as the facilitator of the lawful court. No democratic or representational structure is needed, we do not require complex legal systems, just two laws with the guidance of the Qur'an applied, as I explained within the second model of Islam the Common Law.
-
Salam Abdun Nur, all
I have read your posts in this thread, and i think some of your views are interesting and radical. Your views are rational, and not uncompatible with the Quran . People can learn a lot from your views in your posts in this thread. I have actually had similar views about islam in almost a year now. I will study these things more, and maybe write my thoughts on it in the future. But nowadays I am busy with other concepts and ideas in islam.
I think the reason why it might be hard for some people to accept radical ideas and models, is because of selective hearing. Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear. And they block out what they don't want to hear. I once read about a guy that said he couldn't hear what people were saying to him when he was younger. When people told him things about reality he couldn't hear what they were saying. The reason why a person can't hear things others say to him, might be because others are using reason when they speak to him. Many people think human beings hear with their ears, but human beings actually hear with their brains. When a human being have sufficient knowledge, he will most likely hear and understand what people are telling him when they tell him something rational. The brain of a person, can be compared to the engine of a car, while the ears can be compared to wheels of a car. And things people tell him can be compared to the road in front of the car. If the engine of a car works, then the wheels will spin, and the car will drive on the road. If the engine does not work, the car will not drive no matter how great the wheels are or no matter how great the road is. So if a person does not have sufficient knowledge, he will most likely not hear what people are telling him when they speak about rational things.
Only Allah is our provider. Not governments, not presidents, not politicians, not corporations, not monarchs, not kings, not churchs, not priests.
Allah owns the the entire universe and everything in it. Allah owns the earth and everything in it.Quran 3513
He merges the night into the day, and
merges the day into the night. He has
committed the sun and the moon, each
runs for a predetermined period. Such is
God your Lord; to Him is the
sovereignty. As for those whom you call
on besides Him, they do not possess a
seed's shell.When human beings create something, it does not live. It does not have a soul. It is not organic. And as most of you probably know, every thing scientists create, are made by earthly materials which God has given them. They have not created the materials out of nothing. Without earthly materials they would not be able to create anything. They would not be able to even create something as small as a fly (See 2273). And as I have mentioned in my first post in this thread, things which are made by God are always more advanced than things which are made by human beings. Let me give you an example. If you compare an airplane to a bird, you will see that the design of the bird is more advanced than an airplane. An airplane needs fuel to work, has a high and uncomfortable sound and does not fly as smoothly and flexibly as a bird. It also need service regularly. When a bird claps its wings, it does not make any uncomfortable sound like an airplane does. Allah has created everything perfect. A bird does not need improvement in its design. Because something which is perfect does not need to be improved. But airplanes are yearly improved,
and new airplanes replace old ones.Quran 464
Say, "Do you see those that you call on
besides God? Show me what they have
created on the earth, or do they have a
share in the heavens? Bring me a book
before this, or any trace of knowledge, if
you are truthful."Human beings does not own things which Allah has created
Human beings don't own the rain.
Human beings don't own the wind.
Human beings don't own the earth.
Human beings don't own the air.
Huuman beings don't own the seas. .
Human beings don't own the plant.
Human beings don't own the wild animals.All these things mentioned above, should be shared with whole mankind. Human beings can use all these things for their benefits as long as they follow the laws of Allah. Allah has given human beings these blessings, so they can live a sustainable life. Human beings only borrow all these things as long as they live here on earth. They only borrow them, they don't own them. And when human beings die, the next generations will borrow them (for a period). And this cycle will continue until the judgment day.
Hoarding is not compatible with islam (see 171.
Monopoly is not compatible with islam (See 597).Some people believe that a human beings can not live without a government. They are brainwashed, and believe that a society can not exist and can not prosper without a government. This belief is false. When people unplug themselves from the matrix, they will realize that in an ideal society, a government is not needed.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively
by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." - Thomas Paine. -
Salaam Someone,
you give me the impression you believe the Islamic models will render all humanity paupers, living in the wilds exposed to the elements without the ability to cover their naked bodies?
A strange perspective for a declared Muslim.
That is the problem behind your Models, You have already decided that these Models are Islamic, and based on Quran. Now if some one disgarees you are quick to label him "A strange Muslim", Not a Muslim, Blah blah.
Realize, what you are doing is very similar to what Mullah's do.
First try to prove are they realy Islamic?, are they Practical?
