Saudi Arabia says they are Islamic state and the Taliban said they were creating one in Afghanistan.
So my questions are what is an Islamic State and in regards to Iraq who decides what is an Islamic State?
There's no such thing as an Islamic State. There has never been one, and there never will be one. Islam is often used (like in Iran) to keep one's hold on power. The interesting thing is that failures of such states are never attributed as a failure of the principles (i.e. Islamic), but what you always hear is that "it's not a true Islamic governance that's why it failed". Until those who aspire to have an Islamic state can accept the fact that there will be lots of problems due to that kind of governance, it will continue to be paper dream.
As you said, it will depend on whom you ask the question. Saudi Arabian government is not "Islamic", who said it is? They do use/implement many Islamic laws, but the government itself isn't.
57:25 Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice.
An islamic state is based on principles not on what kind or form of government it should have, this being said the concept of popular vice-regency has been supported by many scholars in islam, so even today democracy which up holds the Islamic principle of Justice would be the best form of govt.
The above ayah clearly indicates the purpose of the scriptures, is to maintain justice, as long as a country or nation or people with a majority of muslim population upholds the principles of justice, they can be deemed as an Islamic state. So the arguments of if it had existed or not lies on the upholding of the justice and I think there are many examples of that in Islamic history.
On a parallel, the US constitution talks about some principles and if the state fails to up hold such principles it wouldn’t be the failure of the principle rather the other way around.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by MiniMe: *
**57:25 Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice*.
An islamic state is based on principles not on what kind or form of government it should have, this being said the concept of popular vice-regency has been supported by many scholars in islam, so even today democracy which up holds the Islamic principle of Justice would be the best form of govt.
The above ayah clearly indicates the purpose of the scriptures, is to maintain justice, as long as a country or nation or people with a majority of muslim population upholds the principles of justice, they can be deemed as an Islamic state. So the arguments of if it had existed or not lies on the upholding of the justice and I think there are many examples of that in Islamic history.
On a parallel, the US constitution talks about some principles and if the state fails to up hold such principles it wouldn’t be the failure of the principle rather the other way around.
[/QUOTE]
That said, a democracy in a Muslim majority country would be considered an Islamic state as long as it upholds the Islamic principle of Justice, correct?
Are there not various takes on what is Islamic principles of Justice are though?
Whatever form or interpretation an Islamic form of governance in Iraq takes it will remain, I am sure, an anathema to You-Know-Who.
In essence it will probably be very similar to the Irani version, which has a very long traditional history. Incidentally it was the Iraqi Baqir Sadr who formulated the existing Iranian constitution, so I'm sure the same script will be used.
Re: What would a Islamic State in Iraq be and who decides?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Saudi Arabia says they are Islamic state and the Taliban said they were creating one in Afghanistan.
So my questions are what is an Islamic State and in regards to Iraq who decides what is an Islamic State?
[/QUOTE]
The trouble with both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan was not that they claimed to be 'Islamic' states.. the trouble lies in the way the governments came to power.
Saudi Arabia only speaks for the Royal family and what laws they wish their 'subjects' to obey. It doesn't take into any account what the population of the country wants.
The Taliban again were more of 'protectors' or a paramilitary force saving little kids from being raped by warlords. Legislation was not their forte nor did the people of Afghanistan give them such a mandate.
It is ridiculous to bring up both cases and try and paint it as a failure of 'Islamic states'.
Granted there is much to be done when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence; the wheat has to be separated from the chaff, but let the masses have a go at it, without foreign intervention or puppets.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
That said, a democracy in a Muslim majority country would be considered an Islamic state as long as it upholds the Islamic principle of Justice, correct?
Are there not various takes on what is Islamic principles of Justice are though?
[/QUOTE]
whatever they might be the end result of a referendum in Iraq would be that the US wouldn't get cheap oil or military bases.
