islam and barbarity

[Riverwolf]

Did you even read the part I purposely boldened, which shows that according to the Qur'an, the ẖukm (power of legislation/command) lies only with Allah, and no-one else? This applies to "divinities" and humans, as walā aẖadan (وَلا أَحَدًا ) literally means "not with anyone." Again, I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

I can see the line of thinking. However:

Yes, that's obvious. Hence, the concept of a Khilāfa (an Islamic pseudo-theocracy based on fiqh) is generally supported by many Islamists.

Also isn't in line with your interpretation of that verse.

If your interpretation is true, than no form of government is compatible with Islam.

Seeing as civilization would simply not exist without some form of government, I doubt that was the intention.

That's the point I'm trying to make regarding Islam and democracy being incompatible. If you actually read my post before commenting, you would have noticed that I wrote the following sentence:

"the Qur'an does not support a democracy, but instead equates it with kufr/shirk"

I did read it. NEVER just assume your post wasn't read just because it may not have been understood or the person disagrees. After all, yes Allah has final say in the Qur'an, but as he's not taking part in politics, that's not really relevant from a practical perspective save from what's contained in the Qur'an.

What is kufr/shirk, anyway? I've never heard the English word "shirk" used as a noun.

In Islam, tawhid encompasses more than just "monotheism" in the religious sense. For example, the majority of Christians believe in a Triune-God and classify themselves as monotheists, yet according to the vast majority of traditional Muslims, this would not constitute proper tawhid and is considered a form of shirk, this is stated explicitly within the Qur'an:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ ۖ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ ۚ انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا

Translation: "O people (يَا أَهْل&#1614 [of] the book (الْكِتَاب&#1616 do not (لَ&#1575 commit excess (تَغْلُو&#1575 in (فِ&#1610 your religion (دِينِكُم&#1618 nor (وَلَ&#1575 speak (تَقُولُو&#1575 about (عَلَ&#1609 Allah (اللَّه&#1616 except (إِلَّ&#1575 the truth (الْحَقَ&#1617 [that] the Masih [i.e. Moshiach/Messiah] (الْمَسِيح&#1615 Isa/Jesus (عِيسَ&#1609,the son (ابْن&#1615 of Mary (مَرْيَم&#1614 [was] only (إِنَّمَ&#1575 a messenger (رَسُول&#1615 of Allah (اللَّه&#1616 and his words (وَكَلِمَتُه&#1615 which he spoke (أَلْقَاهَ&#1575 to (إِلَى&#1648 Mary (مَرْيَم&#1614 and a spirit (وَرُوح&#1612 from him. (مِّنْه&#1615 [Therefore], believe (فَآمِنُو&#1575 in Allah (بِاللَّه&#1616 and [his] messengers (وَرُسُلِه&#1616 and don't (وَلَ&#1575 say (تَقُولُو&#1575 "of three" [i.e. trinity] (ثَلَاثَة&#1612: desist (انتَهُو&#1575, [it] is better (خَيْرً&#1575 for you (لَّكُم&#1618. Allah (اللَّه&#1615 alone (إِنَّمَ&#1575 is God (إِلَٰهٌ the one (وَاحِد&#1612 [who is] exalted/glorified above (سُبْحَانَه&#1615 [the concept] that he (أَ&#1606 should have (يَكُون&#1614 for him (لَه&#1615 a child ( ۘوَلَد&#1612. To him [belongs] (لَّه&#1615 whatever exists (مَ&#1575 in (فِ&#1610 the heavens (السَّمَاوَات&#1616 and (وَمَ&#1575 on (فِ&#1610 the earth (الْأَرْض&#1616. Allah [alone] (بِاللَّه&#1616 is sufficient (وَكَفَى&#1648 [as a] manager of affairs (وَكِيلً&#1575."
-Qur'an 4.171

Similarly, just as most traditional Muslims classify the belief in the Christian trinity as shirk (idolatry), even though it is still "monotheistic" [which, come to think about it, is not very different from Judaism, where many schools of Halakha also classify trinitarianism as Avodah Zarah], the majority of traditional Muslims also generally take the view that giving legislation to any individual other than Allah is a form of major shirk (idolatry) and according to the some of the more strict schools (such as the Hanbali maddhab), taking part in voting and/or actively letting yourself take part in being governed by the the will of the majority rather than the Qur'an and Sunnah is a tantamount transgression which could possibly make you a Munạfiq (hypocrite). Some topics, such as Shi'as doing tawassul at the graves of Imams are somewhat controversial (some view it as Bid'ah others view it as Shirk), but practically every orthodox Islamic scholar I've met agrees that supporting democracy is idolatry from an Islamic perspective.