Can they be implemented just show us an example?
You remind me of a Phd. doctor of economics in Pakistan who kept on appearing on TV shows and Seminars telling that he has an alterante system for money that will change the life of Pakistanis and so on, but when the students of some university tried to give his system a practical try at small scale, it had many flaws, it failed. -
Peace all
It is only through putting value on land that you can truly enslave man kind take the value away and you have one less tool to enslave .The question is rajja correct who advocates putting value on land or abdun who advocates against putting value on land ?
Peace
live long and prosper
Salim
-
Salam,
@Abdun Nur
your analogy ignores the lawful model I presented of surety, with a Rex, who holds no authority to legislate only functions as the facilitator of the lawful court. No democratic or representational structure is needed, we do not require complex legal systems, just two laws with the guidance of the Qur'an applied, as I explained within the second model of Islam the Common Law.
Your analogy did something similar. You implied that a democratic system could legalise criminal acts, with enough votes. This is true, but not relevant to the discussion regarding what the Qur'an teaches. In a shariah system, the Qur'an would be the constitution. It would be impossible for any legislation to contradict the Qur'an, because this would be deemed unconstitutional. It is also true that in a highly populated community, a Rex could be undermined with enough propaganda. Your example focusses on small groups of people who enter into such agreements. But the world today is made up of billions, with millions living in cities in close quarters. Enough people who do not want to be under the influence of a Rex could rebel and expose the Rex as impotent. What checks are in place to prevent this from happening? Your example speaks of 'exclusion' as a strong deterrent for those who consider breaking common law. Are you seriously implying that exclusions would effect people who live amongst millions in a city like London? How big would a Rex have to be? How many people would fall under its influence? Bring us some practical examples of how a Rex would work in a modern society.
Men served a Rex voluntarily. A Rex had to offer battle gear, food, and plunder to get others to follow him into battle, more importantly, they volunteered to champion the cause of the weak -- for a fee.
Hang on... If I have to pay a Rex to provide justice, how is this any different to paying taxes to a government who provides me with police and courts? What is the practical difference between the two? If justice is provided by ability to pay, you put justice in the hands of the rich.
@DK
Only Allah is our provider. Not governments, not presidents, not politicians, not corporations, not monarchs, not kings, not churchs, not priests.
Allah owns the the entire universe and everything in it. Allah owns the earth and everything in it.This is all very nice, but you ignore the verse
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
459So how do you explain this command? Authority requires structure and hierarchy.
Some people believe that a human beings can not live without a government. They are brainwashed, and believe that a society can not exist and can not prosper without a government. This belief is false. When people unplug themselves from the matrix, they will realize that in an ideal society, a government is not needed.
Then let's see your model and allow it to be scrutinised. Explain how civil institutions that you see today would come about in a flat organisational society. If you can't provide a practical model then it is not your opponents who are brainwashed. Could you show me an example where anarchy has worked? Don't get me wrong, anarchy is the ultimate dream for everyone, but is it practical?
-
Salaam Mushu,
you have failed to understand the model, a rex can be any person you as the victim ask to serve and execute the wite, or writ as it is termed in the modern age, you as the victim do not pay a thing, only the guilty would pay the rex, after the court has finished the case the wite cost of the rex is added to the bill of the guilty party, if they turn up to the court without the need to be brought there is no charge for a rex, as the service is not used.
The Rex has no political function, it is just a service.
The victim applies at the court for a wite, this states the details of the accused and the injustice, and the details of the accuser and the remedy they wish to receive, the court is a function of the community, this is a model that functioned for thousands of years with Britain before the Roman Catholic invasion of 1066.
As for Sharia, you must apply it as I suggest, you can not allow the insane religious fanatics to create any legislation, legislation is not required, if you read the examples I state, they are held within common law, also known as natural law.
-
Abdun nur
Thousands of years Before Roman catholic invasion of Britain this model was functioning? and it is from Quran? &Yes, it may have been existing thousand years before Prophet Muhammed came. Because islam is timeless. And islam did not start with Muhammed, it started with Abraham. And the creed of Abraham existed thousand of years before christianity. Many of the laws in the Quran has existed before the quran came. These laws have existed in earlier scriptures before they were corrupted.
-
David_k
Yes, it may havebeen existing thousand years before Prophet Muhammed came. Because islam is timeless. And islam did not start with Muhammed, it started with Abraham. And the creed of Abraham existed thousand of years before christianity. The system of Allah never changes.
