The BNP have said Islam is incompatible with modern secular democracy.
============================================
Do you believe this is accurate?
Is there anything about the UK's current system that Muslims would want to change or is everything compatible with Islam as it stands?
If Muslims held the majority of political power, what changes would be made if any?
What would the main differences of judgement be on these matters (fiqh) between the different Muslim sects?
Lanat on the BNP.
Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".
www.presstv.ir
give me a few days.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
they have 2 be more precise? in what way?
i dont think it is incompatible!
as long as there is the freedom to agree to disagree?
if there isnt the freedom to agree to disagree then what does democracy mean?
btw what does modern mean when attached to secular democracy?
Secular democracy within a modern society - Secular democracy is a modernism in its self.
How could Islam possibly be compatible with Secularism in any way - If the definition of secularism is 'exclusion of religion from public affairs' then secularism is the antithesis of religion and consequently not compatible with Islam.
Yellow.
Looking at the map of secular democracies in the world on wikipedia, I notice that England is not marked as a secular democracy.
Are those after a secular democracy in the UK ignoring the history of this place? So to answer the original BNP charge, the answer seems to be "England is not and has never been a secular democracy".
Besides, enshrining secularity... is that not a french thing? I would think the BNP would not like to be allied with the french...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I don't think people often use textbook definitions - besides different text books will have different definitions.
I do not think secularism is the antithesis of religion. Unless that you use the translation of the arabic approximation for secularism which is "anti religion" but such a thing is not accurate.
The idea behind secularism is that people should not be persecuted for their beliefs - and this came about during the middle ages where there was great upheaval and massive arguments between protestant and catholic christians whose fortunes and maybe even lives would change depending on the change of government.
On the other hand in the Muslim world, all the different schools of thought were allowed to flourish and the same problem did not really exist.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I imagine "secular" in this context is referring to a separation of religion from state.
Although not entirely secular, the UK is pretty much there.
Thank you Rogue for your answer. Anyone else have an opinion? It is a pretty central question really.
Which is a relatively new thing and not one about heritage.
hm... one thing I would change is allow for longer trading hours on sundays. Nothing too drastic, maybe allow 8 hours?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Sometimes, getting an answer out of You is like getting blood out of a stone, in particular on sensitive issues. :S
You mean the answer you want rather the one I give?
Here's the thing - you burnt the bridges of good will with me. I was all willing to go into details and theory etc over aspects to show you how the thought process works, but you did not respond adequately to that.
so instead, I will leave that to others and give the responses I feel like giving.
Saying that, I do not see what was wrong with my last post... the short shopping days on sundays can be an annoyance.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Coming at the same question from a different angle - do you think members of a cohesive society have a right to try and influence the system to be more to their liking?
Surely then taking political action is demanded by the dogma of "integrate, integrate, integrate".
Can't have it both ways... that is just plain hypocritical. kind of like "Israel is evil, but I will support them regardless". Where is the ethics and the morals in such a stance?
Sure if you did not consider its actions evil, then saying you will support it is a different thing, but you want it both ways.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Short answer: Yes.
Muslims can totally live in a modern secular democracy.
Can a Muslim state (if one existed) work with a modern secular democracy? Yes.
Can a Muslim state (if one existed) be a modern secular democracy? Yes and no.
As regards modernity, it is both rooted in incontrovenable laws and modern needs, just like any constitutional state.
As regards democracy, democratic values such as popular representation are a fundamental part of an Islamic government.
As regards secularism, I understand that a seperation of church and state is meant. Some sort of seperation between the religeous authorities and the government can exist. Whilst the Islamic government would have an intimate relationship with the state faith, they would not be its supreme arbiters.
The Hadith teaches us that the worst of scholars are those who are at the doors of kings and that the best of kings are those who are at the doors of scholars. Therefore, the kings are not the scholars, ergo they are not the religeous authorities. Therefore within the faith based state, relative to the scholars the government would be a degree more secular.
If the definition of secularism is taken to a greater extreme to mean a total absense of any symbol or institution based upon faith, then the above would no longer hold true.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
what about considering secularism as a religion itself?
or maybe
considering the first islamic state of madinah at the time of the prophet when all the religions ie, jews, muslims, pagans, christians (i think) all lived together and no one was given any preference, i mean evreyone was allowed to practice there religion/ way of life as long as everyone lived in peace/ or obeyed the norms of society? woul we consider that to be as secular?
A secular democracy is where everyone gets a say in how things are run and no-one is given any greater rights just because they claim to speack for God.
Islam vs secular democracy is a false dichotomy. Of course they are compatible. What is not compatible is a theocracy and a secular democracy.
