Theocracy

[Fallacy]

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.

There are lots of other things I could read that would be a better use of my time, and have a greater impact on my knowledge. That said, I think I'll take you up on that offer. I don't really know of any books I'd want to recommend in return, though.

[Kashim]

dealing with it,

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.

I agree. The hadith talks about hair.

So what?

So your forming an opinion, or rather a judgment on something you don't truly understand and are not willing to research thoroughly?

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.

dwi, Islam isn't trying to impress you.

This is the first time I've talked about Islam in over a year.

I suggest you do more research about Islam before you decide to talk/write about again, especially if it be on the basis of knowledge.

And it was solely to post a link to a news article about something that happened in Iran, until you got offended.

I'm not offended. You wrote: "...there is an official Islamic hairstyle, supported by passages in the Qur'an..." So I'll ask you again: If you speak truthfully, produce your proof.

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.

Again, Islam isn't trying to impress you.

What a ridiculous exaggeration.

Perhaps only to you. If you produce the proof that I've asked, then obviously, my statement doesn't apply to you in the slightest. It wouldn't apply to you if you can't produce the proof either, so long as you rescind your statement and admit that you erred.

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.

I think you've lost sight of the issue at hand.

Now, with respect to your explanation concerning Derrida and the issue at hand: You're saying Derrida wrote a specific something in his book (but you haven't read his book) and I'm calling you out on it by asking you to produce your proof.

For clarification, the issue at hand: Your saying there is an official Islamic hairstyle supported by passages in the Qur'an (but you haven't read the Qur'an) and I'm calling you out on it by asking you to produce your proof.


fallacy,

I don't really know of any books I'd want to recommend in return, though.

PM me whenever. No romance novels, please.

[dealing with it]

I'm not interested in Islam, just as I'm not interested in any other religion. Can you comprehend that without calling that a character flaw? Can't an atheist refuse to read more after the first six religions proved worthless?

[Lukisod]

I'm not interested in Islam, just as I'm not interested in any other religion. Can you comprehend that without calling that a character flaw? Can't an atheist refuse to read more after the first six religions proved worthless?

You can. It's not the wisest choice you can make, but I'm all for you being able to make that call.

However the debate you've entered into concerns the effectiveness of Theocracy as a style of government and Kashim was trying to impart that the way of life laid out in his particular religion (a qualifying part of a theocracy) would make a good government. You have refuted that notion and admitted you do not have a proper understanding of that religion. You show an admittedly blind disregard for the concept and oppose it without first knowing what it is you are opposed to. That is the character flaw, not the rejection in itself.

[dealing with it]

I've defined the parameters of my opposition: Islam does not seem to offer anything that familiar religions do not. I think there is a huge misinterpretation of my position going on in this thread. Maybe I haven't spelled it out clearly, since Kashim has distracted me with his incessant demand that I read his particular holy book, and I've been busy trying to tell him that this is neither a reasonable nor necessary request. It is a diversion; nobody has time to read every holy book, and judge each religion individually, until finally settling on one or none. I feel I've read enough of these grimoires to make an informed decision about the uselessness of studying more. The Koran is one book too many. It would be evidence that I didn't learn my lesson the first six times.

If nobody is able to coherently state what advantages an Islamic theocracy has over any other theocracy, I am not speaking blindly. Without exaggeration, I see problems with religion in general, and from the various familiar particulars believe I can make statements about unfamiliar particulars. I don't care if the unfamiliar religion is Wicca, shamanism, scientology, or Islam. I still believe it inappropriate for a system of governance. This, I might add, is the proper use of generalities.

To stay on topic: why Islam? Why not anything else?

That is far more topical than insisting I waste my time locating obscure passages in a book I've never read. (I think finding passages about proper Islamic hair-care in a Hadith -- a commentary on the Koran -- was damn near good enough, and actually quite an impressive feat for a complete outsider to Islam.)

Anyway, all suggestions that I do more "research" have literally been nothing but a front, an excuse, for me to read the Koran. Don't be deluded for a second. Kashim is motivated to get me to read it, just as he wants everyone to read it, and all of his posts are steeped in this motive. Why?

Would it really be surprising if it was something I've seen a thousand times before, just in different guises? Is there a difference between the guy selling me sky blue wallpaper, and the guy selling me wallpaper of a pleasing cerulean hue?

