Salaams people,
Just a question.
What is Islams position on mob rule?
In a place where there is established law and court system to gain justice, what is the Islamic position on this in an islamic state?
Would the people be able to gain justice or is this something that can only be dispensed by the courts?
What if people try to gain justice but are not actually aware of the laws or the facts and well... basically punish incorrectly or the wrong person?
What if they are right? Would the court deem this punishment to be abvoe board, or would the vigilantes be expected to be punished for their actions regardless of how right they were?
Democracy and other forms of governance are prohibited - Islam only permits the Caliphate.
Only the Caliph and those delegated with authority through him are permitted to exercise authority. The famous hadith states "the zakat and the hudood are for the Imam".
This can only be dispensed through whosoever has the authority to dispense justice - minimally the Caliph - otherwise anyone whom he delegates judiciary authority to which can be wider in scope than the courts if he chooses.
People are sinful if they try exercising political authority which is necessary to dispense justice/punishments...
The hukm is of tazeer for them (discretion of the judge) - the judgement would be void and the case would have to be reheard...
Thankyou for answering the question (though the first line did give me the sinking feeling of "great, here we go again", but that was not followed as the other parts of the reply were more relavant.)
"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.
how about burning of flags with religious emblems on them?
( a favourite past time in many muslim countries)
e.g. danish flag /jewish flag
how would we like it if the americans were to burn the saudi/pakistani flag in a mob in america in front of millions of muslims?
just some thoughts ive had!
Mob rule seems to be the norm throughout the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is a classic example.
After all, it takes mob rule to enforce Sharia - Does it not?
I think the answer to that very question was given as a "no".
That is unless you decide to abstract the meaning of mob rule when everything becomes it including all forms of government as they are enforced by people etc.
"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.
You're welcome
Democracy seems to be the systemised outcome of "mob rule".
From Socrates, Plato, Mills to Jefferson, the concept of mob rule was a real fear.
Tocqueville warned against the “tyranny of the majority”.
Mills’ radical suggestion was to have proportional representation with extra votes for the rich and the educated to balance out votes of the less educated majority.
Jefferson argued, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”.
Churchill joked the main argument against democracy was a ten-minute conversation with the average voter.
Nope it takes one Caliph to enforce Sharia - and in Saudi, despite the cloak of "Islam" that is often paraded, it is little more than a tinpot monarchy enforcing a ruthless capitalist economic system, a puppet pseduo-nation used and abused by the US for its own ends...
Just because they feared it, does not mean they were right.
Any form of government that requires enforcement requires a mob to enforce it. But that is an abstraction and the difference between a court system is that it is supposed to be less arbitrary.
"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 would kindly disagree - some forms of govt get the mob involved in matters that are frankly beyond their knowledge or expertise (eg democracy).
Others like the Caliphate get knowledgable people to select a Caliph for them who they pledge oaths of obedience - these experienced people run their affairs for them - in the tradition of how the Prophets used to run the affairs of Bani Israel (as per the Prophet's saying). Thus this system manages the mob and does not let them run riot in dictating how the system should be run! It's like children trying to run a household!
1. The FAQ I linked to on the other caliphate topic seemed to suggest that the hizb's position is that the leader is actually elected.
2. The finding of a leader is irrelevant as the question is one of the enforcement of laws. Who decides that they need to be enforced? people.
3. Democracy also has systems in place to stop it becoming mob rule, hence my posting that governments are only mob rule if you abstract the idea to an extent where logic no longer applies.
"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 assume that you are ignoring the civil service here.
"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.
Their book on The Ruling System is almost a duplicate of Mawardi's Ruling System - Mawardi argues that the bayah is essential, the selection process can be anything, usually the influentials choosing the ruler - it could be elections I guess as it is a style left open by sharia and is not prescriptive as many other rules... However the bayah is what transfers authority to the Caliph and he becomes appointed and not elections - as those who do not participate in elections can legitimately not do so and there is no obligation to do so. Bayah however has been obliged by hadith.
Not surewhat you mean "finding of a leader is irrelevant as the question is one of the enforcement of laws" - maybe you can elaborate...
There are no systems in place to prevent democracy being mob rule - it is innate to the system!
It's like saying there are systems in place in Islam to prevent Allah's laws being enforced - they are innate! Putting "systems" in place means you are changing the nature of the system!
The masses/mob have sovereignty - it's their right and they know it. They select representatives and can remove them. They believe their views should be legislated and if they are not they can be kicked out!