Free tip: people filter jargon. Just use English.

I think I see the key phrase: taking part in voting... rather than the Qur'an and Sunnah. (What about the Hadith? Or Qur'an-only Muslims?)

IOW, if the will of the people goes against the Qur'an (and any accepted ancillary works), then it doesn't work. If it doesn't contradict the Qur'an, then there shouldn't be a problem.

'Sides, democracy isn't about the people having the final say. Someone else still does.

Perhaps therein lies the problem?

Perhaps.

Really? I thought it was quite repetitive, especially regarding hell/Jahannam. It seemed like much of the text (or should I say, recitation) was little more than scare-tactic based propaganda, although this is just my opinion. As much as I dislike Islam though, I don't think it's right to misinterpret it (or make claims to the effect of Islam being inherently compatible with democracy).

And I don't think I'm misrepresenting it.

I translated the previous ayah which I cited word for word, so how is this relevant at all? In addition, if you are unsure, you could always check the Pickthall or Yusuf Ali translation online (they're pretty common, really).

Yusuf Ali's is the translation I have, and it's my favorite. Your word-for-word translation, however, is unnecessarily difficult to follow.

 

[McBell]

No, I do not. I can't tell whether you're trolling or just simply being ignorant. My beliefs about the US Government have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. The topic at hand is the relationship between shirk and supporting democracy in regards to Islam.

You claim that the verse you quoted talking about Allah sharing his command to democracy and yet cannot fathom how someone might take that to mean you think that the US Government is sharing Allah's power?

Seems you are not intelligent enough to have an honest discussion with.
My fault.
Carry on.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe in your PC-fantasy world.

And who are you to determine that it's based on such a fantasy that I've drawn such a conclusion? After all, my PC-fantasy is that all PCs will someday break away from the clutches of Microsoft software and embrace the wonderful world of open-source. Kind of unrelated to a time period when computers were either people or 100% aberrant mechanical contrivances only used by uber-geeks.

Tabari

Never heard of it.

But if human behavior hasn't changed much in 1400 years (and every bit of research I do in history and cultural anthropology indicates to me that it hasn't), then I can assume that, seeing the other side as an enemy, they both oppressed each other as enemies.

Oh, and for the record, I am not my argument.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

What is kufr/shirk, anyway? I've never heard the English word "shirk" used as a noun.

Shirk is the Islamic term for idolatry.

Free tip: people filter jargon. Just use English.

Some terms don't translate into English appropriately, such as the term tawhid, as I mentioned before.

I think I see the key phrase: taking part in voting... rather than the Qur'an and Sunnah. (What about the Hadith? Or Qur'an-only Muslims?)

The ahadith are part of the Sunnah of Muhammad and Qur'anists are not traditional Muslims, so how are they relevant when I clearly stated that "the majority of traditional Muslims also generally take the view that giving legislation to any individual other than Allah is a form of major shirk (idolatry)."

IOW, if the will of the people goes against the Qur'an (and any accepted ancillary works), then it doesn't work. If it doesn't contradict the Qur'an, then there shouldn't be a problem.

This may work in an Islamic Democratic-Republic constitutionally bound to the Sunnah and the Qur'an, although since there's no explicit consent for such a practice it would
be considered Taghut and hence by nature self-contradictory:

What! have they partners (in godhead), who have established for them some religion without the permission of Allah? Had it not been for the Decree of Judgment, the matter would have been decided between them (at once). But verily the Wrong-doers will have a grievous Penalty. - Qur'an 42:21

'Sides, democracy isn't about the people having the final say. Someone else still does.

You do realize that very few states are true democracies, right? True democracies operate on little more than mob rule, and usually lead to either radical-libertarian-ism/anarchism or Socialism. The US, as you stated yourself, not a true democracy.

Yusuf Ali's is the translation I have, and it's my favorite. Your word-for-word translation, however, is unnecessarily difficult to follow.

