Democratization of Islam

[Inquisitor]

The Videos that I posted were about Liberal Democracy and its weaknesses

I Ask You Guys To Not Talk Politics in This Forum!

Ayatollah Modares: Diyanat e ma eyn e siyasat e mast va siyasat e ma eyn e diyanat e ma.

If this is forum rules, I will stop here.

Ya Ali (as)

[donsaeid]

ya hagh! talk politics here!

http://www.tapesh.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=17

[zubin]

Communism is very obvious and you know their thoughts toward the "God"

------------------------------------------------------------

If one of the tenets of Shia Islam were to be abolished such as "Adl" (justice) or Imamat then it would no longer be Shia Islam.

If one of the concept of trinity had to be removed, then it is no longer Catholicism.

Since the topic is about Islam and nationalism/Democracy, I try not to go off topic by explaining the other elements, and will only point out important facts.

Islam has a greater goal of universal unity; alien is he who that believes not in the Islamic teachings, not one who is born in a certain land! Thus unity is based on intellect. Such a unity has a potential to become universal where as a nationalistic or similar ideologies are unable to avoid division! Islamic Republic of Iran is by no means pro nationalism! What binds Moslems together is invisible to the eye and untouchable by physical means.

Nationalism is based on animal instincts! Such as love of home/mother land, love of blood/family. It is all emotions and not reason, Afghanistan was part of Iran one day; why is it that today Afghans are not Iranian anymore? Who defined the boarders with what authority and what intentions? Imperialism and capitalism both have roots in nationalism.

What is the true freedom, freedom in unity or freedom in division and individualism?

We need unity; this unity must not be based on animal instincts or anything lower than intellect

A nationalist person supports his nation, eventhough if his nation is evil and have commited a mass geonocide. For example,(Turkey, Armenia) (Japan,China)


Example: “Salman Farsi was from Iran, but Muhammad (pbuh) of Arabia and Ali (as) of Hashimi tribe called him a member of their Household. But Abu-Lahab, Abu-Jahl and Abu-Sufyan who were pure Arabs were banished from the new society and governments, and were considered aliens in spite of the national, racial, and tribal connections.”

Remember that Allah (swt) is the highest of all, in Islam freedom and everything else is lower than God. We cannot worship freedom like some people do in the west!

We know that human was created to worship and know God, if it is not the one God that you are worshiping something else.
worship is not limited to a particular time and place! Worship of something means to love and to follow and step towards that thing! for instance to worship power, money, fame, flag...

It will be a long discussion ..... I better stop now

Inshallah my next post will be regarding Islam and Secular Democracy and why we oppose it ?

Wassalam

I did not understand this post. You seem to be assuming that nationalism is an absolute concept, though it can be viewed as a necessary, temporary concept such as "know thyself" before...

I'm not sure I understand how polities that you term "Western" negate the laws of God. First, most of the ideologies from the West are not "Western". Many of them borrow concepts from ancient Eastern cultures (for example socialist democracy is similar to Islamic concept of "demos", ie consultation with the people). Second, how does any ideology negate God except for some exceptions such as some forms of communism? (there is such a thing as spiritual communism and socialism)

[donsaeid]

I did not understand this post. You seem to be assuming that nationalism is an absolute concept, though it can be viewed as a necessary, temporary concept such as "know thyself" before...

I'm not sure I understand how polities that you term "Western" negate the laws of God. First, most of the ideologies from the West are not "Western". Many of them borrow concepts from ancient Eastern cultures (for example socialist democracy is similar to Islamic concept of "demos", ie consultation with the people). Second, how does any ideology negate God except for some exceptions such as some forms of communism? (there is such a thing as spiritual communism and socialism)

Good to see you back joubin we need your opinions hope to see more of them

[Inquisitor]

Define me absolute and non-existence ?

There has always been a discussion in philosophy on whether essence predates existence or the other way around. There are some who deny existence and only care for existent, because one refers to absolute and unity, the other refers to multiplications and division.

Their world view thrives on numbers and distinctions, while my world view relies on singularity, unity and similarity.

When I say "West", it means the system that they represent which we call it Liberal Democracy or Secular .... .

Just like when I say: "Islam", It doesn't mean Saudi Arabia.

I did not understand this post. You seem to be assuming that nationalism is an absolute concept, though it can be viewed as a necessary, temporary concept such as "know thyself" before...

