MANIFESTO for Islamic Reform
-
What a surprise! What a dissapointment!
It seems that the brains of Muslims are so polluted with the authocratic or tyrranical teachings and culture, even some of the so-called Quran Alone brothers and sisters are still defending monarchies or oligarchies in the name of God.
This cultural pollution plus confusion about the nature of democracy (many assume that the US is a democraticly governed country, which is for most part is NOT), needs much more attention than I expected....
I was very navie to assume that any student of the Quran would see the obvious Quranic precepts promoting Democracy. I will inshallah try to write an article on this issue before the end of this year.
For those who wish to push their religion or system on me or others in the name of God, "your system is for you and my system is for me."
Peace,
Edip -
Dear Edip,
It's surprising to see you turn to intellectual cowardice. Instead of presenting the more beautiful arguments (16/125) you accuse those who disagree with you of 'authocratic or tyrranical teachings'. It seems you're only good at debating sunnis but when it comes to Quranic arguments, you turn tail and hide behind a decontextualised verse.
'To you your religion to me mine' is something to say to an 'al-kafir', a person who has absolutely rejected God's law. Without even a quoting a single verse in support of your democratic nonsense, you accuse others of being kafir? A kafir is one who conceals/rejects God's laws and God's laws are in al-quraan. Haven't I been a quoting from al-quraan?
As for poor David and Solomon, I guess they shouldn't be in the Quran. Maybe your fellow 19ers can continue thier omitting exercise and excise David and Solomon too. Or perhaps we CAN make distinctions among the messengers, something which you 19 ppl have been against all these years and deemphasise David and Solomon who were probably kings because of some cultural nonsense even though Allah mentioned it. Anything to ingratiate ourselves to the powers that be, right Edip?
And while we're at it, maybe we should also tell Musa to first confer with the faasiq Bani Israil before he leaves them outright. Or maybe ar-rasul, instead of just conferring with believers in 3/159 (but making his decision solely , fa iza azamTA, dont forget) , he should start conferring with the disbelievers too? We should make all these corrections quickly Edip, before the powers that be think we're too regressive for thier post-modern ways.
Pathetic.
-
Salaam Jaxal,
Brother lets not make it personel. Give me an example where a leader came into power without choosing or without forcing himself.
Brother, YOU'RE making it personal. You've never experienced something like this and therefore you think it's impossible. I trust al-quraan's narrations and this is how I believe things run in the world.
I simply cannot see how that verse address the issue. Unless im overlooking something, in which case, please point it out to me coz i have googly eyes
.The verse tells us that David, after destroying the overwhelming enemy, was granted power. To attain power in the same way, we must do the same thing.
So brother, in your opinion, God is saying that dont force your belief on a non-believer, but leave no space in forcing it on a fellow muslim? Sunnis and free-minders. Do u think since you are both muslims, u think its ok for each of you to be forcing your belief on each other? Wont you look at the verse 109.6?
No one is forcing belief on anyone. All im saying is, when you enter a dominion run on Quranic laws, you obey those laws. If you feel those laws are burdensome, then leave. Its as simple as that. Your definition of 'muslim' seems to have a religious connotation whereas Quranically, a muslim is one who obeys Allah's laws and the laws must be operational in a given dominion.
I dont know what this has to do with being democratic. There is a difference between being democratic and being a criminal.
Once again, being a 'democract' in the normative sense of the word means that everyone is consulted in the process of unlimited legislation. Unlimited legislation is simply not possible if one is a muslim. I dont understand how this very simple deduction can be controversial.
-
SaLaM mquran
The verse tells us that David, after destroying the overwhelming enemy, was granted power. To attain power in the same way, we must do the same thing.
What kind of power did David attain. If he was made a leader of the people, then why do u expect that same scenario to happen again? Many men destroy armies for their country. Not all become leaders. Infact, they are kept out of becomming a leader. Its just not the same thing.
Your definition of 'muslim' seems to have a religious connotation whereas Quranically, a muslim is one who obeys Allah's laws and the laws must be operational in a given dominion.
There are many sunnis who dont follow Hadiths and they call them selves sunnis. I was simply giving an example between two different sects who follow Allah. But never the less, is it fair for a sunni to come to a shia and force his belief on him? or vice versa? You think that verse is only meant for the unbelievers. Does that give the sunni the right to force his belief on a shia?