I translated the text word-by-word to provide a more literal translation (i.e. to prove a point), not for literary clarity (which I personally could care less about). To each his own...

And who are you to determine that it's based on such a fantasy that I've drawn such a conclusion? After all, my PC-fantasy is that all PCs will someday break away from the clutches of Microsoft software and embrace the wonderful world of open-source. Kind of unrelated to a time period when computers were either people or 100% aberrant mechanical contrivances only used by uber-geeks.

By PC, I meant politically-correct, not personal-computer.

Never heard of it.
But if human behavior hasn't changed much in 1400 years (and every bit of research I do in history and cultural anthropology indicates to me that it hasn't), then I can assume that, seeing the other side as an enemy, they both oppressed each other as enemies.
Oh, and for the record, I am not my argument.

What is this, I don't even....

You claim that the verse you quoted talking about Allah sharing his command to democracy and yet cannot fathom how someone might take that to mean you think that the US Government is sharing Allah's power?
Seems you are not intelligent enough to have an honest discussion with.
My fault.
Carry on.

Perhaps I need to be a bit more explicit. I'm not a Muslim, so my opinion does not matter in this situation, as I don't believe Allah exists. I am merely reiterating the traditional Qur'anic interpretation among the four maddhab-s of fiqh. According to them, supporting a governmental system which goes against the laws of Allah is tantamount to ignoring or downplaying "Allah's" hukm and setting up partners with Allah (i.e. shirk). Hence, democracy is considered kufr by most traditional Muslims. If you can't understand something so simple, then why should I even take the effort to respond to your questions?

 

[Riverwolf]

Shirk is the Islamic term for idolatry.

Then say idolatry.

Some terms don't translate into English appropriately, such as the term tawhid, as I mentioned before.

Then try to phrase your sentences so you don't have to use jargon. (Speaking as an ex-Hindu, I understand how that can be very difficult.)

The ahadith are part of the Sunnah of Muhammad and Qur'anists are not traditional Muslims, so how are they relevant when I clearly stated that "the majority of traditional Muslims also generally take the view that giving legislation to any individual other than Allah is a form of major shirk (idolatry)."

I thought we were talking about Islam itself, not what the majority of Muslims think.

This may work in an Islamic Democratic-Republic constitutionally bound to the Sunnah and the Qur'an, although since there's no explicit consent for such a practice it would
be considered Taghut and hence by nature self-contradictory:

What! have they partners (in godhead), who have established for them some religion without the permission of Allah? Had it not been for the Decree of Judgment, the matter would have been decided between them (at once). But verily the Wrong-doers will have a grievous Penalty. - Qur'an 42:21

But we're not talking about religion; we're talking about government. That verse speaks about religion.

So, still I fail to see a problem.

You do realize that very few states are true democracies, right? True democracies operate on little more than mob rule, and usually lead to either radical-libertarian-ism/anarchism or Socialism. The US, as you stated yourself, not a true democracy.

Indeed, I have. I should have been more specific: in that statement, I meant a democracy in the more general sense of its practice (that is, in combination with other forms of government, such as Republic in the US's case), rather than true democracy.

I translated the text word-by-word to provide a more literal translation (i.e. to prove a point), not for literary clarity (which I personally could care less about). To each his own...

Well, as I tend to get hung up on literary clarity, your point has been lost on me.

By PC, I meant politically-correct, not personal-computer.

I figured as much. Just thought I'd try to make it clear how much I care about political correctness (a term that frankly doesn't even really mean anything.)

What is this, I don't even....

Care to explain where I lost you?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

But we're not talking about religion; we're talking about government. That verse speaks about religion.

Ah, but you don't seem to realize that the term dīn (دي&#1606 can refer to either religion or law as in Islam, religion and law are completely intertwined. Similar cognates can be found in other Semitic languages, for example the Hebrew word דִין. This example in itself is a word which when translated can lose some of its overal linguistic meaning via translation, especially when looking at an intensely political religion like Islam via a modern day secular lens through which judicial matters and religious matters are viewed as completely distinct. Ironically, the term religion comes from the Latin term "religio," as in the term religio Romanorum, or the Roman Religion, which by the time of the second-triumvirate had become highly politicized.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ah, but you don't seem to realize that the term dīn (دي&#1606 can refer to either religion or law as in Islam, religion and law are completely intertwined. Similar cognates can be found in other Semitic languages, for example the Hebrew word דִין. This example in itself is a word which when translated can lose some of its overal linguistic meaning via translation, especially when looking at an intensely political religion like Islam via a modern day secular lens through which judicial matters and religious matters are viewed as completely distinct.

