Is Islam a belief system or a political system?

The Highwayman

Hey my first venture in here (Islam) and I suppose like many people from the west I have many questions about Islam.

So first off the bat I should say I'm not a believer but just an interested party.

And so my question is.

Is Islam a belief system or a political system?

Tom Dunne

I don't see how it can be classed as a political system.

Surely it's only a belief system that defines the person and the society, from which the political system is derived?

hivizman

The Highwayman wrote: »

Hey my first venture in here (Islam) and I suppose like many people from the west I have many questions about Islam.

You are very welcome.

The Highwayman wrote: »

So first off the bat I should say I'm not a believer but just an interested party.

And so my question is.

Is Islam a belief system or a political system?

Here's an answer from someone who is not a muslim, but has been studying Islam for several years. I hope that my co-moderator irishconvert will add to and, where necessary, correct, this response.

A key concept in Islam is the Dīn (sometimes written as Deen - the Arabic spelling is دين). This word comes from a root which implies obligation (another word from the same root is dayn, which means "debt"), and so it can be conceived of as what humans owe to Allah. A widely quoted verse from the Qur'an is Surat adh-Dhariyat 51:56: "I have not created jinn and mankind except to serve Me" (Arberry trans. - many translations say "worship Me"). The implication of this is that the proper aim of humans is to serve Allah, not just in ritual acts of prayer and other forms of worship, but in everything that they do.

This means that the word Dīn is difficult to translate from Arabic into English. It is often translated as "religion", which implies a belief system, but many Muslims will argue that the word has a wider connotation, and often translate it as "way of life". On this basis, Islam is seen as permeating every aspect of human life, and there is no separation between the "sacred" and the "secular" spheres of life (as has been argued, by anthropologists such as Mircea Eliade, to be the case for Christianity and some other religions).

So Islam is a belief system that implies a political system. The political system is derived from brief hints and statements in the Qur'an, together with the traditions surviving of the political system put into effect by Muhammad in Medina between 622 and 632 (and developed by his successors, the "rightly guided caliphs"). The political system is based first of all on the concept that Allah is the source of all laws and all power. Anything that Allah has revealed through the Qur'an (and through the well-documented practice of Muhammad) must therefore form part of human law. Humans cannot permit what Allah has prohibited or forbid what Allah allows (and especially what Allah commands).

However, Allah has made humanity His khalifa (sometimes translated using the rather obscure term "vice-gerent", this term implies that humanity acts as Allah's representative or deputy on earth). The concept of khilafa (note slightly different spelling to refer to the concept rather than to the person) implies that humanity has accepted a trust from Allah to be Allah's khalifa and therefore to put into effect the will of Allah on earth. Several verses in the Qur'an testify to this, including the rather strange verse in Surat al-'Ahzab (33:72): "We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;- He was indeed unjust and foolish" (Yusuf Ali trans.) The implication of the verse is that humans, having accepted the trust from Allah, often misuse it, but humans will have to face the Judgement of Allah (in the Qur'an, the word Dīn is often translated as "Judgement", for example Surat al-Fatiha 1:4, referring to "Yawm id-Dīn", the Day of Judgement).

So we have Allah as Sovereign, and humanity in general as khalifa. In practice, after the death of Muhammad, the government of the Muslim community was focused on one individual, first Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali (these are the four "rightly guided caliphs"), and after that the Ummayid dynasty. The caliph is required to make decisions through a process of consultation (Shura) - this is laid down in the Qur'an, for example in Surat ahl-'Imran (3:159), which says in part: ". . . consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah. Lo! Allah loveth those who put their trust (in Him)" (Pickthall trans.).

So long as the ruler governs in accordance with the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the sayings and acts of Muhammad), then people are expected to obey the ruler. However, the ruler faces a double accountability, to the Muslim community but more importantly to Allah on the Day of Judgement. The Qur'an emphasises justice, and the ruler should not be immune from justice - this implies an independent judiciary. The Islamic political system should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of language, colour, race, religion, class, wealth or gender - the only legitimate basis of discrimination is on the basis of piety.

So you can see that Islam is both a belief system and a political system. However, whether the political system of Islam has ever been attained in practice (even during the brief 10 years when Muhammad was in power in Medina) is a topic for debate. Certainly it is questionable whether any governments in Muslim-majority countries live up to the Islamic political ideal.

deravarra

The Highwayman wrote: »

Hey my first venture in here (Islam) and I suppose like many people from the west I have many questions about Islam.