A system based on majoritarian rule can put whatever rules they want in place to prevent abuse - the mob can change them if they want...Unless you give authority to a minority to do so, which means the system has changed to aristocracy or oligarchy and is no longer democracy...
This topic was about "can Muslims circumvent the courts system when demanding justice?" and not about "is Democracy halaal or haraam?" or "what forms of selecting a leader are allowed?"
Maybe it has sufficiently changed in nature since, but I cba with rehashing arguments about democracy as it will all be circular where neither of us will agree and will present arguments that the other will reject.
I think it has been sufficiently established that we disagree on those issues, so why rehash it all? and it is why the first answer you had made in the original reply had disapointed me - as that was the route it would follow. but then you had actually answered the question too later on, so I was satisfied.
"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'm not sure why you found the argument circular - its logic is quite simple:
- either democracy is contained within Islam or it is not
- The theory underpinning democracy needs to be defined in terms of its key characteristics, thoughts and attributes
- The political theory of Islam needs to be articulated
- The two can easily be compared for points of similarity, conflict and divergence
- If there are significant points of conflict or divergence then the two systems are not the same nor contained in each other - otherwise they are similar
Maybe you can put your answers under each point - we can systematically evaluate each others' arguments and come to some conclusion...
And here is where it starts to go aroun in circles because I will say it is/can be and you will say it is not. We have been here before and made our arguments. repeating them will just result in frustration and not some new understanding. We will just go around in circles and it becomes a game.
"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.
So you slot your answer under the first point - and continue to the second and so on. I'll then critique it and provide my answers.
You can respond until the argument is complete.
We and anyone who wants to read it can then make final decisions/conclusions - we may still differ, but at least the arguments would have been reasonably explored. I'm quite sure that the result will emerge to show there are many contradictions and divergences which will mean democracy is not Islamic unless you change the whole nature of democracy so that it's no longer democracy - which was what seemed to happen in the earlier discussion, and my citing examples of devilworship and hinduism could be called Islam if you do that. But this process should highlight the flawed logic...
See, you're already polishing your phrases accusing people of being like devil worshippers and hindu's already.
Why would anyone in their right minds set themselves up to be constantly insulted?
If there was any chance of a reasonable discussion, I would probably have it, but there isn't.
"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.
And here you have the classic accusation! You cannot address the argument and have to "pretend" offence!
Don't defend democracy - it's not my problem - it's yours.
It is a kufr system in my opinion contradicting Islam - and your logic to defend it when applied to embarressing kufr systems like devilworshipping or hinduism results in all of them being compatible with Islam as well.
Just because you don't like the results, don't attack others - review your logic which is where the problem is!
your problem is hiding half the facts. Kind of like making statements like "there is no god" without then saying "but Allah (swt)".
I wasn't discussing democracy before. I was trying to NOT discuss it, but you seem to want to discuss it all the more.
All I know is that that FAQ I linked to mentioned that the leader should be elected, and that the first and fourth caliphs were chosen by the people present.
I don't really want to discuss it any further. I don't really care if you agree with it or not. I know that the cast majority have no problems with it and I have also discussed it with you before so I know your viewpoints. Taking the discussion further is all about who can phrase things most creatively, who can be cleverer with insults. is that what you really want?
You'll say my views are like a Hindu or a devil worshipper and i will respond back that yours are like an athiests. (I still suuspect the former is more offensive...)
"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.
Since I have been a litle mean, I will also address the issue. but I cba with a discussion. takes too much time and effort.
This structure of questioning is problematic as it assumes that everything is at a single level and equal.
The political theory of Islam and the political theory of democracy are at a different level - as far as I am aware most if not all democracies work within a constitutional framework.
"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.
The debate with You and Anon1 seems to prove secularism works fine!
Two devout Muslims who cannot agree on what is and isn't "Islamic".. And I know the same can be said of Imams too. Which is why I will insist I am correct when I say that politics and Religion should be kept apart!
Religion wreaked havoc across Europe before secular parties took control of the Governments and enacted laws protecting all Religious people regardless of their faith. And it is a model which I think would work well in the middle east.
Imagine an Israel where one Religion did not govern over all others. Imagine an Iraq where Shia's and sunni's lived and worked side by side and whoever was in Control of that government at any time could be from any group, and it didn't matter... Imagine India if everyone in that country did not care what religion their next door neighbour was!