You seem so impressed with the Guy! But before defending him read first he said "From Quran", Islam is timeless but Quran is 1400 years old.
Now please dont tell me that Quran was from the time of Adam written in Heaven on a tablet and Britons had Chat with Allah. -
Salaam Raaajah,
these systems occur naturally, they spring up as the basic models, the problem is people are greedy and stupid and if they allow the usurious to gain slight control, soon they steal all control.
If you wish to read the history of Great Britain, which I doubt as you didn't read the two model essays in detail, I have written an essay on the subject, heres the link
http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/91/123/
These four models functioned in many locations, without connection to the Arabs or middle east, not all four together usually, but in Great Britain all four models did function from around 757 onwards until 1066 when the death cult of Christianity invaded and placed legal fictions upon these systems. I found them because I saw the models within the Qur'an, something you can not see, and I also saw the benefits people enjoyed within these models, how stable and enduring, how fair and culturally developing they are.
-
David_k
You seem so impressed with the Guy! But before defending him read first he said "From Quran", Islam is timeless but Quran is 1400 years old.
Now please dont tell me that Quran was from the time of Adam written in Heaven on a tablet and Britons had Chat with Allah.Raaajah,
I am not important when it comes to this discussion. Do not focus on me or anyone else. Focus on the message instead of the man. I believe the quran brought us some good news (new things), and also laws which have been given to human beings in the past. For example, some of the laws in Quran are similar to laws in other scriptures.
-
Abdun Nur
These four models functioned in many locations, without connection to the Arabs or middle east, not all four together usually, but in Great Britain all four models did function from around 757 onwards until 1066 when the death cult of Christianity invaded and placed legal fictions upon these systems. I found them because I saw the models within the Qur'an, something you can not see, and I also saw the benefits people enjoyed within these models, how stable and enduring, how fair and culturally developing they are.
Please stop decieving youngsters and yourself.
If you wish to read the history of Great Britain, which I doubt as you didn't read the two model essays in detail, I have written an essay on the subject, heres the link
I have no need to study your article regarding Great Britain?s history in detail, as I have read much better books much earlier before your advice. (This statement is after glancing at your article).
Abdunnur
The law system of Mercia under Rex Offa, was completely free of any influence of Roman law, it was based on the original laws of the ancient tribes that settled Britain, those that migrated over from the Continent, already possessing an elaborate and developed legal system.
This is a complete lie, he was under the influence of Romans!
Who gave Offa the title of REX?
Offa was greatly respected by Pope Adrian I, who formally addressed him asRex Anglorum' (king of England). Charlemagne, the Emperor of France, dealt with him as an equal and almost married his eldest son to one of Offa's daughters. Their friendship is evidenced by the fact that Charlemagne sent some of the booty from one of his victories to Offa with his greetings in 780. The Pope?s official representatives were received warmly by Offa and were present at the Council of Chelsea (787), often calledthe contentious synod', where it was proposed that the Archbishopric of Canterbury be restricted in order to make way for Offa's new archbishop. It was vehemently opposed, but Offa and the papal representatives defeated Archbishop Jaenbert, installing Higbert as the new Archbishop of Lichfield. Pope Adrian sent Higbert his ceremonial garment, obviously denoting his support for this move. In gratitude, Offa promised to send an annual shipment of gold to the pope for alms and supplying the lights in St. Peter's church in Rome.
How can be he not influenced by Roman Laws?You seem to be impressed by the propaganda, that Offa became a Muslim and got this system/model from Spain as some muslim commentators say, specially after the discovery of that famous gold coin.
But my brother in fact Muslims had never implemented this system you are talking about in Spain, Arab or any other country. The only Model/System that was best was Prophet Muhammad?s system in MADINA. -
Salaam Raajah,
you seem to investigate history with the same care as you do the Qur'an, the Angles invaded the southern counties of Great Britain, he did indeed hold them to account as a Rex under the legal structure, even executing one of the Christian kings for serving as a corrupt Rex, so he did function as a Rex over the English immigrant, who were German.
A rex is not a Christian King and never was, the Roman Catholics have made a great effort to corrupt the evidence of history, but I am wasting my time in explaining anything to such a closed and confused mind as yours, you judge without even considering what is under discussion, you demonstrate no logic, reason or honesty within your comments, they seem ill consider and argumentative.
If you have nothing of value to say, say nothing is my advice to you.