Yes, it seems you do. And you have started a thread in AH which acts as a direct provocation to any muslim.

That type of behaviour does not stem from someone who is just inquisitive, does it?

hivizman

deravarra wrote: »

Yes, it seems you do. And you have started a thread in AH which acts as a direct provocation to any muslim.

That type of behaviour does not stem from someone who is just inquisitive, does it?

Deravarra, remember the forum charter - attack the post, not the poster.

The Highwayman

deravarra wrote: »

Yes, it seems you do. And you have started a thread in AH which acts as a direct provocation to any musli

That type of behaviour does not stem from someone who is just inquisitive, does it?

Why what do you mean?

So deravarra is islam a religion or a political system? That was my question

If you want to join in AH away from the charter protection you have here, you are most welcome.

hivizman

The Highwayman wrote: »

Why what do you mean?

So deravarra is islam a religion or a political system? That was my question

If you want to join in AH away from the charter protection you have here, you are most welcome.

I think that deravarra has already joined in [URL="hhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67216139&postcount=78ttp://"]the debate on After Hours[/URL] to which you refer. Highwayman, I assumed that your original query was being made in good faith, so let's leave it at that. Any views on whether Islam is a belief system, a political system, both, or indeed neither, are welcome. Let's not derail the thread with personal comments or back-seat moderating.

The Highwayman

hivizman wrote: »

I think that deravarra has already joined in [URL="hhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67216139&postcount=78ttp://"]the debate on After Hours[/URL] to which you refer. Highwayman, I assumed that your original query was being made in good faith, so let's leave it at that. Any views on whether Islam is a belief system, a political system, both, or indeed neither, are welcome. Let's not derail the thread with personal comments or back-seat moderating.

Fair enough

Muslim

A better way to understand Islam is to consider it as both a religion and a political ideology. It is a religion because its source is claimed to be from the Creator of everything and it has detailed information about what was before life and what will happen after life... This is something that most Muslims understand...

The point where Muslims generally fall down is Islam's understanding related to this life... That is where the political ideas come into play... Allah commands the establishment of society based on the principles of Islam... These include aspects of judiciary as hivizman rightly points out but also includes economics, social system, ruling system, foreign policy etc... This is what Muhammad saw did and later the Caliphs continued to do so to the best of their ability... This system ceased to exist on 3/3/1924 with the fall of the Ottoman State

Hope this helps in understanding

af_thefragile

Islam is a belief system that dictates all the other aspects of the life of its followers. The oneness of God being the central pillar of all Islamic belief.

Islam doesn't have a set political system. There have been many different political systems throught the Islamic world which have all been seen as Islamic as long as it was rooted in the Islamic belief system.

Islam contrary to popular belief has an ever evolving system of law, jurisprudence and governance. Most of this would be set by the scholars of Islam who prepare these laws and systems according to the current and prevalanet conditions in the society based on interpretations from the Quran and the Hadith.

Unfortunately today every muslim with even the mildest amount of knowledge of Islam think's he's gained the ability to make these critical decisions of law and society which are only under the power of the highest scholars of Islam who lately are very few and far between. One needs to really search for them to find them.

This is where most of the confusion and tension in Islam is coming from.

Fuhrer

af_thefragile wrote: »

Unfortunately today every muslim with even the mildest amount of knowledge of Islam think's he's gained the ability to make these critical decisions of law and society which are only under the power of the highest scholars of Islam who lately are very few and far between. One needs to really search for them to find them.

This is where most of the confusion and tension in Islam is coming from.

Thats the problem though, isn't it? The laws are being created by people who think they understand the will of god through his writings. Who's to say that one persons interpretation would be more correct then the others?

Muslim

af_thefragile

To state that Islam does not have a set political system is incorrect. The political system of Islam stems from the Quran and Sunnah and since both these things are specific collections of texts, they give rise to a set political system. Consider reading the following book. Its original manuscript is more than 700 years old.

http://www.amazon.com/Ordinances-Government-Great-Islamic-Civilization/dp/1873938179

As for many different Islamic systems rooted in the Islamic belief system, you did not give any examples to back your assertion.

Furthermore your point about an ever evolving system of law is incorrect. The law in Islam is again based on Islamic texts and thus remains the same and applicable regardless of the time and place. The only exception to this rule is for a new matter that arises due to advancement of human civilization, geopolitical issues and progress in science and technology. A good example is that of permissibility of animal Cloning for which there is a process called Ijtihad.