Europe was a special case of hell and I dont think we can use that case to use for the world - most of the middle east and srurrounding areas flourished under islamic rule.
There are places that democracy is a poor fit for and in cannot be enforced onto others.
(me and anon1 arguing is like two kids squabbling in a playground and not even on the level of some academics who have rubbished democracy... its not like everyone here agrees 100% with the powers that be.)
"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 agree in part. I think the middle east will find its own way towards a sort of secular system, but it has to come from within - not forced from outside.
If I were to guess, I would say Iran will be perhaps the first middle eastern country to become secular. They live under a corrupt regime where they cannot even provide a sewer system for the capital city,and despite being a large oil producing country they need to import petrol... The early clashes between protesters and government forces are early days. I think within m lifetime I will see a revolution against the clerics who run that country.
Your logic is absurd - people make statements all the time - they do not qualify them with exceptions as usually there is no reason to; it does not mean they are hiding anything. You are imposing your misunderstandings on others. The easy way out is to ask the question if there are exceptions - which you should well know will exist for necessities as all sharia rules have exceptions for necessities! If you don't know that, you should study sharia as it is very basic GCSE level stuff!
Democracy is not the same as elections - you may not know but elections exist in communism too - is that a democractic system? Your logic of matching systems based on one point of similarity is ridiculous!
No problem - it's what the Quraysh said to the Prophet(saw) too. However the reality was and is, that falsehood through discussion exposes its contradictions and anomalies whilst truth stands clear - regardless at somebodies knowledge of language or articulation. Thus the best poets and most eloquent of leads amongst Quraysh did not want to debate with an unschooled man whose elocution wasnt' anything noteworthy in the society he lived.
Your claims of majority as I have said before, are not proofs. Please provide proof that majority following something in and of itself means it is correct.
If it did you would believe voting is haram - but you don't - you follow a tiny minority who permit it.
Likewise, if the majority were correct, they would forward their evidence. Noone can or have provided evidence that sovereignty should be with the mob, or that it is not fard to appoint a Caliph through the bayah, or the classical scholars were wrong when they dumped and gave no credibility to democracy or that it is kufr to legislate according to the majority whim/desire...
Nope - this is just a blag - I have never said your views are like a Hindu or devilworshipper. I have taken your logic which reconciles Democracy to Islam and applied it to other systems, in a comparative analysis, to expose its flaws. If you cannot see after that that your logic is flawed and you have no response to that point, all you can do is allege I am calling or comparing you to Hindus and cease the discussion.
That's fine with me - it shows me modernists are adopting a system of kufr and trying to push that in the Muslim world when we have an Islamic political system that worked well for over a millenium - far better than men made systems!
You can argue it concludes devilworship is fine too - doesn't mean it is (though no doubt some forms of logic would lead to that conclusion!).
Well fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship didn't have a problem - it's results of colonisation, secular education processes and revisionism of Islamic history that have led to Muslims without any knowledge of Islamic politics. No doubt if you ask You what qualification they have on this subject, it will be none or next to none!
And that's your problem - extending Europeans experience and generalising it! It's like the one who walks a mile and says the land is flat, walks another mile and finds the same... carries on walking until he concludes the earth is flat!
Yep - we see it today, slaughter, oppression, tyranny, racism, apartheid, politics of demographics...
It happened during the Caliphate - Sunni's and Shia's filling posts of military and government.
With secularism entering the region all sides hate each other, parties from each side acting treacherously with colonialists who play ethnic and demographic politics with all parties leading to suspicions and mistrust - proves the case that we need to kick secularism, democracy and made nonsense systems out and resort to Allah's system.
Yes you'd have secular societies like Europe, where old age folk die alone, left along for weeks before they are discovered... mental illnesses and diseases are widespread... youth are out of control hunting poor people like packs of dogs... security does not exist and people are afraid to walk the streets alone, especially women and especially at night... Need any more examples? Is this what you think our societies want?
No thank you - you can keep your systems and civlisations - we have something better we will bring to you... Let us just get our act together in the Muslim world and kick out those lackey traitors you have imposed on us... We will continue where we finished off...
Iran is a basket case - it adopted an ideology of nationalistic Islamic Socialism - and one sees the mess it is in! Even then, they don't allow foreign colonialists to ravage and slaughter their people - better than most tin pot Muslim dictator states that can't even provide security to their people - the first responsibility of any govt!
