MANIFESTO for Islamic Reform
-
Hi,
There exists a range of various systems called democracy, but basically it is not the rule of the majority; it is the rule of an ?elite? ?chosen? by the majority, which is neither hand nor foot. We choose and find it didn?t work so well, and have the ?freedom? to choose again......., and again..........., and again..........., constantly making the same or similar mistakes.
These are, however, the ?best? of the systems of government we can think of.Imbeciles! ?
Choices should be made by reason, not by blind majority, or by a minority who has managed to scrape together a majority vote, by hook or by crook. Lying, cheating, you name it, you've got it! lol
Further it should be based on the principles set down by the ultimate laws governing the Universe, and everything in it.
This is the fixed frame, not the Qur?an, as such, or any other scripture etc., although the Qur?an is part of it.
The Qur?an itself tells us to look at any, and all, the ?signs? in the World, wherever we find them, and reflect on them and find the ?best? solutions, bearing in mind the principles brought forth from the ?almighty something?.Democracy, anyone! Cheap.... cheap....., on sale now!
Regds
Ali Omar
-
Peace Ali,
Further it should be based on the principles set down by the ultimate laws governing the Universe, and everything in it.
This is the fixed frame, not the Qur?an, as such, or any other scripture etc., although the Qur?an is part of it.
The Qur?an itself tells us to look at any, and all, the ?signs? in the World, wherever we find them, and reflect on them and find the ?best? solutions, bearing in mind the principles brought forth from the ?almighty something?.Pretty abstract, but yeah i think i might agree, if I understood you right that is
-
Peace LT,
Democracy is the rule of the majority. And according to Ayman, Quran says Majority is always wrong.
Why are you debating for Ayman? ? I'm sure he can represent himself just fine.Hey?
Whats wrong with refering to Ayman's analysis of the Quran, since he has he himself has given his thoughts on this matter of democracy and the Quran on the "absurdity of theocracy" thread?
If Ayman has a problem with me refering to his analysis then I think he can speak for himself! -)
Thanks.
Regards,
-
SaLaM LT
Just to let you know, its not according to Ayman, its according to GOD that the majority will be wrong. Here is a verse
And if you obey the majority of those on earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.
-
SaLaM LT
Just to let you know, its not according to Ayman, its according to GOD that the majority will be wrong. Here is a verse
And if you obey the majority of those on earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.
Thanks for the verse.
Here is what Ayman's has written
But the book itself is "anti-theocracy". Organized religion is generally not looked on positively in the book.
If you talk about using a "democratic model" then this is diametrically opposed to the book because democracy is "rule of the majority" and we are told in the book that the majority is wrong.
Ayman can correct if I have misquoted him.
Thanks.Regards,
-
Democracy is the rule of the majority. And according to Ayman, Quran says Majority is always wrong.
I am rarely suprised to see how majority of people lack knowledge about many things. I am also rarely surprised to seing that minorities (subgroups comprising the majorites) do not differ in their lack of knowledge in many things; the orange, yellow, or blue minority, each are members of the majority and their average hitting rate cannot not be better.
What always suprises me is to see some who see themselves on top of the mountain, disdaining the majority of people, while themselves hit the ball less than the average member of the majority.
Let me cut the chase short.
The Quran blames majority for failing regarding their belief system, regarding their opion on God, resurrection, and related metaphisical issues. Thus, the Quran never asks the prophet or submitters to consult others regarding their philosophical conviction; they must seek the truth on their own. However, in matters that involve practical decisions that effect other people in this world, such as the tax code, traffic law, city ordinances, treaties with other nations, etc.; in this case we are instructed to get the concent of others.
Thus, I will never change my philosopical and moral conviction because of the vote of the majority, but I have to respect their decision in matters involving OUR worldly lives. The mutual respect, or social contract, is what we call democracy.
What Ayman promoting is oligarchy, and oligarchy ALWAYS end up increasing injustice, corruption and hypocricy.
As Elena nicely asked with two words, "whose decision?" Perhaps Ayman believes that his decision is better than the majority of the people, and he assumes a divine right to be the leader. What Ayman does not know is that this is the exact modus operandi of all tyrants in history. Pharoah too thought that way. On my part, I will never let the self-appointed aristocrats like Ayman take government by force. I will be on the side of the majority fighting against their "benevolent" tyranny.
Peace,
Edip -
Peace The Nabi,
In my opinion, a majority decision is not necessarily a platform to assume that the correct choice has been made.
Let's say that assertion is negative. Could you give us a positive assertion or idea or something regarding the government of the nations?
-
While i agree to the text presented, there is one thing i dont fully understand. If we are to agree with the majority for getting along, are we supposed to accept when our governments enter pirate crusades with the support of the majority?. With the current democratic situation given, what is the correct way to respond to it do you reckon?
Peace
Noah -
While i agree to the text presented, there is one thing i dont fully understand. If we are to agree with the majority for getting along, are we supposed to accept when our governments enter pirate crusades with the support of the majority?. With the current democratic situation given, what is the correct way to respond to it do you reckon?
Peace
NoahFirst of all, I think American constitution fails in recognizing expressly many of the rights recognized for its citizens. This racist/nationalist discrimination is now exploited by Crusader to legally justify their barbaric treatment of prisoners.
I believe that constitutions should be automatically subjected to referandum for every generation, approximately every 20 years. Thereby, it can be more legitimate and reflective of social progress or change.
As for condoning the decision of majority, not necessarily. I am against the war in Iraq and I have constitutional right to express my dissent. Unfortunately, being a citizen I contribute to the tax that supports the wrong wars. So, as an indvidual I try to change public mind regarding wrong and unjust policies.