Once again, being a 'democract' in the normative sense of the word means that everyone is consulted in the process of unlimited legislation. Unlimited legislation is simply not possible if one is a muslim. I dont understand how this very simple deduction can be controversial.
So you are saying, that say in the near future, All the people who beleive in Quran Alone form a country. The leader of that country will be chosen by.... what? A random draw? Or will someone have to destroy armies before that peson is chosen a leader? Tell me brother, how will that go?
-
Peace MQ,
I disagree with your interpretation on a single leader.
My view from reading the Scripture is that only God can appoint a king/sole ruler as that person would be under divine influence to rule and judge in accordance with God's law.
As for us normal humans, choosing a single leader would place us in the category forewarned by the queen of Sheba as recorded in the Scripture
"She said ?When the kings enter a town they destroy it and make its most noble people humiliated. It is such that they do.? (The Message 2736)
We are to be governed by the Book of God, under which we would place a commitee (shura) which is chosen from the people based on intelegence and rightousness...It is then upto that Council to rule in accordance with God's law and they may appoint a single person (Prime Minister) to ease the day-to-day management of the nation, on condition that that PM would be answerable to the Council.
Book of God-------> Council (elected from the people) --------> PM -------> Government
-
Salaam Br Layth,
You make it seems so easy but in the real world it isn't and we know it.
We know that often it exist only a few candidates to choose between and no one of them are good enough to be the leader.
And all this can only be possible if we live in an islamic society based on God Alone---Quran Alone.
But when do it exist a society like this?
Until that i will not vote for any politician because all of them are same crap and don't speak about the monarcy, I wish all such house would disappear because what is the point to keep them.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaamun alaikum Jaxal,
Very relevant questions indeed.
What kind of power did David attain?
We can understand the nature of power by looking at the word 'mulk' in quranic usage. 'mulk' is used in several places and each place gives a shade of meaning. Im currently onto this research myself.If he was made a leader of the people, then why do u expect that same scenario to happen again?
Not only do I expect it, I fully believe that if all elements of the equation are in place, it will happen again. That's what the Quran is for, guidance. Not a mathematical wonderment book to gawk and keep counting for donkey's years.There are many sunnis who dont follow Hadiths and they call them selves sunnis. I was simply giving an example between two different sects who follow Allah. But never the less, is it fair for a sunni to come to a shia and force his belief on him? or vice versa? You think that verse is only meant for the unbelievers. Does that give the sunni the right to force his belief on a shia?
Once again, this is not about BELIEF. I will you an analogy.
You are now living in the state of the United Kingdom. Do you believe that our taxes should be given to alcoholics for them to buy moderate amounts of booze while they are in the process of giving up? I don't but because I am in this domain, I will submit to its laws.
in 2001, they released 2 boys convicted of murdering a 2 year old in 1993. Most of the UK citizens were against it but they did it anyway. So whatever our opinion, we submit to those who have power in the domain.
This is not about belief, this is about our submission.
So you are saying, that say in the near future, All the people who beleive in Quran Alone form a country. The leader of that country will be chosen by.... what? A random draw? Or will someone have to destroy armies before that peson is chosen a leader? Tell me brother, how will that go
I don't know because I will never participate in the formation of a country or a state . The word 'dawlah' or Arabic for 'state' doesnt exist in al-quraan. What we have is 'ummah' which is an organisation embodying the principles of motherhood (ummah comes from the root 'umm') to its members. An ummah has no geographical boundaries.
many thanks for your relevant questions there.
-
Salaamun alaikum Layth,
My view from reading the Scripture is that only God can appoint a king/sole ruler as that person would be under divine influence to rule and judge in accordance with God's law.
2 questions to you then
-
Can that appointment by God happen again?
-
How does that appointment happen ? (surely we dont expect God to come down to earth and crown the new king, hehe...so what do we expect to see?)
As for us normal humans, choosing a single leader would place us in the category forewarned by the queen of Sheba as recorded in the Scripture
"
She said When the kings enter a town they destroy it and make its most noble people humiliated. It is such that they do. (The Message 2736)Its actually 27/34, Layth so you might want to check if there's a mistake.
My questions
-
Normal humans ? So the nabiyeen weren't normal humans ? Please see 18/110.