Lastly to state that only the scholars are allowed to interpret the law is also incorrect. The law is well documented in books of jurisprudence and anyone can pick it up, read it and master it. There is no clergy in Islam and once a person has the ability to understand the original texts of Islam by knowing Arabic, along with the understanding of principles of jurisprudence, they can comment on law, its interpretation and application.

The confusion that is widespread amongst Muslims today is not because non qualified people are commenting on the law. Rather it is because Muslims do not study their ideology. If someone makes a mistake in commenting on the law, all it requires is a correction by counter argument.

I remember a few years ago I was sitting with a scholar who is very influential and very rich as well. He made an incorrect statement and I pointed it out to him right there and then that what he stated was not correct with reference to the Sunnah. The man had no choice except to correct himself

wes

Muslim wrote: »

To state that Islam does not have a set political system is incorrect. The political system of Islam stems from the Quran and Sunnah and since both these things are specific collections of texts, they give rise to a set political system. Consider reading the following book. Its original manuscript is more than 700 years old.

http://www.amazon.com/Ordinances-Government-Great-Islamic-Civilization/dp/1873938179

A political system can be derived from Islam like all Religions, and has been in the past and in the now, but not everyone agree's with that concept.

Muslim wrote: »

As for many different Islamic systems rooted in the Islamic belief system, you did not give any examples to back your assertion.

The existence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran, would be the example of different Islamic systems, and there are many other examples.

Muslim wrote: »

Furthermore your point about an ever evolving system of law is incorrect. The law in Islam is again based on Islamic texts and thus remains the same and applicable regardless of the time and place. The only exception to this rule is for a new matter that arises due to advancement of human civilization, geopolitical issues and progress in science and technology. A good example is that of permissibility of animal Cloning for which there is a process called Ijtihad.

The texts remain the same in the case of the Koran, but Hadith are rejected from time to time if they are found to be false:

Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

You mention Ijtihad, but that can also apply to old laws, which can be reevalued as needed. For example under earlier version of the Hanafi school of taught, certain types of Alchohol were allowed, and this was later changed. So the law has in the past changed, and it still changes today.

Muslim wrote: »

Lastly to state that only the scholars are allowed to interpret the law is also incorrect. The law is well documented in books of jurisprudence and anyone can pick it up, read it and master it. There is no clergy in Islam and once a person has the ability to understand the original texts of Islam by knowing Arabic, along with the understanding of principles of jurisprudence, they can comment on law, its interpretation and application.

Except that they do change law in Pakistan etc.

Muslim

Political systems cannot be derived from Christianity or Judaism... They are religions not ideologies...

As for not everyone agreeing with this concept... it is irrelevant to the topic of discussion...

Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Republic of Pakistan are not Islamic States... They have as much to do with Islam as Soviet Union had to do with Capitalism... Both of these states are Capitalist states... The only thing Islamic about these countries is that they are both countries with a majority population of Muslims...

What you mention about Hadith is partly correct... The example of Turkey revising Hadith that you are quoting was proven to be a lie by the BBC...

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=135202

However you are correct that new Ijtihad can be done for old laws... But that is only for laws in which there is room for difference of opinion... In things where there is no difference of opinion all schools of thought give a unified verdict on issues... Interestingly this includes Alcohol consumption...

...

Lastly Pakistan if you ever get the chance to read its law making procedure implements a completely anti Islamic system with a legislative body i.e The Parliament designed according to western democratic systems... Hardly an example of Islam...

wes

Muslim wrote: »

Political systems cannot be derived from Christianity or Judaism... They are religions not ideologies...

Except that political systems have been derived from both of them, for example you have Halacha law for Judaism, and Canon Law for the Catholic church.

Muslim wrote: »

As for not everyone agreeing with this concept... it is irrelevant to the topic of discussion...

Yes, actually it is, as we are talking about Religion, and as such there will be multiple interpretations.

Muslim wrote: »

Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Republic of Pakistan are not Islamic States... They have as much to do with Islam as Soviet Union had to do with Capitalism... Both of these states are Capitalist states... The only thing Islamic about these countries is that they are both countries with a majority population of Muslims...

Well, you that is a matter of opinion ultimately, which is the point I am making that there is no real agreement one way or the other.