As William Burroughs said, "The exact objectives of Islam Inc. are obscure. Needless to say everyone involved has a different angle, and they all intend to cross each other up somewhere along the line." Now there's a writer who knows the salesman in all his forms!

[Fallacy]

@deal_with_it:

I'm in pretty much full agreement with you. However, I still think it's probably beneficial to read the Qur'an, because you might gain a greater understanding of what billions of people believe, and that can't really be a bad thing.

@Kashim:

I think I shall read the Qur'an over at Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Any objections?

[Kashim]

fallacy,

I don't think this Sketpic fellow is a skeptic in the true definition of the term and I find his/her website to be very offensive. I won't object to you reading anything, but I don't recommend this website if you are to read Qur'an.


dealing with it,

I'm not interested in Islam, just as I'm not interested in any other religion. Can you comprehend that without calling that a character flaw? Can't an atheist refuse to read more after the first six religions proved worthless?

You may refuse anything you want. That is your call, but we are in a debate, or rather a discussion and you still haven't provided me with proof of your claim.

I haven't spelled it out clearly, since Kashim has distracted me with his incessant demand that I read his particular holy book, and I've been busy trying to tell him that this is neither a reasonable nor necessary request.

I'm not telling you to read the entire Qur'an, though you should consider it. I'm asking you to produce the proof of your claim that there is an official Islamic hairstyle supported by passages in the Qur'an, therefore, I would think it obvious that I am asking you to find and quote these particular passages.

If nobody is able to coherently state what advantages an Islamic theocracy has over any other theocracy, I am not speaking blindly.

I wouldn't call it a theocracy, as it was a term invented by Christians -to the best of my knoweldge. I have stated advantages of an Islamic society and I have provided references. If you do not want to read from them, that is your choice.

That is far more topical than insisting I waste my time locating obscure passages in a book I've never read.

So you have never read the Qur'an, yet you still maintain that there is an official Islamic hairstyle supported by passages in the Qur'an?

dwi, if you speak truthfully, please produce your proof.

If you cannot produce your proof: dwi, would you please rescind your statement and admit that you erred?

In your present state of affairs: dwi, would you please rescind your statement since you do not know if it is written in the Qur'an because you have not read the Qur'an and also because you refuse to read the Qur'an?

(I think finding passages about proper Islamic hair-care in a Hadith -- a commentary on the Koran -- was damn near good enough, and actually quite an impressive feat for a complete outsider to Islam.)

You are gravely mistaken. The hadith are NOT a commentary on the Qur'an. And I'm not impressed.

As William Burroughs said, "The exact objectives of Islam Inc. are obscure. Needless to say everyone involved has a different angle, and they all intend to cross each other up somewhere along the line." Now there's a writer who knows the salesman in all his forms!

So you've taken this statement to heart? Though admittedly, you don't know much of anything about Islam.

[dealing with it]

Since the person who told me it's in the Koran had read the Koran, it's a tie. I can't personally attest to passages in the Koran about hair. But, I certainly can't say in all honesty that it's not in there, so rescinding my statement is completely out of the question. You're behaving like an Inquisitor, one half-step from yelling "repent!" That's what you're really asking me to do, is it not?

Proper haircare sounds like something the founders of a religion would make a big deal of. Muslims certainly care about their hair: the Iranian fashion police made long hair unlawful, Hadith 51 was entirely about hair, and you, you are making a huge fuss about this insignificant useless trivia, as though someone actually believes that rules about hair will be the final straw that breaks the Islamic religion. My personal position about an official Islamic hairdo is "don't care: not worth researching. Funny if true." Some people can handle beliefs that are visibly neither true nor false, without getting confused about the purity, integrity, and honour of their belief structure. Paraconsistent logic is fascinating. It allows you to prioritize.

I've admitted multiple times I haven't read the Koran; nobody who's read this thread this far has any doubt in their minds about that point. But see, I really don't care. Not about reading the Koran, nor about the fact I haven't read it. I'm unrepentent, and as far as I need to be concerned, hair-care is in there. So what if it isn't. I've no investment whatsoever. The Koran is not my guide to life. If it turns out not to be in the Koran, nothing happens. If it turns out to be in the Koran, nothing happens. I don't have the motivation to do unimportant things. I've prioritized.