You don't like the taste of your own medicine and yet you continue with:
Details schmetails. Thing is, I had asked you a straight forward question on where Islamic taxes came from and I took your answer at face value. Then I found out that was not the case.
Would I have to ask you for the list of exceptions every time you make an assertion? its more fun to mention that sometimes mentioning exceptions is important. Like the case of qualifying "There is no god" with "except Allah (swt)".
I am just using your own method of arguing here, nothing new. what did you call it? taking an idea to extremes to show the absurdity of it.
erm... should I laugh here or not?
Communism is not at odds with democracy - it is at odds with capitalism. Different spectrums and branches of government.
So yes, communism can be democratic. It often doesn't end up so because it requires an iron fist to beat everyone into a pulp of "equality".
This is important enough to break into its own post, so see the next post please.
Oh yes, I had forgotten about your huge and overwhelming majority of 100 which is obviously greater thant he 1.5 billion plus Muslims in the world...
And I think I can also quote the same reason the HT use to allow them to raise taxes in an Islamic state that they would otherwise consider unnecessary - the same hadith would allow this: "It is not allowed to do harm nor to allow being harmed." [Ibn Majah, Al-Daraqutni]
and that can be used to say that not participating hurts the Muslims, yet this hadith tells us to not let the others harm us, so we need to be represented.
The thing is you lack even basic understanding of these issues. I am not saying this as an insult, but you conflate many different things and are often unwilling to see things for what they are.
I have taken your logic which hid the mentioning of additional taxes and applied it to other systems, in a comparative analysis, to expose its flaws. If you cannot see after that that your logic is flawed and you have no response to that point, all you can do is allege I am calling or comparing you to a athiest and cease the discussion.
That's fine with me - it shows me modernists are trying to deny the e and trying to push that in the Muslim world when we have an Islamic political system that worked well for over a millenium - far better than men made systems!
(sound familiar? I took your paragraph there.)
and then you actually ignored the next post of mine where I decided to let you know how the framing of your questions was flawed.
"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.
The prophet
said:
“Allah will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah’s mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)
Now tell me, doesn't that sound awfully democratic?
Get the majority to agree on something ans hey presto, the prophet
has given his blessing that it cannot be wrong!
the above hadith should also address this concern from your post:
"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.
Devil worship is fine, so long as they keep to themselves and harm nobody else. Freedom of religion baby!!!
14 centuries didn't have a problem huh? The west is to blame for every ill of the Islamic world huh? Given that you lack any source material, your opinions are simply that, opinions. That last quote backed up my previous statement. You denounce "You" for lacking qualifications you also do not have.
Given that you live in Europe - the dar al kufir. It is your problem. and the analogy of the flat earth fails to work when considering cultures. If you read my point I did not state the exact same thing that happened in Europe will happen in the middle east, just something along similar lines.
Israel is a democracy, but it is not a secular country. wrong again..
Secularism is not the reason for the wrongs done by the west. That was colonialism or nationalism, do not mix them up. Did I mention I am an Atheist, so you can imagine I give credence to the law of God like I do to the law of the tooth fairy. Sorry if this upsets anyone here, but nobody has yet to convince me of any merits within Religious law. It is by extension a law based upon the needs of a few old men imposed by fear upon the many. But I tell you what, I will follow Gods law if he proves his existence to me. Until then, I will follow laws based upon human experience and understanding. Democracy has its flaws but it is superior to any other known system of government!
That sounded just like Iran to me! Or how about the nightly sound in Medina suburbs - the sound of women being beaten by their husbands. the patrolling police outside the Philippines embassy in Saudi Arabia hoping to stop any runaway slaves (or should that be servants) trying to get back home after suffering rapes from their masters.
Yeah, keep talking like that. It would be especially useful to the Muslim community if you visit the next EDL demo and tell them all about how "we have something better we will bring to you..."
But facts are facts. You enjoy the comforts of a (fairly) secular society. You do not worry about the secret police taking you to prison for showing too much hair, or (gosh) an ankle. You get health care for free and I would even guess you are also provided food and clothing and a place to live for free. These are things not provided to people in those countries you admire so much.. Yet you seem to feel like a prisoner, unjustly treated by this wicked society you moan about.
You are (for lack of any better words) an Islamist. And judging from your many posts I doubt those things such as reason and logic will help me reach across to you. But I take comfort knowing that you are alone on this forum spewing such hate and paranoia, at least it is true.. A minority of a minority think the way you do.
Pages