Muslim wrote: »

What you mention about Hadith is partly correct... The example of Turkey revising Hadith that you are quoting was proven to be a lie by the BBC...

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=135202

Exagerated would be more apt.

Muslim wrote: »

However you are correct that new Ijtihad can be done for old laws... But that is only for laws in which there is room for difference of opinion... In things where there is no difference of opinion all schools of thought give a unified verdict on issues... Interestingly this includes Alcohol consumption...

Well, as I pointed out there was a point in time when there wasn't agreement on Alcohol. Secondly, the current existence of just 4 schools of thought was due to the Ottoman empire, and with that gone now, we see many different legal systems etc in various Muslim majority states.

Muslim wrote: »

Lastly Pakistan if you ever get the chance to read its law making procedure implements a completely anti Islamic system with a legislative body i.e The Parliament designed according to western democratic systems... Hardly an example of Islam...

Again a matter of opinion. The Ottoman empire is gone, and there is no longer a central authority to decide such tings, as to what is and isn't valid anymore. So Pakistan version of Islam is as valid as yours or anyone elses.

af_thefragile

One note about different political systems in Islam.

Yes it is generally believed that the system with the caliphate ruling over the Islamic empire is how the Islamic political system should be but it was never a rigid system.
The first Rashidun Caliphate were a form of democracy. The Caliphs were chosen by the consensus of the scholars.
After that almost all Caliphates were monarchies with probably a small exception of the Mamluk Caliphate who were soldiers of slave origins that got into power.

As long as the political system of the country is rooted in the Islamic belied (based under the sharia law) it can be an Islamic system. It could be socialist, democratic, monarchy, anything.

Fuhrer wrote: »

Thats the problem though, isn't it? The laws are being created by people who think they understand the will of god through his writings. Who's to say that one persons interpretation would be more correct then the others?

Laws were always formulated by the highest scholars in Islam. These were people of great knowledge and intellect who had spent their entire lives studying and understanding the deep meanings behind each law. They were the highest authority in the knowledge of the Quran and the Hadith for the time and only they had the right understanding of the commands given in these texts to be able to implement into laws for that time.

It was very important that these scholars were themselves of good character and were working for the sake of God alone (i.e. they were not working to gain any social power or any personal gains as such). And that they were trained in a school of thought (called a "madhab") which could trace its roots all the way back to the Prophet of Islam. This was essential to prevent any introduction of innovative believes and practices in Islam that don't have any basis in Islam.

Now yes such scholars are difficult to be herd and due to the general lack of knowledge and understanding of Islam among the muslims, a lot of new believes and ideologies have crept into Islam which have no roots in the Islamic belief system.

It has to be noted that this again isn't something entirely new what's happening to muslims today. Over the years this has happened many times that cultural ideologies and believes has crept into the Islamic believe system which had and has caused massive rifts and divides between muslims into many different sects and factions.

Historically most of these innovations were strongly rejected by the scholars of Islam if they had no basis in the Islamic belief system, keeping the religion of Islam mostly intact from any foreign additions.
Unfortunately today there aren't such scholars prevalent around in Islamic societies to keep the Islamic belief system intact as it was historically done.

The scholars were the main rulers of Islam as the people followed and believed their word over the Caliphs. And historically a lot of scholars were persecuted by Caliphs due to this very reason and this is still happening today.

Muslim

wes.

There is a difference between ideology and a set of laws.

Never in the history of mankind have Christianity and Judaism been considered as Ideologies. Capitalism, Communism and Islam are the only ideologies that exist.

It may be difficult for you to understand. But I ll give it a try anyway. Ideology is a more comprehensive system of running the affairs of the world compared to a religion. For example Christianity does not include a detailed comprehensive system of economics or ruling system. You get that in Capitalism, Communism and Islam however. You are confusing laws with ideology.

....

There are multiple interpretations of what? Secularists dont come in the picture of a discussion based on Islam. They have a viewpoint but it is not derived from Islam. We are talking about Islam as a political ideology here. Not what Secularists like to think. That is irrelevant to the discussion.

.....

If you understood the Islamic political ideology you would NEVER quote Pakistan or Iran as systems of Islam. Consider studying the concepts behind Nation States and Ideological States for starters. And that my friend is NOT a matter of opinion

....

The issue about Alcohol is a matter of certainty and the reason why there could have been some doubt would be because of lack of evidence available to the scholar doing the ijtihad on the issue. Alcohol still can be used for medicinal purposes btw. (I m not familiar with the details of what you are quoting as an example. Perhaps you could provide a link)

....