Why don't you? You are already convinced it's not in there, and as I've outright refused to read the Koran, there is nothing I will do that can change your mind. You are waiting indefinitely for input, which is inefficient. You're going to have to ask yourself how important this argument is; I hope you decide to stop insisting I act out your conversion fantasies, and just get back on topic, because you're wasting everyone's time by harping on this one thoroughly irrelevant point. Not to mention RPG's server space.

I simultaneously couldn't believe, and was not surprised, that your last post completely avoided saying anything relevant to the topic of this thread. If you continue to do so, I'll have no choice but to continue to be distracted by your deflections and diversions, and that's really boring for all of us.

Why Islam? Why don't we just found a government based on Scientology? (By the way, I expect that you read the entirety of Dianetics before you form any opinion about Scientology. And no, having an elementary understanding of psychiatry isn't good enough.)

[Kashim]

dealing with it,

Since the person who told me it's in the Koran had read the Koran, it's a tie. I can't personally attest to passages in the Koran about hair. But, I certainly can't say in all honesty that it's not in there, so rescinding my statement is completely out of the question.

So now you claim that a person told you that it's in the Qur'an... Get this person to produce his/her proof, then provide it to me if you speak truthfully, but you're probably not going to and you probably can't because this person probably doesn't exist or this person probably heard/read it from another person and so on.

You're behaving like an Inquisitor, one half-step from yelling "repent!" That's what you're really asking me to do, is it not?

You're delusional... if you think that.

Proper haircare sounds like something the founders of a religion would make a big deal of. Muslims certainly care about their hair: the Iranian fashion police made long hair unlawful, Hadith 51 was entirely about hair, and you, you are making a huge fuss about this insignificant useless trivia, as though someone actually believes that rules about hair will be the final straw that breaks the Islamic religion.

Hadith 51 is not the Qur'an. A portion of the "huge fuss" as you call it is me trying to get the Truth out of you. I failed in this respect because you are being pretentious and dogmatic. And Islam will never break.

Moreover, in your profile it says you are twenty-six years old, so If you thought what you wrote wasn't discrediting Islam, then I must say that you are not very intelligent or wise.

My personal position about an official Islamic hairdo is "don't care: not worth researching. Funny if true."

I'm quite aware that you refuse to research and provide facts about Islam to prove your libelous statement.

Some people can handle beliefs that are visibly neither true nor false, without getting confused about the purity, integrity, and honour of their belief structure. Paraconsistent logic is fascinating. It allows you to prioritize.

Again, if you thought what you wrote wasn't discrediting Islam, then I must say that you are not very intelligent or wise.

I do have a handle in Islam so to speak, it's just that I could not let you get away with your attempt to discredit/lie/misinformate about Islam, for if I did not step in to say something, I believe the majority of the readers would have taken what you wrote to be true... and they might tell someone, and that someone might tell someone else and so on -the falsehood spreads. What depresses me most is people will walk away from this believing what you wrote to be the Truth when it is in fact a falsehood.

Why don't you? You are already convinced it's not in there, and as I've outright refused to read the Koran, there is nothing I will do that can change your mind. You are waiting indefinitely for input, which is inefficient. You're going to have to ask yourself how important this argument is; I hope you decide to stop insisting I act out your conversion fantasies, and just get back on topic, because you're wasting everyone's time by harping on this one thoroughly irrelevant point. Not to mention RPG's server space.

There is no official Islamic hairstyle supported by the passages of the Qur'an. That is the Truth. There, I have given it, and you and given everyone here insight into your behaviour.

Now please do the Islamic community Justice by rescinding your erroneous discrediting libelous statement.

Personally, I don't think my time or the time of anyone else was wasted bar yours, maybe. Conversion fantasies... dwi, I'm definitely not here to convert you. I entered this topic to inform people that Islam is not the hate filled war-loving oppressive machine that it's made out to be in the popular media.

You also wrote that I'm harping on the one irrelevant point, but by this you are saying the Truth is irrelevant, because that is why this whole thing started, because you were not telling the Truth.

To sum it up, I wanted the Truth from you, but you were unwilling to come to terms with the Truth, and I eventually gave you the Truth because you asked.

I simultaneously couldn't believe, and was not surprised, that your last post completely avoided saying anything relevant to the topic of this thread. If you continue to do so, I'll have no choice but to continue to be distracted by your deflections and diversions, and that's really boring for all of us.

