How to establish an ideal Quranic state/country?
-
This is the way an ultimate state as per the recitation to Muhammad is governed if you can see it by studying it. If one is wealthy they spend it to improve society and everyone works in the cause of God and improving society. The community owns it all together.
-
I believe it is not much about the system , but about who control the system
and I believe we need a system to represent "Muhammad" , because it is hardly to find one like "Muhammad"
. . .
Therefore, the issue is how to create this controlling system , and which can ensure balance and justice ?
-
Can this system ensure balance and justice ?
http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-qlZ3TvjlwdU/TV9ntGPViZI/AAAAAAAABR8/UsO2AfMbfKA/s1600/caliphate%2Bconcept.gif
Doesn't look like it can establish justice , especially when it is falling into the wrong hands. . . .
- take note, the judiciary is under the control of the head of state (executive) and the house representatives (legislative)
-
for example, according to priority. .
-
Al-Quran as the Constitution Supremacy of the Quran
(on the balance and justice or humanity, not on the hablum minallah, and priority over the prohibition than the command), then. . -
To establish fair election and governance system, self controlling all the institutions for achieving the objectives in the constitution.
-
The objective to achieve balance and justice, then. .
-
The objective to achieve human unity, peace and harmony, then. .
-
The objective to promote spirituality and healthy living, rational thinking and proper educational system, free from any influence, then. .
-
The objective to build fair economy, fair income distributions and opportunity, free from corruption and manipulation, elimination of poverty etc, then. .
-
The objective to promote freedom and protection way of life for the "society", and balance against those of the individual, then. .
-
To promote freedom of religion and denominations as private practices and rights, protection from sedition and fanaticism, and priority to practices from the ijma/consensus of opinions and secularism, then. .
-
. . .
-
. . .
and so on. .
and maybe one can then draft the constitution, and set up a society or cooperation for testing the system.
-
-
Thank you and I believe this is the priority listed in the draft constitution.
Supremacy of the Quran, then. . .
- Freedom Of Speech
- Freedom Of Faith
- Freedom Of Movement
- Right To Privacy
- Right To Possess Wealth
- Right To Welfare
- Right To Equality
- Right To Seek Justice
- Right To Representation In Government
the objective
We, the people of , hereby enter into a covenant with God,
to establish a republic <- mission
to promote justice,
" " fairness,
" " equality,
" " freedom," " and the pursuit of security <- objective
" " and happiness for all. -
I believe this is the formula given by Allah
The formula to build the Ummah . . .
It is He who has sent among the unlettered <- today's Muslim Ummah, because they don't read the Quran
a Messenger from themselves- reciting to them His verses and <- The Plan supremacy, balance, unity, rational thinking and true knowledge
- purifying them and <- The Foundation sense perception, health, awareness, spirituality, wealth and economy
- teaching them the Book <- The Mechanism system, governance, self controlling institution, free from corruption etc
- and wisdom <- The Implementation balance and unity, establishment of an institution to support "wisdom", excellence!
although they were before in clear error
(622)For purposes of balance and unity, the freedom of speech etc come after "wisdom". The foundation must first be right (the process in Mecca).
The main objective is. . . wisdom for balance and unity.
-
Maybe we should start small, with like a quran-alone village, and God-willing go from there...
I too would say go for community first.
-
Quranic theocracy?
-
Supremacy of the Quran, then. . .
- Freedom Of Speech
- Freedom Of Faith
- Freedom Of Movement
- Right To Privacy
- Right To Possess Wealth
- Right To Welfare
- Right To Equality
- Right To Seek Justice
- Right To Representation In Government
https//encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcQM91UWMzk3Co0s24e6zPpY2oF0SkUc1Tr-_1-GopAgj1RhEpzA
https//encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcR0cpuMvSm6oF5OiANtyLuwWTdoUHcfbq8f3oZhQq8q8QjJ_MNl
-
Some people might abuse freedom to control the society etc. . this is normal, and people cannot have freedom if they want justice.
Therefore between "freedom" and "justice" , which one should be given priority ?
How can people balance between these two ?
-
Um, I think you're confusing 'freedom' with 'avoiding responsibility' (actually everybody does maybe). Real freedom in a society would mean yes you can all do what you want BUT you must suffer the consequences/take responsibility. This would then be justice IMO.
-
For example. this is freedom, but it is unjust.
Consuming Kids - The Commercialization of Childhood
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hIAvD0hx_E
It can also be used as a tool for creating a brainwashed society, ie. "No Freedom".
I think what you need is to establish which freedom you mean. Do you mean freedom from or freedom to?
http//www.ditext.com/feinberg/1.html There is more than just what is below in that link.