The 4 schools of thought were not due to the Ottoman Empire. They have been in existence for much longer than that. And it is absolutely acceptable to have more schools of thought. It would be difficult to set one up now as there is limits to the options available in the field of Usool (principles)...

...

The last point is the same as I discussed previously about Pakistan and Iran. You show me ONE scholar of Islam who states that Pakistan is an Islamic State implementing the laws of Islam and I may actually pay attention to what you are saying

Muslim

af_the fragile

Rashidun was a Democracy? You kidding right? No my friend. There are fundamental differences between Democracy and Caliphate. You probably mean Elective and Representative systems instead of Democracy?

The choosing of Caliphs have a few different methods. Scholars do not come into it at all.

Again fundamental difference between Monarchy and Caliphate. The later Caliphates were hereditary but they were not Monarchies. A Monarch is above the law and in fact the very source of the law whereas in Islam the ruler is subjected to the Shariah like all other people. There are numerous examples of Caliphs summoned to courts by Judges because people had placed a case against them. There is a world of difference between the two concepts. Also the Bayah continued till the end of the Ottoman State. That is also one of the main differences between the two ruling systems.

....

Islamic system can be socialist? and all these other systems at the same time? right... Do us a favor and read the book I quoted earlier. You have no idea what you are saying.

Heres a question for you af_thefragile. Name two Caliphs who were scholars as well.

Take Care

af_thefragile

I didn't say Rashidun was a democracy, I said it was a type of a democracy. I guess I should have used republic instead.

I get where you are coming from and I know what you're saying is right. But I just want to say that the Islamic political system is not as rigid is you are saying it is.
Almost every Caliphate and Caliph had a different way of governing the state.
Yes there have been Caliphates who were scholars and who were under the law of Islam.
There were also Caliphates who were over the law and persecuted scholars throught their reign because the scholars wouldn't allow them to do what they wanted.

And if you pan out the Caliphs over the years, you'll find there were a lot more Caliphs who were ruling more like monarchs than they were who were ruling as a veiceregent of God.

Also the Rashidun and for a while the Umayyad Caliphate were the last time the whole muslim world was under one Islamic empire, under one Caliph. After that the muslim kingdom split into many different empires who never really got unified under one rule.
They all had their different ideologies and ways of governance.

The concept of having one utopic Islamic state under which all muslims can live happily is only a dream that can not be achieved in this world. Its just a way of life in this world. There will be conflicts and there will be difference of opinions and the only way we can maintain peace is to recongnise and respect these differences.

You cannot underplay the role of scholars in maintaining the integrity of the Islamic states. The only reason most Caliphates were Islamic was because of the scholars who kept it Islamic by resisting any deviences that Caliphs used to make during their rule.
For instance Imam Malik ibn Anas issued fatwas against being forced to pledge allegiance to the Caliph Al-Mansur and received quite a severe flogging for his stance.
And that's just once instance of a scholar being prosecuted for not agreeing with the Caliph. And it was necessary for the scholars to stick to the Islamic principles as if the scholars would deviate from the Islamic principles then the whole populated would deviate from Islam and the state would no longer be Islamic.

That is what makes a state Islamic. How much what the state is doing is based upon Islamic believes (which is the shariah). Not what political system its following. It could be a capitalist democracy, it could be a socialist republic, it could be a monarchy. As long as its bound within the guidelines of the shariah, its an Islamic state.




So coming to the question of is Islam a belief system or a political system?
It is a belief system. Because every other aspect of Islamic life is rooted in its belief system. Islam is not just a set of rules and dogmas that just need to be followed. Islam is a way of life arising from its core belief value of that there is only one God and his sovereignty over our lives. And believing in the way of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the way one must follow to be a muslim.

There are about 6 core beliefs in Islam that one needs to follow to be a muslim.
One must believe in the Angels, God's revelation, in God's prophets, in the day of judgement, in Pre-destiny, God's mercy and wrath and that we will be resurrected after we die.
Only when you truly believe in these things can you be a muslim and every other aspect of the muslim life is derived from these believes. If one doesn't believe in these things then all Islamic laws and doctrines are rendered obsolete for him.