You wrote: "...there is an official Islamic hairstyle, supported by passages in the Qur'an..." So I asked you: If you speak truthfully, produce your proof.

I think it is clear to everyone here that you were evading/hiding from me in this respect, trying to distract me with deflections and diversions because you could not find the proof you were looking for.

It's probably because you could not find proof that you yielded to the stance of not caring; not worth researching.

And one would think if there were indeed passages in the Qur'an that supported an official Islamic hairstyle, the bigots would have jumped on it. They would have relished at the chance to discredit Islam.

I've admitted multiple times I haven't read the Koran; nobody who's read this thread this far has any doubt in their minds about that point. But see, I really don't care. Not about reading the Koran, nor about the fact I haven't read it. I'm unrepentent, and as far as I need to be concerned, hair-care is in there. So what if it isn't. I've no investment whatsoever. The Koran is not my guide to life. If it turns out not to be in the Koran, nothing happens. If it turns out to be in the Koran, nothing happens. I don't have the motivation to do unimportant things. I've prioritized.

Ignorance is bliss, right?

The fact that you "really don't care" shows that you are inconsiderate. I suppose it's because you "really don't care", is what gave you the urge to discredit Islam with complete disregard for the implications; and with complete disregard for the Truth.

Why Islam?

When asking "Why Islam?", perhaps you don't realise it, but you are asking me to expound a great deal of information. This is why I made references to books. Were you expecting me to write "it's better" and hope you'll believe it? That would require you to have blind faith, and Islam doesn't advocate blind faith.

Why don't we just found a government based on Scientology? (By the way, I expect that you read the entirety of Dianetics before you form any opinion about Scientology. And no, having an elementary understanding of psychiatry isn't good enough.)

I don't know much about Scientology, but the difference between me and you here is:
-I would not write/say anything with the intention to discredit Scientology because I have not read the Dianetics and because I currently don't know much of anything about Scientology
-I would not make assumptions of the dictates of Scientology because I have not read the Dianetics
-I would not say that Scientology has an official hairstyle or something to that extent because I have not read the Dianetics
-I would not say that Scientology has an official hairstyle or something to that extent because someone else told me so, especially if this someone's country does not have good relations with countries whose national religion is Scientology.
-I would not talk/write about Scientology in the know if I don't know much of anything about it.

What I would do is: research; ask questions.

I can only hope that this makes sense to you because at present, you seem unwilling to listen to reason, and because you have abandoned the Divine Revelation, you are quite evidently in an abysmal downward spiraling rut of the Nafs or Empirical Self. Open your eyes, man.


Peace be unto you and the Mercy and Blessings of Allah.

[dealing with it]

How is the Koran an appropriate model for government if you can't even say Islam is better than Scientology? I think your method is ad hoc, and like all ad hoc methods, has grown convoluted over time. You're entangled, unable to defend yourself properly against a view of reality you can't successfully stereotype. Simplistic old memes like "ignorance is bliss" are holding you back; given that humans are perpetually in a state of ignorance, how can we best prioritize our knowledge? I don't think that holding fast to the plurality of religions is even possible. All that studying six religions taught me is that I should have stopped after the second one.

Believing your opponent to be a moron is a sure-fire way to lose an argument, and you have lost this one, since it is at heart an argument about theocracy. You tried to move the goalposts, when you should really be trying to move the ball. You are unable to say why an Islamic government is better than one founded on Scientology, and that reveals all. In light of that incapacitating weakness, how can you even think that hair-care is significant in any way?

Moreover, you've missed an essential point: irrelevance is far worse for a belief than falsehood. Irrelevance means that ignorance is justified. Whether or not there's an official Islamic hairdo is irrelevant data, a red herring that hides the real problem: Islam itself is irrelevant when it's chosen it on what is essentially a cosmic dice roll. You rolled 6 on a 20-sided dice, therefore you're a Muslim. Had you good justifications, your method would not appear so ad hoc; you would not have blundered so carelessly into the Scientology trap.

By the way, "don't care" is a nod to a value in paraconsistent logic. (Clever equivocations aren't as fun if nobody sees the cleverness.) You were completely off. It's well-defined. I never even tried to read the Koran.

As the Christians say, God bless.

[Zephyrus]

Nope, because no matter how hard they try, a society can't be based on religion. In the end, the inconsistencies and hypocrisy will be its downfall.