-
Was the queen of sheba absolutely correct? If so what about David and Sulaimaan. Note that the same word is used. Sheba used 'muluka' in 27/36 and David and Solomon had 'mulk'. Sheba HERSELF was a 'malika' . So if you look at context, maybe what Sheba was trying here is that Maliks shouldnt make decisions without advice first?
We are to be governed by the Book of God, under which we would place a commitee (shura) which is chosen from the people based on intelegence and rightousness...It is then upto that Council to rule in accordance with God's law and they may appoint a single person (Prime Minister) to ease the day-to-day management of the nation, on condition that that PM would be answerable to the Council.
Book of God-------> Council (elected from the people) --------> PM -------> Government
Would you mind proving this process from al-quraan itself ? I just cant seem to find it. There's nowhere in al-quraan where people take a vote to appoint thier leader. Please do quote the verses for me and I'd be happy to rescind my views.
-
-
I simply cannot see how that verse address the issue. Unless im overlooking something, in which case, please point it out to me coz i have googly eyes
.The verse tells us that David, after destroying the overwhelming enemy, was granted power. To attain power in the same way, we must do the same thing.
peace brother mquran.
i THINK this verse isnt saying that David attained power by destroying the enemy . it is only telling that Allah had granted him power and wisdom . its not saying that it is because of killing the enemy that he attained power and wisdom .
he didnt need to kill enemies to attain WISDOM , right ? neither do we .
what do u think ?
peace . -
Salaamun alaikum,
i THINK this verse isnt saying that David attained power by destroying the enemy . it is only telling that Allah had granted him power and wisdom . its not saying that it is because of killing the enemy that he attained power and wisdom .
he didnt need to kill enemies to attain WISDOM , right ? neither do we .
what do u think ?I don't think this is the only way to attain al-hikmah (what you call as wisdom, but has its own quranic definition), no.
However, you cannot disconnect the attainment of al-mulk from the vanquishing of Jaloot. if it were 2 seperate things, it wouldnt be so intimately placed.
Joseph was given almulk as well . If a king were to be elected one like Joseph seems a likely candidate.
Once again, this isn't an elected 'mulk' reciever. Yusuf was given mulk from the king himself, by appointment.
-
SaLaM mquran
Im currently onto this research myself.
Brother, When you do completel your research then plz share it with me.
Not only do I expect it, I fully believe that if all elements of the equation are in place, it will happen again. That's what the Quran is for, guidance. Not a mathematical wonderment book to gawk and keep counting for donkey's years.
My grandfather was a general during the war of 1947 in the army. When pakistan seperated, my Grandfather was fighting the war. No doubt he did many great things for his country and no doubt he killed many enemies. But he is no president. On the other hand, Muhammad Ali Jinah and Mahatma Ghandi who were both opposed to the violence became the leaders. What you saying is that you expect the same conditions to be in place. From the time David did this, up to now, how many times have the conditions been the same? And how many times have the people who fought for their country bacame leaders? Plenty. But not ALL who killed armies became leaders. Very very few.
You are now living in the state of the United Kingdom. Do you believe that our taxes should be given to alcoholics for them to buy moderate amounts of booze while they are in the process of giving up? I don't but because I am in this domain, I will submit to its laws.
in 2001, they released 2 boys convicted of murdering a 2 year old in 1993. Most of the UK citizens were against it but they did it anyway. So whatever our opinion, we submit to those who have power in the domain.
This was just wrong. There are many rapist who go unpunished. There are many killers who go free. The world is unfair. Life, my dear brother, is unfair.
An ummah has no geographical boundaries.
So if an ummah doesnt have no geographical boundries, again, how do you propose to select a leader? If the people cant choose, do we wait for a revelation from God saying that So and So is your leader? Thats what Rashid Khalifa did. It got him killed.
-
Salaamun alaikum Jaxal,
Brother, When you do completel your research then plz share it with me.
Insha Allah, but what imho you might want to look at first is HOW al-quraan explains itself. This is a foundational issue, Jaxal. Al-quraan has a systematic way of attaching meaning to its text.
My grandfather was a general during the war of 1947 in the army. When pakistan seperated, my Grandfather was fighting the war. No doubt he did many great things for his country and no doubt he killed many enemies. But he is no president. On the other hand, Muhammad Ali Jinah and Mahatma Ghandi who were both opposed to the violence became the leaders. What you saying is that you expect the same conditions to be in place. From the time David did this, up to now, how many times have the conditions been the same? And how many times have the people who fought for their country bacame leaders? Plenty. But not ALL who killed armies became leaders. Very very few.