If we go by MiniMe's statements, then the next logical step (perhaps) would be to understand what type of Islamic principles best uphold the concept of justice. For me, based upon what i understand so far, it would have to be the following - arranged in no particular order, but each one being as important as the next:
nonMuslims would have the right to practice as they deem fit, be it in a synagogue/temple/church etc. - wherever.
women would not be second-class citizens (as occurs in many Muslim societies currently). "Justice" signifies justice for all including both genders and if we bear in mind the Islamic principle to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave, then education for women would be made mandatory in such an Islamic society, not considered a privilege.
most Arab governments practice varying degrees of torture against their dissidents (Amnesty's done extensive work on this vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia). Egypt's role of jailing its political dissidents is very well known. Prisoners of war, and prisoners in general, would have to be treated in accordance with Islamic principles. POWs would have to be fed and clothed with respect.
A true Islamic society would take care of the needs of its least privileged - nothing revolutionary, this is what Prophet Muhammad (may God's peace and blessings be upon him) practiced in his own life. There's no room for pampering to the elite (as occurs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, as just two of the many examples). Social support systems would be in place for orphans, the elderly and widows - three groups in particular that tend to be neglected most often. Social assistance would be based upon need, NOT one's religion.
Sounds like Canada Nadia.
^ aye, some parts of it do. Although not too certain about the social support system, which is slightly becoming two-tiered.
Actually take out SA and Afghanistan out of the equation, the only country with a specific 'islamic' legislative framework of some form is Iran, so why not discuss that?
Discussing or giving examples of other authoritarian/monarchist/etc countries with a large (repressed) muslim population isn't very useful for this particular discussion i think.
Can malaysia be counted as a 'democratic' muslim country?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
There's no such thing as an Islamic State. There has never been one, and there never will be one. Islam is often used (like in Iran) to keep one's hold on power. The interesting thing is that failures of such states are never attributed as a failure of the principles (i.e. Islamic), but what you always hear is that "it's not a true Islamic governance that's why it failed". Until those who aspire to have an Islamic state can accept the fact that there will be lots of problems due to that kind of governance, it will continue to be paper dream.
[/QUOTE]
Right on target. I agree with this one hundred percent.
There is not Islamic state... only a state of mind. :)
Rhia, i agree. Sorry, i probably brought both SA and Afghanistan into this discussion.
Malaysia is an interesting example. That might be more closer to the type of genuine Islamic society i am thinking of, than any other.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
**Actually take out SA and Afghanistan out of the equation, the only country with a specific 'islamic' legislative framework of some form is Iran, so why not discuss that?
...] Can malaysia be counted as a 'democratic' muslim country?
[/QUOTE]
**
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
If we go by MiniMe's statements, then the next logical step (perhaps) would be to understand what type of Islamic principles best uphold the concept of justice. For me, based upon what i understand so far, it would have to be the following - arranged in no particular order, but each one being as important as the next:
nonMuslims would have the right to practice as they deem fit, be it in a synagogue/temple/church etc. - wherever.
women would not be second-class citizens (as occurs in many Muslim societies currently). "Justice" signifies justice for all including both genders and if we bear in mind the Islamic principle to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave, then education for women would be made mandatory in such an Islamic society, not considered a privilege.
most Arab governments practice varying degrees of torture against their dissidents (Amnesty's done extensive work on this vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia). Egypt's role of jailing its political dissidents is very well known. Prisoners of war, and prisoners in general, would have to be treated in accordance with Islamic principles. POWs would have to be fed and clothed with respect.
A true Islamic society would take care of the needs of its least privileged - nothing revolutionary, this is what Prophet Muhammad (may God's peace and blessings be upon him) practiced in his own life. There's no room for pampering to the elite (as occurs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, as just two of the many examples). Social support systems would be in place for orphans, the elderly and widows - three groups in particular that tend to be neglected most often. Social assistance would be based upon need, NOT one's religion.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia, You are describing what an Islamic state should be according to your understanding or wishes. which is fine with me but it misses the point. What is an Islamic state? not that what it should be. I have a few questions for you:
will non muslims be allowed to build new temples/cynagogues/churches as and when they feel fit?