I'm not sure I understand how polities that you term "Western" negate the laws of God. First, most of the ideologies from the West are not "Western". Many of them borrow concepts from ancient Eastern cultures (for example socialist democracy is similar to Islamic concept of "demos", ie consultation with the people). Second, how does any ideology negate God except for some exceptions such as some forms of communism? (there is such a thing as spiritual communism and socialism)

By the way, I do not promote west or east. You should know this ( Na sharghi na Gharbi Faghat Jomhouri e Eslami)

Neither east nor west, West abandoned belief for reason & East abandoned reason for a belief. Shia Philosophy has both of them (Reason & Belief), no one can oppose us.

[Inquisitor]

Regarding the idea of council

(for example socialist democracy is similar to Islamic concept of "demos", ie consultation with the people). Second, how does any ideology negate God except for some exceptions such as some forms of communism? (there is such a thing as spiritual communism and socialism)

When a problem arises that you alone can not find answers for it, you seek help of others; suppose you wanted to know what a certain disease is? What would you do? You will go and ask a doctor and it would be better if you asked a specialised doctor who may know more than others with regards to your question.

It would be a waste of time if you stopped by any passer and asked him your question. You have to narrow down your selection of people worthy of being asked your question; otherwise you may not even get your answer.

In Democracy as well as Shia Theocracy, council is very important. Suppose there were a small group of 20 people, who wanted to decide what should be next regarding a certain issue. They would vote! Even though the vote of some people may be of no real use, since they do not have the knowledge to vote for truth. Suppose these 20 people wanted to decide what colour they should use to paint their homes. Now if there is no rational reason to select any certain colour and that intellectually, no single colour would be better or worse than others, then it would be a simple matter of taste, so a vote would work just fine. However if the problem was with regards to something that required knowledge then vote of those who have no knowledge of the subject would be of no use and in fact damaging to the progress of the whole group towards truth and perfection.

“When there are too many answers, the true one remains hidden!” Imam Ali (as)

[Inquisitor]

“When there are too many answers, the true one remains hidden!” Imam Ali (as)

Just look at the wisdom of Ali (as)! Indeed this means that not everyone knows the truth, especially when questions become more and more complex. We need to select those of us who we deem to be worthy and knowledgeable to guide us.

In a Democracy that has too many people, it is not possible to ask everyone their opinions with regards to every single question, so people choose their representatives.
Even in Democracy you can not see anyone in the council who has fundamentally different values to the system or the rest of members. Members of the parliament must accept the values of democracy as they are and respect every single foundation of this belief system. Otherwise they are unworthy or undemocratic to be presented in the governmental establishment.

This is similar in Shia Theocracy however Shia has devised superior plans in selecting one who can guide and the system is far too complex than anything else known to man today!...

[mike435]

When a problem arises that you alone can not find answers for it, you seek help of others; suppose you wanted to know what a certain disease is? What would you do? You will go and ask a doctor and it would be better if you asked a specialised doctor who may know more than others with regards to your question.

It would be a waste of time if you stopped by any passer and asked him your question. You have to narrow down your selection of people worthy of being asked your question; otherwise you may not even get your answer.

In Democracy as well as Shia Theocracy, council is very important. Suppose there were a small group of 20 people, who wanted to decide what should be next regarding a certain issue. They would vote! Even though the vote of some people may be of no real use, since they do not have the knowledge to vote for truth. Suppose these 20 people wanted to decide what colour they should use to paint their homes. Now if there is no rational reason to select any certain colour and that intellectually, no single colour would be better or worse than others, then it would be a simple matter of taste, so a vote would work just fine. However if the problem was with regards to something that required knowledge then vote of those who have no knowledge of the subject would be of no use and in fact damaging to the progress of the whole group towards truth and perfection.

“When there are too many answers, the true one remains hidden!” Imam Ali (as)

look man relligion can never work for a government
never ever

best example is israel
jews tend to be very united regardless of relligios affliation
yet even the sate of ISRAEL a jewish state could not survive if it was a theocrocy

look every human being has a diffrent aspiration you cannot supress a persons aspiration the only time that it works with moderate sucess in during teenage years and with a lot of diciplin (army)

that is why communisum faild, sociolisom, nationalism, theocrocy list goes on and on
and the only reason democorocy or secularism has some sucess is becuse you volantary for go you natural aspiration for ideal socioty in return that others aspiration wont step on your aspiration

[Inquisitor]

yet even the sate of ISRAEL a jewish state could not survive if it was a theocracy

We do not recognize Israel as a state, let alone a Jewish one. Indeed, if it was theocracy, they would wait for the return of Messiah.