Turkey is a "secular democracy". It doesn't make the Turks any less Muslim.
You: burnt bridges? No idea to what you are referring. You haven't answered any of my questions - I'm not asking what you as an individual would want to change, I am asking what Muslims would need to have changed so that the state would be sufficient to meet the demands of their faith. And surely we can agree that the UK is more or less a secular state? Also, I do think members of a cohesive society have a right to try and influence the system to be more to their liking, I don't think I have said anything to the contrary. Post more later, dinner time beckons.
Maybe there are things that muslims need changing. But I am speaking for myself and maybe I am clueless, but I am not aware of any great concern that is uniquely Muslim and needs to be dealt with befo participation. Or after even.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Secularism is in opposition of Religion within society - Attempting to define secularism in it's essence is a futile exercise, especially when we consider the fact that secularism within modern societies bears little to no resemblance to the actual notion - If we take into consideration for instance, France and Belguim, we are presented with two perfect examples of modern secularism in effect - Two governments who have abused their power to curtail the freedom of Muslims and Non-Muslims alike.
We all appear to be mentally caged by an ideal - namely, what we would ultimately consider to be the epitome of secularism that works - However this is not reality - And far from being societies void of religious prejudice and bias, we are now subject to governments who are creating an ever more dangerous ideology of the perfect secular society - Which is what? A society that negates all religious symbols from the public eye, so that there is no longer any recognition, nothing that defines any respective group of people from another, no sense of belonging -
Secularism simply does not work as a dogma - There is no margin left for those instances were difference need occur - Difference in treatment does not necessarily purport inequality, however not taking the personal circumstances/beliefs of people into consideration is not only actively supporting inequality it also quells the rights of average people who without the advantage of having someone of authority to speak of their behalf - wind up as puppets on a string, simply complying to the wants of their respective government and having no privileges of their own.
As for those who suggest that communities in the time of the Prophet were effectively secular societies - Not secular, but rather do a degree there was a sense of Religious autonomy - By which people were able to practice their own individual Religious beliefs (Not necessarily in compliance with Sharia law) as long as boundaries were not transgressed to the extent that it would cause disruption in the community - And not communities that were void of Religious government.
The overall definition of secularism within todays society is the exclusion of religion from all public affairs, a government free of religious influence - Which is exactly the reason why Islam would be incompatible with modern secular democracy, both in Islam governing the people and in the Muslims being governed by it - it is a comprehensive way of life.
Yellow.
At the time of the prophet
AFAIK, each community was bound by its own laws.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Couldn't find a thread for the "Are they gonna kick us out" debate, but it links in with this topic.
Whilst I think that there is some truth in the idea that Muslims are just the next targeted minority on a roulette wheel of prejudice, I think there are some important differences. Prejudice is evolving from blind "they have a different colour from us" or "they are the source of all problems": people are having negative views of Islam and Muslims for more educated and sophisticated reasons. And I will give my view of this here having studied Islam, Muslim forums, and EDL and BNP forums.
Any non-Muslim who studies Islam and reads Muslim boards can barely escape the view that Islam is a thing of evil and division and violence. This is for two reasons.
Firstly the overall message of the Koran is fear (of Allah) so you have a religion based on a negative emotion; in addition the Koran and Haddith is overwhelmingly full of references to the kuffar which can too easily lead to hatred. Hatred and fear, the two big feelings which your religious scripture invoke.
Secondly, you have not had an Enlightenment of Reformation as have the Christian West - you must believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah. A Christian can take the central messages of Christ, love and forgiveness and his sacrifice, and just use the other parts of the Bible as inspiration for living a life in accordance with human conscience. A Muslim though has to use logic as applied to their hateful and fearful scripture and live their life according to this regardless of human conscience, regardless of whether, for instance, a hadh punishment seems a bit excessive, or whether man's superiority over women is a tad unpalatable. And we're not talking here about a religion which is a personal matter, we are talking about an ideology which influences every aspect of a Muslim's life including his relations with non-Muslims.
So when non-Muslims combine the literal truth of the Koran with its medieval messages, we come away with this feeling of horror and shock, especially when it is backed up with the significant number of Muslims who are expressing their sentiments on their religion on forums and debates and sermons and in violent action and in aspects of governance. Non-Muslims are not just prejudiced against Islam and Muslims because you are different from us, but because of fundamental problems non-Muslims have identified with Islam from your scripture and behaviour.