Example given: I think every religion has some variation of 'Love thy neighbour like you live thyself' (or how they say that in the Koran, Torah or the Bible), which should mean that you should respect and accept others as they are, even if you don't agree. Yet every theocracy sees itself as the superior form, which contradicts its own foundations.

[Kashim]

For anyone interested in researching Islamic history, I recommend: A Short History of Islam by S.E. Al-Djazairi. As the title states, it's short, with only 370 pages but I'd say it's a good starter book for those interested in studying Islamic history.

And again, for anyone wanting insight into why *(how) an Islamic Society *(should work) can work, I recommend they read: The Holy Qur'an with translation and commentary by Yusuf Ali; and Islam A Challenge to Religion by G.A. Parwez.

Should any of you have questions about Islam, please, feel free to PM me.

*(edit)

[dealing with it]

Anyone wanting to research the history of Western political theory, desiring to read first-hand the books that invented the specialist discipline of political philosophy, read Machiavelli's The Prince (ebook) and Hobbes' Leviathan (ebook).

And, for contemporary political philosophy, the why's and how's of modern liberalism, you can't go wrong also reading Rawls' A Theory of Justice (wiki) and Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (wiki), for a start. Depending on whether the course is historical or contemporary, college-level political theory will begin with an examination of one or more of those four books.

There, I've just recommended hundreds of pages of text, and completely avoided the difficult tasks of interpreting these works myself; constructing my own stand-alone argument; and convincing others of my views in a clear, memorable, and succinct manner, that someone who hasn't studied all these theories would easily understand. Liberalism works better than any theocracy because, you know, BOOKS!!!!111

(I trust I haven't inadvertantly and implicitly committed any fallacy like argument from authority, because, as with religious grimoires, all experts who explore these books leave with the exact same conclusions. Why should I need to express my own opinion, in my own words, on a debate forum?)

[Kashim]

dealing with it,

If you have any questions about Islam, please, feel free ask to me in this thread or PM if you like and I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

[dealing with it]

First, some questions about things you've said earlier. What is Truth, and what is the significance of the capital 'T'? Similarly, what is meant by Justice?

Second, some questions about faith. How is Islam an 'unbreakable' system? Is it unbreakable in the same sense that 1+1 will always equal 2? What do you mean by 'blind faith' when you say that Muslims do not have any?

Now, to the topic. What is an Islamic theocracy, and how do you recognize one? Which type of political system will it appear closest to: democracy (rule by majority), aristocracy (rule by few), or autocracy (rule by one)? Does it favour any particular economic theories? How specific is the Koran on these matters?

And some questions about the power structure. Who has power, and who consequently is prevented from having any power at all? What guarantee do powerless people have that their interests are being taken care of? Do any of these traditionally persecuted groups have limited opportunity for power: women, homosexuals, minorities, criminals, the disabled, the mentally ill, the poor, or dissenters? At the very least, are their rights protected? If yes, which rights does the Koran say that they have?

What are some benefits of a theocracy that other political systems lack? Can these be successfully mimicked by a secular state?

As well, and this is kind of general, but important nonetheless: how should one pick from amongst all the different religions and sub-religions to decide which sort of theocracy to set up? I know you've picked Islam, but how did you decide when there's so much variety?

I hope that's enough unanswered questions that you can construct an argument.

[Ephemeral Rhapsody]

I believe that the point Sciamancer makes, or at least what I take from it, is that those who are "true believers" will be faced in a number of situations with a choice between logic and the option faithful to their religious beliefs. In those situations, what he calls "true believers" will always choose their religious conviction over logic.

It's pretty much what I believe.

However, I believe, ever since regular humans were allowed to read the bible, there had been a lot of personal interpretations.

Basically, little by little, the follow himself would decide when to apply religion and when not to in usually emotional or personal situations. This has caused the general idea that zealous followers are hypocritical in their personal lives. Sometimes, logic will succeed in dominating them to it being so personal, but it will usually cause turmoil and grief for them.

My only real issue with religion is not that you have a lined out guide to "Morality and You" or that you believe in God. My issue is just that it affects so many roots of a person in their development, mainly educational, that I often see a perfectly good human being ruined to being average and closed minded because they hold too firmly to their religious beliefs.

I want a world where education is priority and nothing is taboo because all that does is destroy communication and often leaves children ignorant and with only one option to react to events (Whatever their parents taught them from said book) and it creates more trouble and broken lives than helps.

But... whatever.
I don't rule the world. I just have to deal with it.

[Kashim]

First, some questions about things you've said earlier. What is Truth, and what is the significance of the capital 'T'?
I capitalised the ‘T’ in Truth in for emphasis and in referring to the truth that there is no official Islamic hairstyle supported by the passages of the Qur'an.

Similarly, what is meant by Justice?
I wanted to put an emphasis on the word Justice by using a capital “J.”

Second, some questions about faith. How is Islam an 'unbreakable' system? Is it unbreakable in the same sense that 1+1 will always equal 2?
Islam is unbreakable in one sense because the Quran is not subject to change.

(5: 67) “It is We and We alone Who have sent down this message and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”

In addition, that which is not useful to mankind will be left behind. It might take thousands, perhaps even millions of years, but eventually mankind will succeed in creating an Islamic social order.

(13: 17) “Only that remains which is beneficial for mankind as a whole.”

If we’re talking about the current state of the Muslims, then yes, we are broken –into sects. The main cause for these divisions are Hadith and the vain desires of men. As the consequence, we can see where we are at now.

(8: 73) “The unbelievers are the protectors of one another. Unless you do this (i.e., the believers protect one another) there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief.”

What do you mean by 'blind faith' when you say that Muslims do not have any?
Dwi, I never asserted that blind faith doesn’t exist among Muslims. Anyhow, blind faith is quite simply: belief without Reason. Blind faith is not advocated by Islam.

(8: 22) “The worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are the deaf, the dumb, who do not use their intellect to understand.”

Now, to the topic. What is an Islamic theocracy, and how do you recognize one? Which type of political system will it appear closest to: democracy (rule by majority), aristocracy (rule by few), or autocracy (rule by one)? Does it favour any particular economic theories? How specific is the Koran on these matters?
Islam is a Deen (way of life). It can be recognised if we act in accordance with the Deen or social order that is prescribed to us in the Quran. I would say it’s closest to a direct democracy in which the people (who are the state) are responsible for the betterment of society, and there is no better way to this than to spend of yourself in helping your fellow man or women.

(2: 2-4) “Here is a book free from any ambiguity and uncertainty; in it is the guidance for those who fear consequences of going astray from the path which leads straight to human destiny; who believe in what is not yet manifest (and is sure to become manifest in the future); who establish Sal’at; who spend out of what We have provided for them (for the benefit of humanity); who believe in the truths revealed to thee (O Muhammed [P]) and the truths revealed to the messengers of God before thee (in their respective ages and which are safely preserved in the Quran now); and who believe (that the natural consequence of the belief in these truths has been the human progress and glory in the past and shall be evolution) of a new life hereafter.”

And some questions about the power structure. Who has power, and who consequently is prevented from having any power at all?
The people have “the power.” No one is prevented anything unless it is contrary to the Deen and the divine laws/permanent values/absolute values given to us in the Quran, e.g., murder, rape, infanticide, slavery, usury, etc.

What guarantee do powerless people have that their interests are being taken care of?
There would be no powerless people or people under oppression. Again, the Deen of Islam tells us spend of ourselves for the betterment of society.

(89: 29-30) “Enter thou among those of my people who develop their potentialities within the pattern of divine laws and use them for the benefit of humanity, and enter though my heaven.”

Do any of these traditionally persecuted groups have limited opportunity for power: women, homosexuals, minorities, criminals, the disabled, the mentally ill, the poor, or dissenters? At the very least, are their rights protected? If yes, which rights does the Koran say that they have?
Everyone’s rights as Human Beings are to be protected. Even the enemies of Islam are to be treated fairly.

(5: 2) “Do not profane the symbols designed by Allah and the sacred months during which waging wars is prohibited. The animals which pilgrims take for their use must be protected. Those who go for pilgrimage must not be ill-treated so that they may be in a position to seek the bounties of their Sustainer and His accord and discuss their programmes and plans peacefully. When Hajj is over, you may resort to hunting again. In Makkah you will meet those who inflicted great hardships on you for a long time, even, obstructing your entry to the K’aba. Now you have overcome them but the feeling of revenge should not prevent you from doing justice to them and induce you to indulge in excesses . Co-operate with one another in matters dealing with the welfare of humanity. Adhere to the Laws of Allah. Let the action of your enemies be judged by the Law of Mukaf’at.”