A moderator (donsaeid) told me not to talk about Politics in religion sub-forum, so I suggest you to focus on Islam and Democracy in this thread.

By the way my respond was to Joubin, because he said: for example socialist democracy is similar to Islamic concept of "demos", ie consultation with the people.

And your post was completely off topic.

Wassalam

[zubin]

Define me absolute and non-existence ?

There has always been a discussion in philosophy on whether essence predates existence or the other way around. There are some who deny existence and only care for existent, because one refers to absolute and unity, the other refers to multiplications and division.

Their world view thrives on numbers and distinctions, while my world view relies on singularity, unity and similarity.

When I say "West", it means the system that they represent which we call it Liberal Democracy or Secular .... .

Just like when I say: "Islam", It doesn't mean Saudi Arabia.

There are different forms of liberal democracy, and there are totally different ideologies than "liberal democracy", thriving in the West. Furthermore, these are not necessarily "secular"- they have supernatural bases. The word "secular" in the West usually refers to seperation of CHURCH and state, but not necessarily God and state. It is a term that is usually used in political discussions by those who don't have a good grasp of politics and human nature. So to me, arguing against "secularism" doesn't address the issue of a right or wrong society.

There is a movement now called "naturalism". The laws of human interaction and nature, superior to human thought, are the basis of this, and a sort of academic intuition guides progress instead of ideological rivalry. Therefore, it is not secular. Do you think this movement contradicts Islam?

When a problem arises that you alone can not find answers for it, you seek help of others; suppose you wanted to know what a certain disease is? What would you do? You will go and ask a doctor and it would be better if you asked a specialised doctor who may know more than others with regards to your question.

It would be a waste of time if you stopped by any passer and asked him your question. You have to narrow down your selection of people worthy of being asked your question; otherwise you may not even get your answer.

In Democracy as well as Shia Theocracy, council is very important. Suppose there were a small group of 20 people, who wanted to decide what should be next regarding a certain issue. They would vote! Even though the vote of some people may be of no real use, since they do not have the knowledge to vote for truth. Suppose these 20 people wanted to decide what colour they should use to paint their homes. Now if there is no rational reason to select any certain colour and that intellectually, no single colour would be better or worse than others, then it would be a simple matter of taste, so a vote would work just fine. However if the problem was with regards to something that required knowledge then vote of those who have no knowledge of the subject would be of no use and in fact damaging to the progress of the whole group towards truth and perfection.

“When there are too many answers, the true one remains hidden!” Imam Ali (as)

This is a topic that's been worked on a great deal. Around 400 BC, the people of Athens "voted the wisest man of Athens (Socrates) to death", and this was the legacy of Athens according to Plato who was skeptical of democracy. Current Iran is very much what Plato envisioned as the right type of state, though Iran is more democratic (see in his 'Republic'). "Philosopher kings" would reign and society would work like a perfect organism. Furthermore, Plato's beliefs in God reflect those of Islam more than any other religion.

The main problem with this state is what it does to progressive wisdom of the masses. If the masses each undergo proper education as they should then they are each worthy of rule and legislation and there will be little need for the philosopher kings. Everyone will be sovereign and trustworthy. How would Islam deal with this type of situation? Is it recognized under any concept, law or provision?

[mike435]

We do not recognize Israel as a state, let alone a Jewish one. Indeed, if it was theocracy, they would wait for the return of Messiah.

A moderator (donsaeid) told me not to talk about Politics in religion sub-forum, so I suggest you to focus on Islam and Democracy in this thread.

By the way my respond was to Joubin, because he said: for example socialist democracy is similar to Islamic concept of "demos", ie consultation with the people.

And your post was completely off topic.

Wassalam

yes sir i understand

DOROOD BAR ISRAEL A JEWISH STATE IN A JEWISH ANCECTRIAL HOMLAND

[Inquisitor]

There are different forms of liberal democracy, and there are totally different ideologies than "liberal democracy", thriving in the West. Furthermore, these are not necessarily "secular"- they have supernatural bases. The word "secular" in the West usually refers to seperation of CHURCH and state, but not necessarily God and state. It is a term that is usually used in political discussions by those who don't have a good grasp of politics and human nature. So to me, arguing against "secularism" doesn't address the issue of a right or wrong society.