- FREEDOM FROM... AND FREEDOM TO...
When a speaker asserts that he is free, he might know quite clearly what he is free to do. but be quite vague about what constraint he is free from. Perhaps all he means to convey is that nothing now prevents him from doing X, in which case the intended emphasis of his remark is on the option now open to him, and no specific descriptions of missing constraints are necessary to fill out his meaning. As we have seen, if the X in question is something most of us are normally free to do anyway, we may be puzzled by the speaker's remark until he specifies more narrowly which former constraint to his desire to do X has now been removed. When this puzzlement does not arise, no description of specific missing constraints is required for clarity.
On other occasions, the primary or exclusive emphasis of a speaker's assertion of freedom may rest on a specific missing constraint. He may, for example, claim to "be free" simply because one hated barrier to a given desire has been lifted, even though other barriers to that same desire still remain. All of the emphasis of his remark is thus on the removed constraint, and his newly asserted freedom does not imply that he can yet do any more than he formerly could. He is free from one barrier to his doing X, and that may seem to be blessed relief from an oppressive burden, but he may still be unable to do X. In an extreme limiting case, a speaker may have no concern with future actions whatever, and the existence of new alternatives for choice may be no part of his intended meaning when he asserts that he is free from C. He may be exclusively preoccupied with the removal of some odious condition, quite apart from any effect that removal might have on his other desires or options. He may simply hate his chains and conceive his "freedom" to consist entirely in their removal. In this not uncommon case, freedom from. . . implies no new freedom to. . . other than the freedom of being without the specific thing one is said to be free from.
More typically, when we use the language of missing constraint, we imply that there is something we want to do (or might come to want to do), that the constraint prevents us from doing, and that to be free from that constraint is to be able to do it. In the typicalt case, then, "freedom from" and "freedom to" are two sides of the same coin, each involved with the other, and not two radically distinct kinds of freedom, as some writers have suggested. Indeed, it is difficult fully to characterize a given constraint without mentioning the desires it does or can constrain (that is, desires other than the exclusive desire to be relieved of it). The man outside of divorce court who tells us that he is now free (presumably from the woman who was his wife) has not communicated much until he specifies which desires he can now satisfy that he could not satisfy when he was married. Without this further specification, we know only that he is without a wife and quite happy about it; but then, as we have seen, that may be all that he had in mind when he said that he was free.
At any given time, a person is free to do some things but not free to do others, just as he may be free of one kind of constraint to a given desire but not free of another. To ask whether a person is "free" without any further specification, may demand a long and detailed answer. (Of course, the context usually gives clues to the particular desires and constraints being inquired about.) The situation is even more obscure when political partisans campaign for "freedom," or freedom as qualified by some adjective. Maurice Cranston quite rightly advises us to "call for the full version of all such abbreviated slogans."10
The full version of conceptually elliptical statements about freedom will normally take the form indicated in the following schema
---------is free from---------
to do (or omit, or be, or have) ---------------.One fills in the first blank by naming the person (or persons) who is the subject of the ascribed freedom, the second blank by specifying some compulsion, or constant, and the third blank by the specification of some action, omission, state of being, or possession actually or hypothetically desired either by the subject or the speaker. (Note all the sources of ambiguity in this formula!) If it is political freedom that is ascribed to the subject, then the constraint will be coercion, and the fullest version of the statement will specify riot only the technique of constraint employed but also (in a fourth blank) the identity of the coercers. Which blank in the schema is the most important depends on the context in which a given statement is made, and what is assumed to be understood by the persons addressed.
-
I think what you need is to establish which freedom you mean. Do you mean freedom from or freedom to?
http//www.ditext.com/feinberg/1.html There is more than just what is below in that link.
Thank you Jane, and it is not really about that issue.
It is about the draft constitution, since they have mentioned about "freedom" without "clear objective" and "control".
Thank you and I believe this is the priority listed in the draft constitution.
Supremacy of the Quran, then. . .
- Freedom Of Speech
- Freedom Of Faith
- Freedom Of Movement
The objective only mentioned about "the pursuit of security and happiness for all", and this is ambiguous, especially when reading with "freedom".
Therefore, I was sorting out the priority between these two. . the priority. For example.
http//i57.tinypic.com/mreavk.gif
I believe the objective for equity and unity should be the main priority and be stated clearly at the beginning. Any concept of freedom shall be subjected within this context, ie. in "the pursuit of achieving equity and human unity" (cause), and not in "the pursuit of security and happiness for all" (effect). This is unreasonable objective since some people will never feel secure or happy even if they have everything in this world. . .
Further, please also take note that "fitnah" is also about "freedom"
and fitnah is worse than killing (2.191)