There is more I could go on about how all Islamic law in based on a few fundamental core principles such as protection of family systems, protection of the weak against suppression etc.
Shk. Hamza Yusuf has some excellent lectures explaining these things. If you're interested in looking further into it.

wes

Muslim wrote: »

Never in the history of mankind have Christianity and Judaism been considered as Ideologies. Capitalism, Communism and Islam are the only ideologies that exist.

Erm, no there are plenty of other ideologies out there not just the 3 you mention.

Muslim wrote: »

It may be difficult for you to understand. But I ll give it a try anyway. Ideology is a more comprehensive system of running the affairs of the world compared to a religion. For example Christianity does not include a detailed comprehensive system of economics or ruling system. You get that in Capitalism, Communism and Islam however. You are confusing laws with ideology.

Many Muslim countries have very different economic models, all apparently derived from the same source....

Muslim wrote: »

There are multiple interpretations of what? Secularists dont come in the picture of a discussion based on Islam. They have a viewpoint but it is not derived from Islam. We are talking about Islam as a political ideology here. Not what Secularists like to think. That is irrelevant to the discussion.

What are you talking about? The Islamic Republic of Iran for example is hardly secular, but to be fair in the case of Pakistan it does have its secular elements.

Muslim wrote: »

If you understood the Islamic political ideology you would NEVER quote Pakistan or Iran as systems of Islam. Consider studying the concepts behind Nation States and Ideological States for starters. And that my friend is NOT a matter of opinion

And yet both those countries refer to themselves as Islamic Republics...

Muslim wrote: »

The issue about Alcohol is a matter of certainty and the reason why there could have been some doubt would be because of lack of evidence available to the scholar doing the ijtihad on the issue. Alcohol still can be used for medicinal purposes btw. (I m not familiar with the details of what you are quoting as an example. Perhaps you could provide a link)

I can't find the link right now, but will get it for you later.

Muslim wrote: »

The 4 schools of thought were not due to the Ottoman Empire. They have been in existence for much longer than that. And it is absolutely acceptable to have more schools of thought. It would be difficult to set one up now as there is limits to the options available in the field of Usool (principles)...

Yes, they did exist before, but before the Ottoman empire limited it to just 4, there were many more.

Muslim wrote: »

The last point is the same as I discussed previously about Pakistan and Iran. You show me ONE scholar of Islam who states that Pakistan is an Islamic State implementing the laws of Islam and I may actually pay attention to what you are saying

I am sure the Pakistani government have some, and clerics directly rule Iran in some ways.

Muslim

I am beginning to dislike correcting you like this but Rashidun was not a Republic. What do you understand by the Republic?

Differences in styles are permitted in Islam, as long as the objective to achieve remains the same. The differences that you are talking about are differences in styles to achieve the aim of implementing and living by Islam. Furthermore those styles are also derived from the method of the Prophet and thus the reason they are permissible. To take these differences and then to state that the Caliphates were all different would not hold as an argument. Its like saying writing a letter with a pen and using a computer to print the same letter change the content of the letter itself.

The persecution of the scholars was during a specific time of the Caliphate's history i.e the Abassids and that too was not about letting the rulers do what they wanted rather it was purely an issue of concepts. i.e The Caliphs were inspired by some deviant Mu atizillah ideas. In action they always remained adherent to the laws of Quran and Sunnah.

Similarly there were familial disputes between the Ummayad's and the Abassids but that was confined to these two families and the ordinary people remained unaffected by these disputes. Due to this tussle you had one family replacing another in taking the Caliphate but then Clinton having an affair with Monica Lewinsky did nt really affect the Capitalist system of the United States of America and had no real impact on the life of a man living in Texas

The Islamic State is not a Utopia. Why you even bring the idea of Utopia in this discussion is beyond me? Muslims have no problem with legitimate difference of opinion either. I do agree that conflicts over ikhtilaf is unfortunate and wrong.

I m not underplaying the role of scholars at all. However I m weary of the idea that the scholars automatically inherent leadership. There is no such thing as Walayat Ul Faqih in Islam.

Bro you are confusing a lot of concepts with Islam. A system can either be socialist or Islamic. It cannot be both at the same time. Its the same for Monarchy or being a Nation State, Democracy etc because all these systems are derived from sources that are not Islamic. Saying that Islam can have monarchy or socialism or democracy is like saying that the Soviet Union could be considered Capitalist.

In the end you are trying to describe Iman e Mufasil. Those are core concepts of Islam which define who is a Muslim and who is not.