Will non-muslims be allowed to preach their religion to muslims? if not will then muslims be prohibited to preach theirs to the non-muslims also?
Will non-muslims pay any special taxes like Jazia?
Will women have the freedom to work whatever form of job they want outside the home and wear what they deem fit for the job?
When such an Islamic state goes to war(which will be just I assume) with a non-muslim state what would be done with the conquered territories and people? Will they be allowed to choose their new government or conquering Islamic state will nominate the new rulers?
lastly, Did a state as described by you above existed in history and did it fulfill all the conditions you described?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *That said, a democracy in a Muslim majority country would be considered an Islamic state as long as it upholds the Islamic principle of Justice, correct?
Are there not various takes on what is Islamic principles of Justice are though?
[/QUOTE]
An Islamic state isn't just about Islamic principles of Justice. It also has to do with the Islamic principles of everything, such as Islamic principles of (form of) government. States like Saudi Arabia call themselves Islamic states, without applying an Islamic form of government.
As MiniMe says, as Islamic state is one that follows Islamic principles. The primary difficulty encountered here is deciding what exactly those principles are.
For example, the Muttahida Majlis E Amal (the MMA, the 6 party alliance of Islamic parties in Pakistan), considers the democracy enshrined in Pakistan's 1973 constitution to be fully compliant with all Islamic principles, and hence they are opposing Musharraf's government so as to try and get that consitution restored. They feel that Pakistan's 1973 constitution would provide an Islamic form of government, and then all that would be needed to create an Islamic state would be to switch to Islamic Justice.
On the other hand, other Islamists groups such as the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (several sympathisers of which post here) oppose the kind of democracy in Pakistan's 1973 constitution, and would say that it isn't compliant with Islamic principles.
The whole issue is still pretty much up in the air. My own personal opinion is that what will be widely recognised as an Islamic state will be the first state that gets run succesfully on some interpretation of Islamic law.
Saudi Arabia is steadily failing, its economy in decline for many years, its population murmurring with dissent.
Taliban Afghanistan failed the test of time, and even under American occupation popular resentment against the new regime doesn't seem to be there on the same scale as existing currently in Iraq.
Iran seems to be heading towards some kind of overhaul of its Islam-based system, which has been shown to be wanting. Perhaps the new form of Islamic rule Khatami wants to introduce will be more successful.
It looks like Iraq may be heading to become an Islamic state, but all signs indicate that Iraqi clerics want to create a new kind of Islamic state unlike any of the other states currently claiming that titile.
ChannMahi, Let’s not stick our heads in the sand. Read up on Islamic history and the level of tolerance exhibited by Muslim rulers. Karen Armstrong has researched this issue exhaustively, and she is not the only nonMuslim to do so. i suggest you read up on how many rights Jews were granted under Muslim rule during that particular time period. At the risk of shocking you (yes not all Muslims are barbarians believe it or not), let me quote this excerpt from Armstrong:
Shocking, isn’t it? Go figure - Muslims can be humans too.
1. will non muslims be allowed to build new temples/cynagogues/churches as and when they feel fit?
As i stated in my second-last reply, nonMuslims would “have the right to practice as they deem fit”.
2. Will non-muslims be allowed to preach their religion to muslims? if not will then muslims be prohibited to preach theirs to the non-muslims also?
Yes in answer to your first question.
3. Will non-muslims pay any special taxes like Jazia?
Let me quote for you again from a seminar that was held at Columbia university:
Study up, historically, on where the jazia paid by nonMuslims used to go - it went to the Muslim govt which in return provided them security and used this money for welfare of churches and other needs of
non Muslims. Again, go figure - Muslims are not completely backwards.
4. Will women have the freedom to work whatever form of job they want outside the home and wear what they deem fit for the job?