And when we look at your community we note that there are only a few jihaadists, but that their numbers are far too many and worrying (2,000 UK Muslims under observation by MI5). Then we note that there is a much larger set of Muslims that would support those jihaadists, financially and spiritually, although would not carry out violence themselves, then a much larger set again that would passively support them by praying for them and not going to the police. We are not talking here about an insignificant minority here that are a problem, we are talking about a major section of your community.
It is untrue that non-Muslims think that no Muslims are moderate. The majority non-Muslim view appears to be that you have good Muslims (fundamentalists) who do what their religion tells them to do, and bad Muslims (so-called moderates, or cultural Muslims) who either ignore parts of their religion that are inconvenient or against their conscience, or tries to find some convoluted way of sidestepping some of the more divisive elements of their religion (as You appears to do).
I am sure you will find fault with many things in this post, yet I promise you that this is the view of many non-Muslims. I have been trying hard to find a way past these troublesome views myself and have been crying out for help on this board, with mixed reaction.
A few things give me hope though, one of which is the comprehensive refutation of suicide bombing recently given by one of your Sufi imams. Here at last is a very visible ruling by an imam representing a signficiant number, perhaps a majority, of UK Muslims against radicalism.
Er, no. You're just intellectualizing prejudice and ignorance. Look at your sources - BNP and EDL forums? Seriously? Any study you are doing of Islam is going to be tainted by their prejudices.
What's this thing about good Muslims and bad Muslims? You mean like Christians who are influenced by the Enlightement are bad Christians and far-right evangelical Christians are good Christians?
Your view of Islam as harsh and fear-centred is part of the problem. You're legitimizing the views of the extremists and saying that their view is Islam is the correct one.
[sarcasm] Ah yes. The noble savage. [/sarcasm]
Naaa, I learnt Islam from reading several translations of the Koran, and a large quantity of Haddith (both strong and weak). Also by asking questions of my Muslim friends and also by asking questions on Muslim forums. I have only over the last month of so started to look at the EDL and only during the last week looked at BNP discussions.
If my view of Islam is warped it is perhaps because I have been seduced by the simple-to-understand Salafi perspective, and have failed to gain an appreciable different view backed by Koran and Sunnah from moderates. I have tried by asking questions from moderates and on these forums, and this has been useful in tempering my view but only to a limited extent.
Hold out, though. Take a certain political route and the conversation ends, and I think the conversation has great value. As a Jew also I fear the BNP, and I think it is fair to judge them a rabble, for all their make-up and manifestos. I don't see how you can hang with anger and then not understand the Salafi mentality as borne of the same thing.
Appreciate your honesty. I wish I had more time and energy to give you some of the answers you're looking for.
With regards the Qur'an, I can see where you're coming from, but you have to remember a lot is lost in translation. I understand what you mean about a fearful relationship message and can see why you would think that. That is not the message of the Qur'an at all, but I can see why you would come away with that.
As regards the second bit, I like that. It's an incorrect view, but I like it because openly states a sentiment is not commonly said. The fact is, in Islam the trueest moderation comes from the truest orthodoxy, and the most heinious extremism comes from reinvention (as opposed to reinterpretation).
Islam is misunderstood. It is seen as a harsh way, but it is not. When you understand it, you see that its orthodoxy is pure spirituality.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Let's get something straight, I think the BNP are a bunch of ignorant stupid A-holes. So do most people. That doesn't mean they won't get a lot of votes, even from people who know they're ignorant stupid A-holes. This is because the main 3 parties are frightened of addressing immigration. I just voted Conservative if you're interested.
The answers to my questions are important, as they are summaries of what a lot of people out there are thinking. These are the positions and questions that intelligent and neutral people like me arrive at after reading the Koran and Haddith and studying Islam. I find it notable that the views I arrived at are shared by every other non-Muslim who has studied Islam I have come across, as well as many academics whose books on jihaadis etc I have read. I'm trying to help you as much as me to be honest, as I would like moderates to know the problem.
Yet the Salafis, the source of the problem as far as I can make out, pride themselves on avoiding bidah and reverting to orthodoxy. The Salafi message is the one non-Muslims are hearing loud and clear and if this is an incorrect message you guys need to do a lot more to stamp it out.
I find Salafism to be anti-spiritual; I take it you're a Sufi. I have come across Sufi teachings and my first impression is that these allow for co-existence with non-Muslims. Trouble is when I've said this kind of thing before I just get shown the door and told to mind my own business. But it has become everyone's business, it is no longer enough to whisper solutions behind closed doors.
Theirs is a fals statement when they claim to go to the earliest sources and only use them. Such a statement will only stanwhile it is unchallenged.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Tread Softly shares the same view, whom I plan to answer. pm me if I get too slow in answering, I understand what you are asking.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes