Theocracy

As stated previously, a theocracy poses two possibilities. Either it is backed by a true super-natural personality or it is based on nothing but words and rhetoric. A theocracy is only true if it is empowered by a Divine Authority. If it is not then the theocracy is a lie and the citizens are ruled by people rather than a super-natural deity. A government based on clergy, or priests, is called a hierocracy ( sacred + power ). If the other participants of this thread are not willing to concede the point that a theocracy is caused by a Divine Authority then the entire definition of the word is lost and the ultimate end of this thread is pointless.

The opening post of this thread presumes a false definition of theocracy. It presumes that people rule in a theocracy rather than a super-natural entity and that somehow these people will cause calamity because of their human nature. In a true theocracy, however, the people are merely representatives of a being, a personality, that transcends human weaknesses and problems. This does not mean that human beings are in rulership. The implication is that the deity in question has chosen to use a human entity to relay their messages, as opposed to a theacracy where the deity rules and governs directly.

But...please try to have a nice day.

Tea wrote:As stated previously, a theocracy poses two possibilities. Either it is backed by a true super-natural personality or it is based on nothing but words and rhetoric. A theocracy is only true if it is empowered by a Divine Authority. If it is not then the theocracy is a lie and the citizens are ruled by people rather than a super-natural deity. A government based on clergy, or priests, is called a hierocracy ( sacred + power ). If the other participants of this thread are not willing to concede the point that a theocracy is caused by a Divine Authority then the entire definition of the word is lost and the ultimate end of this thread is pointless.

The opening post of this thread presumes a false definition of theocracy. It presumes that people rule in a theocracy rather than a super-natural entity and that somehow these people will cause calamity because of their human nature. In a true theocracy, however, the people are merely representatives of a being, a personality, that transcends human weaknesses and problems. This does not mean that human beings are in rulership. The implication is that the deity in question has chosen to use a human entity to relay their messages, as opposed to a theacracy where the deity rules and governs directly.

But...please try to have a nice day.

That is a cop out. You cannot prove your definition is correct, and the ones looked up match ours more closely. Also, you don't address any other points made or questions asked of you.

I don't understand the point of posting in this section if you are going to leave as soon as your ideas are challenged. Contrary to what you likely think, I actually am interested in a discussion with you on why you think the way you do. But if you just want to leave, then fine. Have a nice day indeed.

Tea are you honestly trying to come across as anything other than sanctimonious? Who died and made you the authority on all this, you seem to assume, wrongfully I might add that we're all blithering idiots, from what I've seen only person who can't back up what they say is you. You come across as anything other than informed.

Keep this discussion civil. Any more personal attacks will result in this thread being locked.

As a student of Islam, and from an Islamic point of view, if mankind were to adhere to the Divine Guidance given to us in the Divine Revelation, the world would quite simply be a veritable heaven. And not only for Muslims, but people of all faiths -atheists persons included as well as homosexual persons.

I get my information from the The Holy Qur'an with Commentary by Yusuf Ali, and from the works of several reputable scholars. G. A. Parvez and Ahmed Deedat first come to mind.

No, you need only look at Iran and Israel in modern times

And is Democracy/Capitalism working just fine? No, you need only look at the world in modern times. Moreover, Iran is not a true Islamic governed state.

Kashim wrote:And is Democracy/Capitalism working just fine? No, you need only look at the world in modern times. Moreover, Iran is not a true Islamic governed state.

I fail to see where any democracy still exists today. Really it's an elected dictatorship. Once you choose someone to rule or represent you, you're kinda stuck with that choice for the term and you hope that whatever they do, they do something vaguely in line with your own values and interests. True democracy would be everyone makes every choice, and that's not practical, otherwise it would be the perfect system of government (assuming you think the purpose of government is to serve the people).

Capitalism isn't bad. I'd like to reap the benefits of my labour. Corporations have ruined that system, in my opinion at least. They remove personal responsibility and morality from the decision making process behind the accumulation of wealth. But that's off topic.

If you live under a theocracy, the purpose of the government would be to enforce the dictates of a deity, not look out for it's people. You're really left with a dictatorship and it's down to the deity you put at the head of the state that determines how well the system operates. However, if you are basing a society off the interpretation of a document such as the Qur'an, then I would have to say you are at a disadvantage. You are left interpreting text to make valid decisions, so you now are entrusting the person who interprets the text to make the right decisions, not the deity you started with. So any inherit benefits from following a deity are lost because you are leaving it up to people.

Mormon settlements were reasonably successful back in the 1800's. However, many other theocratic or pseudo-theocratic governments have not worked (I guess by not worked we mean collapsed?) Any government revolving completely around one aspect of life like religion, sexual orientation, or food choices is quite tenuous.

That's all I'll contribute to this thread, since most of this thread seems to be arguing about technicalities and I don't quite feel like getting into an argument right now.

I tend to agree, at least if we're talking about the patriarchal authoritarian violent Abrahamic religions. Governments based on them tend to be patriarchal, authoritarian, and violent as well.

Hi Lukisod,

It's been a long time. I hope you're doing well.

I fail to see where any democracy still exists today.

Hence, I wrote Democracy/Capitalsim. :)

Really it's an elected dictatorship.

I agree. Representative democracy is no far cry from dictatorship.

True democracy would be everyone makes every choice, and that's not practical, otherwise it would be the perfect system of government.

I think what you're referring to is Direct Democracy. It's not impossible and it could be made practical, but the dominant regimes of this modern age will not let it pass.

assuming you think the purpose of government is to serve the people

You assumed correctly, but more so, I believe people should serve the people for the common good and the betterment of society.

Capitalism isn't bad.

Lukisod, if you asked me, I would say the very nature of capitalism promotes corruption.

If you live under a theocracy, the purpose of the government would be to enforce the dictates of a deity, not look out for it's people. You're really left with a dictatorship and it's down to the deity you put at the head of the state that determines how well the system operates.

I wouldn't call what Islam teaches us a theocracy or placing a diety at the head of state. It's a way of life, and it promotes the betterment of oneself through the betterment of society. I take it you haven't read the Qu'ran, then?

However, if you are basing a society off the interpretation of a document such as the Qur'an, then I would have to say you are at a disadvantage. You are left interpreting text to make valid decisions, so you now are entrusting the person who interprets the text to make the right decisions, not the deity you started with. So any inherit benefits from following a deity are lost because you are leaving it up to people.

The interpretation or meaning is very clear to men and women of reason, and I've wrote this in another thread: The guidance of the Divine Revelation should go hand in hand with hypothetical and deductive reasoning. This is what the Qu'ran tell us. The Qu'ran also tells us to not follow faith blindly.

Neither Divine Guidance nor reason should be abandoned.


*Edit*

Fraulein Sophie,

I tend to agree, at least if we're talking about the patriarchal authoritarian violent Abrahamic religions. Governments based on them tend to be patriarchal, authoritarian, and violent as well.

My bigot sense is tingling.

Kashim wrote:

I tend to agree, at least if we're talking about the patriarchal authoritarian violent Abrahamic religions. Governments based on them tend to be patriarchal, authoritarian, and violent as well.

My bigot sense is tingling.

Oh yes, the Abrahamic religions are just teacups and roses -- and if you think any differently, you're a bigot.

How lovely.

I believe that the unemployment rate in first world countries should be at or near 100%, since increasing leisure time would be the most humanitarian goal of industrialization. Capitalist democracies aim for the exact opposite, which I view as utter madness. The obsession with work has no good justification. Work is not freedom.

Still, I can't see the appeal of theocracies, which admittedly arise out of a different view as to the purpose of human life. I picked up this gem a few months ago: Iran government issues style guide for men's hair. That's right, there is an official Islamic hairstyle, supported by passages in the Qu'ran, mandatory for all men in Iran.

dealing with it,

That's right, there is an official Islamic hairstyle, supported by passages in the Qu'ran, mandatory for all men in Iran.

Being a devout Muslim and having read the Qu'ran, I must say this is the first that I've heard of official Islamic hairstyles. It's actually very comical, but you assert that it is supported by the passages of the Qu'ran. Produce your proof.


fallacy,

Oh yes, the Abrahamic religions are just teacups and roses -- and if you think any differently, you're a bigot.

My troll sense is tingling.

Justification for official Islamic hairstyles begin here, Hadith 51. Having not read the Qu'ran, I don't know exactly what passages this Hadith is explaining, but as I understand it, the hair of the prophet was originally described because the devil cannot look like Mohammed. Thus, the Iranian government thought it necessary that people share the haircut of Mohammed.

Kashim wrote:My troll sense is tingling.

Can you explain exactly why:
1. People who think that the Abrahamic religions are patriarchal, authoritarian, and violent are bigots, and can be dismissed by simply calling them such?
2. I am a troll?

Kashim wrote:As a student of Islam, and from an Islamic point of view, if mankind were to adhere to the Divine Guidance given to us in the Divine Revelation, the world would quite simply be a veritable heaven. And not only for Muslims, but people of all faiths -atheists persons included as well as homosexual persons.

Can you explain what exactly it means to adhere to the 'Divine Guidance', and how it would benefit everyone?

No, you need only look at Iran and Israel in modern times

And is Democracy/Capitalism working just fine? No, you need only look at the world in modern times.

It's sure working a hell of a lot better than any theocracies.

Moreover, Iran is not a true Islamic governed state.

What exactly would a government have to do to be a "true Islamic governed state"?

dealing with it,

Justification for official Islamic hairstyles begin here, Hadith 51.

You do know that there are many fabricated hadith, right? But Islam doesn't need the Hadith, though they can prove to be helpful. I don't expect to grow a beard any time soon nor can anyone force me. The Qu'ran states that Islam should not be forced on people and that it should be willingly accepted or rejected.

It might be that this Hadith is saying that if you have a beard, you should (so it's not exactly an order per say) get rid of the mustache, etc., for hygienic purposes, maybe? Or it might not. You should consider researching it.

Having not read the Qu'ran, I don't know exactly what passages this Hadith is explaining,

Yet you assert with seeming confidence that it is written in the Qu'ran even though you have not read it...

Once again, produce your proof.

but as I understand it, the hair of the prophet was originally described because the devil cannot look like Mohammed.

I've never heard anything of the sort, until now.


fallacy,

I'm sorry if I upset you. It was not my intention.

If you want answers, I recommend that you read The Holy Qu'ran with translation and commentary by Yusuf Ali. I also recommend reading: Islam -A Challenge to Religion by G.A. Parvez.

Are we going to get into an argument over which Hadith are "true" commentaries on the Qu'ran? I'm so not interested. Islam doesn't impress me enough to want more. Although I admittedly don't have in-depth criticisms, I'm positive that if it was as ubiquitous in my part of the world as Christianity and Judaism, I'd be completely against it. I'll just save myself a little time and not follow your suggestions in your last post to read more about it.

I'm in general agreement with 'deal with it'. I have no real interest in reading the Qur'an or commentaries about it, unless you give me a good reason why I should.

Kashim wrote:Hi Lukisod,

It's been a long time. I hope you're doing well.

Been quite alright. Glad to see you're around still. :)

Kashim wrote:I wouldn't call what Islam teaches us a theocracy or placing a diety at the head of state. It's a way of life, and it promotes the betterment of oneself through the betterment of society.

I think any serious system of living which promotes the betterment of oneself through the betterment of society should work, assuming everyone subscribed to it. I think the real problem lay in outside influence and competing/contradictory systems which clash or are given the appearance of clashing. That's when the rifts open up in the population and things start to go wrong.

Kashim wrote:I take it you haven't read the Qu'ran, then?

I'm sorry but I have not read the Qu'ran nor do I have a good grasp of what it really contains, so I'll try not to make assumptions about it's content. I apologize in advance if I do. It's honestly on my list of things to read before I die, more out of curiosity than anything. I've heard the best way to read it is in Arabic and mine is not up to par just yet :P

Quick off topic:

Kashim wrote:Lukisod, if you asked me, I would say the very nature of capitalism promotes corruption.

Regulation and the effective application of punishment largely counteracts corruption. I believe the problem lay there rather than with the concept itself.

Kashim wrote:The interpretation or meaning is very clear to men and women of reason, and I've wrote this in another thread: The guidance of the Divine Revelation should go hand in hand with hypothetical and deductive reasoning. This is what the Qu'ran tell us. The Qu'ran also tells us to not follow faith blindly.

Neither Divine Guidance nor reason should be abandoned.

What if someones reasoning leads you to believe there is nothing divine to offer guidance? It's all well and good if the way of life described in the Qu'ran is a boon to mankind and everyone should follow it, but if the ideals are still valid without involving Allah, why then invoke him? Wouldn't a theocracy not be necessary then? In reality, couldn't it simply be any form of government, just based upon a certain set of ideals and thus be indistinguishable, as a whole concept, from any other form of government?

dealing with it,

Are we going to get into an argument over which Hadith are "true"

No. For clarification, I never said the hadith you referred to was fabricated. I was merely letting you know that there are many fabricated hadith. Moreover, the hadith you referred to speaks only of facial hair, not hairstyles as in your haircut.

Islam doesn't impress me enough to want more.

Yet it seems to me that you haven't even looked deeply into Islam.

Although I admittedly don't have in-depth criticisms

Probably because you don't really know much about Islam, though it seems you may talk about it a lot.

I'm positive that if it was as ubiquitous in my part of the world as Christianity and Judaism, I'd be completely against it.

Again, it's probably because you don't know much about Islam, yet you would be "completely against it" before even putting in the effort to learn what Islam truly is?

I'll just save myself a little time and not follow your suggestions in your last post to read more about it.

So you would rather live in falsehood, and in doing so, purposefully or inadvertently spread misinformation/propaganda about Islam?


fallacy,

Read it to learn something. Isn't that enough incentive? It's not like I'm asking you to read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. The Qu'ran is one book. As a trade off, recommend a book to me, and I'll read it.


Lukisod,

I think any serious system of living which promotes the betterment of oneself through the betterment of society should work, assuming everyone subscribed to it.I think the real problem lay in outside influence and competing/contradictory systems which clash or are given the appearance of clashing. That's when the rifts open up in the population and things start to go wrong.

This could be part of the problem, but I'm sure there are many other factors involved here. If you would like, we can talk more about it through PMs since it's sort of off topic.

I'm sorry but I have not read the Qu'ran nor do I have a good grasp of what it really contains, so I'll try not to make assumptions about it's content

You are wise and intelligent. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I've heard the best way to read it is in Arabic and mine is not up to par just yet :P

Language can pose a barrier when reading the Qu'ran, but that is why there are commentaries :)
If any Muslim says you can only get the true meaning of the Qu'ran in Arabic, he/she is deluded.

Regulation and the effective application of punishment largely counteracts corruption. I believe the problem lay there rather than with the concept itself.

Fair enough. We have differing opinions on capitalism.

What if someones reasoning leads you to believe there is nothing divine to offer guidance?

So be it, then. In a Islamic or Qu'ranic society, Muslims are not treated better or worse than non-Muslims. And personally, I have found no such reasoning.

*edit*

It's all well and good if the way of life described in the Qu'ran is a boon to mankind and everyone should follow it, but if the ideals are still valid without involving Allah, why then invoke him?

Invoke isn't the word I would use, but in short, Allah is the Father of us all. Shouldn't we respect him?

Kashim wrote:Moreover, the hadith you referred to speaks only of facial hair, not hairstyles as in your haircut.

Literally the first sentence talks about that. If you clicked the arrow forward, and continued reading the Hadith, you would see that starting with the second sentence, it also talks about hair pieces. The third talks about head hair.

Yet it seems to me that you haven't even looked deeply into Islam.

So what? The Muslims I have talked to remind me of Christians, and I have looked into Christianity. They all fit into a larger category of "religious people", and that category is unimpressive. Again: Islam does not impress me for the same reason Christianity does not impress me, despite the fact that I know more Christians than Muslims.

Probably because you don't really know much about Islam, though it seems you may talk about it a lot.

I talk about it a lot? Based on what? The three posts I've made? This is the first time I've talked about Islam in over a year. And it was solely to post a link to a news article about something that happened in Iran, until you got offended.

Again, it's probably because you don't know much about Islam, yet you would be "completely against it" before even putting in the effort to learn what Islam truly is?

I've explored various religions. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism... and I have not been impressed. I'm not aligned with religious people from any of these. There is nothing to indicate Islam will be any different, so I'm making an informed decision. Six religions have failed to impress me, and zero religions have converted me. The seventh is not going to be the charm.

So you would rather live in falsehood, and in doing so, purposefully or inadvertently spread misinformation/propaganda about Islam?

What a ridiculous exaggeration.

Not only are there tons of books on my reading list, there are tons of books that I choose not to add to this list. The Qu'ran is in the latter category.

I also have no interest in reading Derrida, despite his alleged significance to 20th century thought. I don't have any in-depth reasons not to read Derrida, nor in-depth criticisms, because I've only the most superficial exposure to his works. I find his writing style pompous and unintelligible, and will defend this opinion despite never reading more than a few pages by this one particular philosopher.

You could say, when it comes to Derrida, that "I live in falsefood, and I spread misinformation and propaganda about him". You could say that I'm living in intentional ignorance. But you'd only say such if you were heavily biased in favour of Derrida, since it's pretty unreasonable to expect someone to want to read everything you happen to like.