I have studied Hamza Yusuf and even attended his speeches btw.

Masalam

Muslim

Erm, no there are plenty of other ideologies out there not just the 3 you mention.

....

Name a few ideologies other than these three then.

....


Many Muslim countries have very different economic models, all apparently derived from the same source....

....

Prove it from Islamic sources.

...

What are you talking about? The Islamic Republic of Iran for example is hardly secular, but to be fair in the case of Pakistan it does have its secular elements.

....

I was not talking about countries there. You brought in the idea that not everyone agrees with such concepts. Those who state that religion should be separated from the affairs of life are called Secularists. As for Iran it is a theocracy which is anti Islamic.

....


And yet both those countries refer to themselves as Islamic Republics...

....

To refer to yourself as something and to do something else are two different things. We are not interested in who calls himself what. We are talking about concepts and actions here...

....

I can't find the link right now, but will get it for you later.

....

Please do so. Many thanks

....

Yes, they did exist before, but before the Ottoman empire limited it to just 4, there were many more.

....

Ottomans did not limit it to only four. There are still schools such as Dhahiri and Sufyan Thori that exist plus of course the Shia Jaffery school of thought is also in existence and valid.

....

af_thefragile

I understand what you're saying and I have no doubt in that you're coming from a good understanding of Islamic beliefs and principles.
I just think we're looking at the same thing but from different perspectives and we're getting to caught up in minor differences of opinions here.

My knowledge is limited so I wouldn't want to say anything more as I might be transgressing my capabilities of understanding of Islam. I wouldn't want to end up in a speculative discussion as I'm no where near a scholar to be able to start interpreting different aspects of religion my way. I'm just saying what I've herd and learn from different scholars whom I believe are speaking the truth.

Such discussions can very soon end up in clashes of egos and that's something I want to stay away from.






Edited out due to realisation that some of the things I mentioned weren't completely right.
As I mentioned above, I didn't want to go beyond my understanding of Islam and I am treading right on the boundaries of it. And for that reason I wouldn't want to say anything more on this topic. Maybe when I've gained more knowledge of Islam I can say more on this subject. But for now my knowledge is very limited. So this is all I can say!

wes

Muslim wrote: »

Name a few ideologies other than these three then.

Your being ridiculous:
http://www.fisicx.com/quickreference/politics/ideologies.html

Muslim wrote: »

Prove it from Islamic sources.

The existence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is plenty of proof.

Muslim wrote: »

I was not talking about countries there. You brought in the idea that not everyone agrees with such concepts. Those who state that religion should be separated from the affairs of life are called Secularists. As for Iran it is a theocracy which is anti Islamic.

Yes, but Pakistan isn't really secular, and the Iranian Mullahs would consider themselves Islamic, and while you and I may disagree, how is our opinion anymore valid then theres?

Muslim wrote: »

To refer to yourself as something and to do something else are two different things. We are not interested in who calls himself what. We are talking about concepts and actions here...

Yes, and I am talking about them being put into practice. Theory is all well and good, but the application is more important imho.

Muslim wrote: »

Please do so. Many thanks

Ok, I can't find it, so I retract my earlier comments in that regard. I was mistaken.

Muslim wrote: »

Ottomans did not limit it to only four. There are still schools such as Dhahiri and Sufyan Thori that exist plus of course the Shia Jaffery school of thought is also in existence and valid.

I was very much under the impression that the Ottomans got rid of all but 4 of the Sunnia Schools of taught. I am unfamiliar with the other that you speak of.

Muslim

I m being ridiculous? No, but you are confusing ruling systems with ideology there. Almost all the so called "political ideologies" on this link are systems of ruling whereas an ideology by definition is much more comprehensive system of life. This includes an economic system, a social system, a judicial system, a ruling system, an education system, foreign policy of the ideological state. What is the economic system or social system of "nationalism" as this link quotes it as an ideology too. Nationalism is merely a political concept. It is not a ruling system, has nothing to state about how a nationalist state should run its economy, or what is the social system within the state. This makes it clear yeah?

....

The existence of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is no proof that it is Islamic. To consider something Islamic it has to qualify certain criteria. The very first criterion for a state to be considered Islamic is that it has to be ideological rather than nationalistic. On that basis alone all so called Islamic countries fail. This was what I meant by proving it from Islamic sources.

....