Yes. Let’s not be impractical though - we all know Islam’s principles vis-a-vis the issue of modesty. Contrary to popular beliefs, and i state the following as a Muslim female - it isn’t a form of subordination to dress yourself up modestly. So please don’t assume that just because women will have the right to dress however they please (or, rather, how fashion dictates), that they will necessarily be “free”.
5. When such an Islamic state goes to war(which will be just I assume) with a non-muslim state what would be done with the conquered territories and people? Will they be allowed to choose their new government or conquering Islamic state will nominate the new rulers?
What would be done with the conquered territories and people? Why, of course, the violent Muslim armies will go on a rampage, looting and pillaging everything they see in sight. :rolleyes:
To answer your question, i can do no better than to steer you towards the example laid down by Prophet Muhammad (may God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when he returned to Mecca subsequent to his stay in Medina. Did he or any of his Muslim companions, go on an orgy of looting ? Read up on that, we can discuss it further later if you want.
**6. lastly, Did a state as described by you above existed in history and did it fulfill all the conditions you described? **
i referred to this (slightly) in the first part of my reply earlier. Karen Armstrong (and many other nonMuslim researchers) have studied and documented this issue exhaustively.
Nadia would non-Muslims in an Islamic State be allowed to have a hand in policy making?
Nadia, this is all feel-good wishful thinking. What Muslims did centuries ago, is just that. What needs to be discussed is what they will do in today's age. Until 1967, Jews were not allowed to worship on the Western Wall (it was part of Jordan back then). When we are so untrusting of the western governments, why are we so optimistic of an Islamic form of government? The fact is that those governments failed because they delivered zilch to their subjects.
UTD... yeah, all the typesetters (Khushnavees) were Christians during the Ottomen rule. so yes, they will have a role.
Nadia, only thing I am shocked is by you being so defensive. I think lot of people believe in utopias muslims and non-muslims alike. Your perfect Islamic state is your utopia. Thanks for answering at least some questions.
** As i stated in my second-last reply, nonMuslims would "have the right to practice as they deem fit".**
Will non-muslims be allowed to preach their religion to muslims? if not will then muslims be prohibited to preach theirs to the non-muslims also?
*Yes in answer to your first question. *
The muslims be free to convert to other religions then in such a state, correct?
**quote:
The fact of the matter is that an Islamic state levies two taxes:zakat, two and half percent of your income for Muslims and jazia that is one tenth of the income for non-Muslims. So that was a living example of the tolerance in an Islamic state for non-Muslims where the tax [on nonMuslims] was reduced because they were not called upon to serve in the army. Those who were the priests of Jews and Christians were not to pay jazia and those who were teachers of the community did not pay jazia. And those who joined the Muslim army did not pay jazia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
two and half percent is more than one tenth? how is it reduced then? BTW Serving in a army in a countries like ours is not a burden but a previlege to earn ones living.
5. When such an Islamic state goes to war(which will be just I assume) with a non-muslim state what would be done with the conquered territories and people? Will they be allowed to choose their new government or conquering Islamic state will nominate the new rulers?
What would be done with the conquered territories and people? Why, of course, the violent Muslim armies will go on a rampage, looting and pillaging everything they see in sight.
To answer your question, i can do no better than to steer you towards the example laid down by Prophet Muhammad (may God's peace and blessings be upon him) when he returned to Mecca subsequent to his stay in Medina. Did he or any of his Muslim companions, go on an orgy of looting ? Read up on that, we can discuss it further later if you want.
again, why the defensiveness? The reason I asked this question is to find out how your Islamic state would handle what is going on in Iraq after the war. I was looking for a answer from you since you support the Islamic state otherwise may I already read Karen's book. If you are going to support a form of goverance and fight for its establishment for 2 billion people you shouldn't be so defensive about answering any questions about the future of its citizens. May be prosperity of suhc a state will force me to migrate there and find a good paying job. one tenth is much lower a tax to pay than what I to uncle Sam now.:)