I do not expect to find paradise here. I know that I am responsible according to my means and I know that I should stand for justice and truth.
Peace,
Edip -
Peace All,
The message is good, it calls for unity. The only problem I have is that it is not very universal although the book from the Most High is, it still promotes 'Islam' with a capital I. I know that a few people refer to the secterians faith as Hislam but either way Islam is the label used. Why try so hard to defend the label?! Why are names even important?!
Language is very important I think, key priniciples should be outlined and all this 'Islam' and 'Quran' is unnecessary, I know that it won't be altered but this is my opinion, these are all just names created and loved, its just unneccesary.
The most important thing is to just promote the search for knowledge and peace, to promote this glorious book we have too. Maybe I am being too fussy but I personally feel that the language could be better.
Nural
-
Dear Nural Amin,
I quite agree on the point concerning labels. We still fall into the trap of highlighting something we say are not labels with a capital letter, and in the next instance we call out and say that ?this is not a proper name? it just means...................
We should perhaps drop the label and begin regarding islam and qur?an for what it is, also in the way we write it?
I have not reacted on this fact of things until now.Regds
Ali Omar
-
Dear Elena,
On a more serious note, when a choice is to be made, what criteria do we set up in order to make it?
Look at the qur?an!
An example
It has a ?ground rule? that you shall not take another human life.
Is the decision you are about to make breaching this criteria?Thereafter you will have to find out if the loss of lives is justified in any way, and the rules for that are also laid down in the qur?an.
The reason, therefore, can be found in Gods words and the Universe around us, and by reflecting over these.
What wars would have been started if this simple rule was followed?
Regards
Ali Omar
-
On my part, I will never let the self-appointed aristocrats like Ayman take government by force. I will be on the side of the majority fighting against their "benevolent" tyranny.
Oh Mr. Yuksel, can you not say anything nicely without personalising it?
You could have easily said Ayman's analysis of the Quran and Democracy is incorrect.Thanks.
Regards,
-
Thank you Lote Tree
But, the issue here becomes very personal, when someone tells the majority that they do not have the right to govern themselves, to make decision that involves their daily lives. Such a person, considers himself in the position of monopolizing the power.
Thus, I might be wrong in other places, but here the person who claim authority is the center of the argument.
In authocratic regimes, you cannot criticize the system without criticizing the perosn who leads it. Here, Ayman is proposing himself or dittoheads as the sole candidates for leadership roll
Peace,
Edip -
Peace Edip, all,
But, the issue here becomes very personal, when someone tells the majority that they do not have the right to govern themselves, to make decision that involves their daily lives. Such a person, considers himself in the position of monopolizing the power.
The majority has the right to govern themselves in the same way that the majority of Muslims has the right to bow to a stone cube or a majority of Christians has the right to venerate a cross. Although they have the right to take a certain course of action, that doesn't mean that this is the correct course of action.
Thus, I might be wrong in other places, but here the person who claim authority is the center of the argument.
I am sure that you will quickly see that you are wrong here too if people in any Sunni country were free to vote and they voted on whether followers of Dr. Khalifa should be banned, persecuted, and their personal property confiscated and distributed to Sunnis.
Although I appreciate you giving me the honor of being "the center of the argument", I think that the issue is that most people, including highly educated ones, are generally ignorant of democracy, its history, and how it inevitably leads to dictatorship. It seems that like most people, you have bought recent propaganda touting democracy.
Democracy simply means "rule of the majority".
It is ironic that you are advertising democracy when one of the few convincing pieces that Dr. Khalifa wrote was his criticism of the majority based on evidence from the great reading.
In addition to the evidence from the great reading, one can easily verify from empirical observation that democracy is an inherently deficient system. As far as the history of democracy, we don't even have to look far. Just look in the past 100 years or so.
It is a fact that 1936 Germany was the most democratic country in the world, the Nazi party was the most popular democratically elected political party, and up to near the end of World War II, Hitler was Germany's most popular and beloved democratically elected leader. He became popular through a nationalistic patriotic agenda and revival of the Christian faith (what he called a "New Christianity").
Democracy thrives on nationalism ("us against them" mob mentality), which dehumanizes dissenters, minorities and other nationalities. Democracy also thrives on religious zeal and dogmatic ideology. The more zealous and ideologues people are, the more popular religion touting self-righteous leaders will be. This is why it is inevitable that democracy leads to dictatorship and Fascism as happened with Germany and in many other countries.
In authocratic regimes, you cannot criticize the system without criticizing the perosn who leads it. Here, Ayman is proposing himself or dittoheads as the sole candidates for leadership
Democracy is not even a system. Democracy is a logical fallacy (appeal to popularity).
What I am proposing is the rule of law not the rule of the majority. This is independent of leadership. Under the rule of law, even if the majority of people in any Sunni country were free to vote, they would not be able to ban, persecute or confiscate the property of followers of Dr. Khalifa no matter how much they disagree with them and this notion is popular. This is your God-given right and you would be foolish and unappreciative to want to delegate that to the democratic majority.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Ayman
You forget that the law, regardless of its truth-value, is too a subject of interpration and different readings. What you are promoting is a hundred percent dictatorship, and what I am promoting is an imperfet system that occasionally can be abused.
I will not consider any system democratic unless it provides unencumbered right to freely choose and express one's ideas or religion. So, with this qualification I believe that democracy is the best possible system we can have..
Jingoism or racism is not a necessary component of democracy. The connection is only a corelation.
Peace,
Edip