It is like you tell me; you are talking about Jafari or Maleki or Hanafi School of thoughts. No I’m talking in general.

West invented nationalism; secular democracy, communism etc … all based on something other than God, seeking unity that can never become universal.

This is what I say:

1-God is existence not existent. Which means you can’t find him by your 5 senses.
2-God can only be found by intellect. Not the intellect that takes his logic as the foundation of its observation but the intellect that takes existence as an undeniable truth for its foundation.
3-All that exist points at him, yet all that does not exist points at human mind.
4-He is the only entity that neither can be multiplied nor divided; any number divided by zero results in infinite.

Is that what their system says ? Absolutely not

There is a movement now called "naturalism". The laws of human interaction and nature, superior to human thought, are the basis of this, and a sort of academic intuition guides progress instead of ideological rivalry. Therefore, it is not secular. Do you think this movement contradicts Islam?

There is always one truth out there. Yes it does, because we believe Islam is the only perfect system, so there can be no other system to us as perfect as Islam .

This is a topic that's been worked on a great deal. Around 400 BC, the people of Athens "voted the wisest man of Athens (Socrates) to death", and this was the legacy of Athens according to Plato who was skeptical of democracy. Current Iran is very much what Plato envisioned as the right type of state, though Iran is more democratic (see in his 'Republic'). "Philosopher kings" would reign and society would work like a perfect organism. Furthermore, Plato's beliefs in God reflect those of Islam more than any other religion.

There has always been influence, we got something from them, and they got something from us. I follow Sadra Philosophy, I don’t know if you are familiar with it or not?

How would Islam deal with this type of situation? Is it recognized under any concept, law or provision?

Concept of Supreme leader & Expert assembly

[Inquisitor]

As I said in my previous posts, it is logic and existence. The religious or God fearing take certain absolutes such as love for their arguments, Islam takes existence as the base for its arguments to establish its principles and philosophically is the most advanced in this field. The logic is pretty much taken by most other people as their foundation, and the “west” is the most advanced in this field. Please note that I am not talking about whether one side has more logic than the other, I am talking about how in their histories they have developed their principles and philosophies according to these foundations, and therefore each group is advanced in its own field. However it is very important to note that only Islam chose its foundation as existence in order to develop its arguments, if you ask most westerners they are not really aware or concerned about what their foundation is, practically they take their logic as the supreme truth finding apparatus and the foundation of their arguments. Most of the conflict between the two has been focused on the concept of God.

[zubin]

Is that what their system says ? Absolutely not

What do you mean "their" system? As I said, there is a naturalism movement that is very different from the current system. The current systems are constantly being negotiated.

There is always one truth out there. Yes it does, because we believe Islam is the only perfect system, so there can be no other system to us as perfect as Islam.

What is Islam then? (I want to see how it contradicts naturalism)

Concept of Supreme leader & Expert assembly

Does the common human ever have the ability and/or authority to govern his/her own life under this system? Is the Supreme Leader and Expert assembly absolute or can it ever be temporary? That was my question.

God is absolute as well as human nature. They are "pre-existent". A political system changes according to these super-natural things. No? For example, given a certain time, there will be a master-slave relationship in society. But human nature might dictate at a later time, due to improvements in attaining perfection, that such a relation should be abolished.

[Inquisitor]

Responding Joubin

"They" is all of those systems that I mentioned.

In Islam, we take existence as the base for the arguments to establish principles, philosophically and ... . But in the other systems, logic is taken as most other people as their foundation.

One of the most common versions of naturalism is the position that everything that exists is natural. The naturalist is one who affirms that only nature exists and by implication that the supernatural does not exist... The [natural] world is all of reality; it is all there is; there is no 'other world' "

Above is in contradiction with Islam. There is only one truth out there.

Truth is existence.
False is Originally inside mind which is contrary to existence.

We need to be one with existence, not only to survive but also to intellectually advance and to achieve this we use our logic. Any belief system or ideology is based on a certain foundation. Human usually seeks for a solid fact, something that can not be denied, and establishes his/her arguments on that solid fact. If the basis of our argument is weak then the whole structure of arguments collapse.

Every fundamental question can have only one true answer, truth and false in mind can not both be believed. For instance consider the question: “Does Earth orbit the sun?” answer to this question can either be yes or no, nothing else.