Iranian Mullahs dont come in the picture. For Islam is nt about what the Mullah is saying. Rather it is about what the text is saying. If something fails the litmus test of being from the sources of Islam, then the Mullah's word is as useless as a non combustible gas. These are the basics of Islam. One of the main problems I see again and again is this confusion about practical implementation of Islam. People confuse these countries with Islam all the time. Muslims and non Muslims alike.

....

You are talking about putting theory into practice. Well then in that case you are agreeing with me that to consider something Islamic it has to be practicing Islam. When it comes down to a person who openly engages in something forbidden by Islam, he/she is hardly considered Islamic rather a Fasiq. The reality of these examples that you are giving is the same. These are states where Muslims live but the states implements Haram and thus cannot be considered ideological Islamic states. Its plain and simple.

....

I think so far from discussion we can conclude a couple of points.

1. Islam is a political ideology rather than just a set of religious beliefs
2. An Islamic state is an ideological state. Such a state is not in existence today.

Muslim

af_thefragile.

Bro next time you hear a "scholar" say something like an Islamic State can be socialist or capitalist, you should go to him and smack him on the head and call him a lier in public. I give you ijazah for that

af_thefragile

Muslim wrote: »

af_thefragile.

Bro next time you hear a "scholar" say something like an Islamic State can be socialist or capitalist, you should go to him and smack him on the head and call him a lier in public. I give you ijazah for that

Well I've been listening a lot to Sk. Hamza Yusuf and Sk. Abdul Hakim Murad (T.J. Winters) lately and although they're not infallible, I believe in what they say as they make so much sense to me!...
Its like you know when someone is speaking the truth when their words resonate within you and make so much sense...

Muslim

Perhaps the reason why you like Hamza Yusuf and Abdul Hakim Murad is that they fit best on what you already know and understand about Islam?

and maybe its time you start exploring other areas of your belief... You need to learn the economic system in some detail... Hope the following inspires and helps... Watch and spread around amongst family and friends...

Masalam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agW6-TkNyhs&feature=related

af_thefragile

Well I have learnt a lot from them and they have helped shape my thinking a great bit...

I did spend a good time in the part exploring the economic and political aspects of Islam.
But now I think its more important to focus on the humanitarian and just the basic spiritual concepts of Islam. Focusing on the diseases of our time and how to cure it. Like Imam Ghazali put it. Its the most important thing that needs to be addressed first before you get into the other sciences of Islam. Set out in the middle path of purifying yourself before you do anything else. That's what the muslim youth needs right now.

There is a lot of misinformation and confusion going around about the various concepts of Islam and there are too many different opinions, its getting difficult to decide who is speaking the right thing.

Shk. Hamza and Shk. Abdul Hakim are probably the most highly educated scholars in the Islamic studies today (atleast in the west) which is why I take their words and opinions such highly.

But thanks for the link anyway. I'll check it out.

Muslim

If you try to separate the spiritual aspects of Islam from the political aspects you will end up leading and dying in the state of Jahiliyah. Unless Islam is taken as a holistic system, you will end up in extreme error with devastating consequences.

To state that the problem of the times is the lack of spiritual improvement within the Muslims is a false statement. The suffering in the world today is not because of lack of spirituality rather it is because the lack of socio political order of Islam... You can keep trying to improve yourself spiritually for a hundred years and achieve next to nothing unless you are eating a righteous living or halal rizk. In today's world where you are unable to do a basic economic transaction without the element of Riba, I find it extremely selfish for someone to simply focus on themselves and not even acquaint themselves with the basics of Islam's economics or ruling... Bro dont get me wrong but you are clearly lacking in those respects... I only mean to instill a desire in you to move on from Sheikh Yusuf and Sheikh Hakim since these two are not even Mujtahideen. There are others who far exceed them in both knowledge and let me say actions as well.

Ah and yes

You mention Hujjat Ul Islam Imam Ghazali there. If you like his work, you could start by reading up what he has written on Islamic Economics then

Masalam

hivizman

Muslim wrote: »

You mention Hujjat Ul Islam Imam Ghazali there. If you like his work, you could start by reading up what he has written on Islamic Economics then

Masalam

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

For those interested, there is a summary of Al-Ghazali's economic thought here. Several chapters in the book Medieval Islamic Economic Thought (edited by S. M. Ghazanfar - Routledge, 2003) deal with Al-Ghazali's economic ideas (other chapters deal with Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim and Abu Yousef, as well as the possible influence of Al-Ghazali on Thomas Aquinas).