Fair enough.

Nevertheless, I still fail to see how it would contradict the Qur'an if a Democratic-Republic were still constitutionally bound to it.

Furthermore, I still fail to see how a separation of church and state democracy would force Muslims living in such places to basically violate the Qur'an, as you seem to be arguing.

 

[Monotheist 101]

opcorn:

I like it when non-muslims discuss Islam and the Quran..

 

[Riverwolf]

opcorn:

I like it when non-muslims discuss Islam and the Quran..

Am I mistaken somewhere? If so, please show me and explain. I've already admitted my own general ignorance of the Qur'an, and am trying to be careful to point out that I'm seeing something (or not seeing something), rather than stating how things are.

 

[Assad91]

Am I mistaken somewhere? If so, please show me and explain. I've already admitted my own general ignorance of the Qur'an, and am trying to be careful to point out that I'm seeing something (or not seeing something), rather than stating how things are.

No, you're good.

The extremist viewpoint being vomited here is nonsense.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps I need to be a bit more explicit. I'm not a Muslim, so my opinion does not matter in this situation, as I don't believe Allah exists. I am merely reiterating the traditional Qur'anic interpretation among the four maddhab-s of fiqh. According to them, supporting a governmental system which goes against the laws of Allah is tantamount to ignoring or downplaying "Allah's" hukm and setting up partners with Allah (i.e. shirk). Hence, democracy is considered kufr by most traditional Muslims. If you can't understand something so simple, then why should I even take the effort to respond to your questions?

and you claim *I* am the one trolling?

Wow.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

No, you're good.
The extremist viewpoint being vomited here is nonsense.

Are you upset that I mentioned that most traditional Sunnis view the Shi'a concept of tawassul at the graves of Imams as bid'ah and also view democracy as a form of major shirk? That's natural, but I honestly can't do anything about that if the facts themselves are "Islamophobic":

"Large majorities in the Muslim world want the Islamic legal and moral code of sharia as the official law in their countries, but they disagree on what it includes and who should be subject to it, an extensive new survey says."

and you claim *I* am the one trolling?

Wow.

Yes, as I am trying to look at the concept of "shirk" in Islam and it's relation to governmental systems from an un-biased perspective (with regards to the Qur'an and Sunnah), whereas you are tangentially asking for my opinion on the US Government despite the fact that it has no relation to the conversation as well as the fact that I am not a Muslim, so my personal opinions are of no relevance. In addition, I have provided Qur'anic citations to back up my claim, whereas you haven't made any attempt to do so. If you can't maintain a certain degree of intellectual honesty/integrity, and would rather resort to ad-hominem attacks, then you are free to do so. However, don't expect me to respond seriously to your comments henceforth. (sorry if I sound hostile; I don't mean it that way).

 

[Monotheist 101]

"Large majorities in the Muslim world want the Islamic legal and moral code of sharia as the official law in their countries, but they disagree on what it includes and who should be subject to it, an extensive new survey says."

Who uses quotation marks without a reference? (A name of that "extensive" survey would suffice)

Do you mind me asking if you are Sikh..Mr.Singh..and do you hail from the punjab region of India?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Who uses quotation marks without a reference? (A name of that "extensive" survey would suffice)

The quote apparently [originally] comes from the 14-pg. poll The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society by the PEW Research, Religion, and Public Life Project (I would give a direct link to the site, although I haven't made 15 posts yet, so just bear with copy-pasting it into the browser): goo.gl\sRnDuW
However, I got the quote from the article Muslim world want Sharia as law of land from GeoTV: goo.gl\y6HLX7

Do you mind me asking if you are Sikh..Mr.Singh..and do you hail from the punjab region of India?

Would it really matter to you either way?

P.S. I PM'ed you about it in case you are interested...

 

[Assad91]

Are you upset that I mentioned that most traditional Sunnis view the Shi'a concept of tawassul at the graves of Imams as bid'ah and also view democracy as a form of major shirk?

Actually, I am familiar with what extremist swear on tawassul and democracy.

No matter who is personally spewing extremist rhetoric, its still wrong.