Ok, this is your experience and I am only privy to it via this statement above. However, from this itself I can see the dissimiliarity with the Quranic story of David and Jalut which is, David was fighting for Bani Israil, the Muslims of the time, Muslims according to Allah anyway. Can we say the same for Pakistan?
So if an ummah doesnt have no geographical boundries, again, how do you propose to select a leader? If the people cant choose, do we wait for a revelation from God saying that So and So is your leader? Thats what Rashid Khalifa did. It got him killed.
You don't select the leader, the leader selects you by preaching and demonstrating to you the ayaat of Allah.
As for RK, he betrayed the messenger role by having 'extra revelations' (this is the submitters own admission) and his own night journey. So if you ask me, RK's a good example of what happens to you if betray Allah. However, you have to note that all this is history and has nothing to do with our own experience with Allah.
-
SaLaM mquran
Can we say the same for Pakistan
Yes ofcourse mquran. I mean now, i dont have a very high opinoin of Pakistan. But back in 1947, these people were fighting for their freedom. Freedom from british, freedom from the hindus. So yes, at that time, i will say yes, it IS the same. But not now. Now Pakistan is just crap. ( really sorry if anyone from pakistan. I dont mean to offend you, just the country ).
You don't select the leader, the leader selects you by preaching and demonstrating to you the ayaat of Allah.
Ok mquran, Just walk me through the proccess that is in your head. I mean, ok there is a large ummah of muslims without a leader. How will they have a leader now. Just take me step by step.
As for RK, he betrayed the messenger role by having 'extra revelations' (this is the submitters own admission) and his own night journey
Is this whre he said he went to a miraj or something? Where each previous prophet looked at him and said yes he is the one? To be honest, it makes me tremble with fear how someone can say such lies. I mean, lieing about a messengership. Just like people twist the word of God to eat pork or drink alcohol. I guess, if RK WAS lieing, then he had it comming.
-
Salaam Aleikum MQuran,
Interesting discussion on democracy. I return to the forum after a long absence. I have never see you so much irritated in the past.
Democracy is the system created by the Elite of the society to keep the stupid masses under their control.
Edip has the habit of running away from the debates with excuse that he has no time. Edip if you don't have time stop posting on internet and starting new topics.
-
Salaamun alaikum KGB,
I find it very strange that a man like Edip,who has far more guts than myself and outed himself long ago, can turn his analytical skills towards Sunnism with devastating effect yet has no problem accepting terms like 'democracy'. Democracy, as used normatively is utter rejection of Allah's soveriegnity. Edip's bravado against the Sunnis inspired me before and seeing his obvious dogmatism against 'monarchy' against even Aidid Safar's thoughts was disappointing.
I await his book because then his thoughts will be on plain paper for all to see.
-
Democracy is the system created by the Elite of the society to keep the stupid masses under their control.
So what are you then? since you can't be part of the "stupid masses" as you say! Are you the Elite also?
Democracy is goverments by the People for the People - is that not such a noble idea of government?
But Democracy is indeed flawed and in practice Democracy tend to be elected Dictatorship. Democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority on the Minority. Democracy can never be an Utopia. Democracy is the best of the worst types of Government. But the one good thing about a Elected Dictatorship is that there is possibility of removing those in power from their job by peaceful means.
Although Democracy is best of the worst types of governments, it has been very successful in delivering economic prosperity and personal liberty to the individuals. And those have adopted democracy and principles of liberty, like defeated nation Japan have achieved spectacular results.
But it is true also that economic prosperity in itself is not good indicator of good government, but democracy does give personal liberty and freedom of thought to the individual as opposed to dictatorship where you could have your head chopped off for speaking your mind!
I like to believe that democracy is flawed because human beings are flawed. Perhaps because of the flaws that democracy is appealing to humanity.
But as I said before democracy and principles of liberty serves humanity best. So I say work with democracy to make it serve humanity better.
Regards,
-
Lote Tree,
I am working class person. Dictatorship or Kingdom really doesn't matter if the Dictator or King is working for the benefit the the poor common person. I am sick of listening this propaganda that democracy is the ideal system and all the Arab world must follow the western democracy which only works for the Rich and well connected people of the society.
Dr. Mahathir Muhammad is an good example to me what a sincere and honest leader can do for the nation and its people.