Again, (2: 193) "And fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression and their prevails a social order based on the divine laws; but if they (cease to) fight let there be no hostility, except to those who practice oppression."

And the treatment of women in the Muslim world is not attributed to the Islam. It is culture.

(2: 228) “Women have rights against men like men have rights against them in reason and law.”

(4: 32) “What man earns will be his and whatever the woman earns will belong to her.”

(4: 124) “And whoso does good work, whether male or female, and he (or she) is a Believer, such will enter Jannah and they will live not to be wronged so much as the dint in a date stone.”

What are some benefits of a theocracy that other political systems lack?
I don’t know the benefits of a theocracy, but the benefits of the Islamic Deen or social order would provide an atmosphere where all can freely actulise the infinite potentialities of their Nafs in preparation for the next stage of human evolution.

A little off topic, but In an Islamic social order, I wouldn’t be surprised if the monetary system ceased to exist because value and incentive is derived from the betterment of society and not profit.

(9: 34-35) “Oh you who believe! There are indeed many among the priests and the anchorites who in falsehood devour the substance of others and hinder (them) from the way of God. And there are those who amass gold and silver, and spend not in the way of God: announce unto them the most grievous penalty--on the day when heat will be produced out of this (wealth) in the fire of Hell and with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks and their backs: (and it will be said unto them) ‘This is the treasure you amassed for yourself: taste now of what you have amassed.'"

This proclamation by the Quran strikes at the very root of concentration of wealth amongst a few individuals.

Can these be successfully mimicked by a secular state?
I don’t know. But if a secular state founded on the divine laws/permanent values/absolute values given to us in the Quran yet refutes the belief in Allah, I would still be all for it as long as I am not denied the freedom to believe in Allah or ostracized for my belief in Allah.

As well, and this is kind of general, but important nonetheless: how should one pick from amongst all the different religions and sub-religions to decide which sort of theocracy to set up?
Once again, Islam is a Deen, not a theocracy or a religion. Islam is not trying to set up a theocracy or religious state.

I believe that mankind should set up a system of equality and fairness to all in which the betterment of society for all is the goal, and I believe the Quran lays out the guidance for us to succeed in this now opposed to succeeding after much trail and error on the cosmic scale.

I know you've picked Islam, but how did you decide when there's so much variety?
Through research and reasoning, I remain a Muslim.

[dealing with it]

I capitalised the ‘T’ in Truth in for emphasis and in referring to the truth that there is no official Islamic hairstyle supported by the passages of the Qur'an.

Capital letters indicate a proper noun. When you use the word Truth, you are referring to a singular thing. I believe you intended to italicize "truth". It's no wonder I was confused.

It might take thousands, perhaps even millions of years, but eventually mankind will succeed in creating an Islamic social order.

I suppose everyone has their private little utopia. How might you convince non-Muslims that an "Islamic social order" is the best utopia? So far you've talked about justice, fairness, and freedom of conscience: these are all already assured by liberal political theory.

Anyhow, blind faith is quite simply: belief without Reason.

Since you actually meant to italicize "reason", this doesn't mean what anyone thinks this means. Anyway, some reasons are better than others, and belief for poor reasons is still faith.

I would say it’s closest to a direct democracy in which the people (who are the state) are responsible for the betterment of society, and there is no better way to this than to spend of yourself in helping your fellow man or women.

Okay, so if direct democracies don't work, then an Islamic theocracy also doesn't work?

The people have “the power.” No one is prevented anything unless it is contrary to the Deen and the divine laws/permanent values/absolute values given to us in the Quran, e.g., murder, rape, infanticide, slavery, usury, etc.

The people who follow the Qu'ran have the power, is what you are actually saying. Under a theocracy, religious people have power. It's very simple, I don't know why this confused you. It's literally in the definition.

And the treatment of women in the Muslim world is not attributed to the Islam. It is culture.

Women are treated poorly in practically every state, ever, including First World nations. If they have genuine equality under Islam, that would be a unique feature. There's been over a hundred years of feminism in the West, and still women are underrepresented in politics, and paid substantially less than men for the same amount of labour. But really, to believe that a theocracy will do better, I'm going to need a lot more than platitudes.

How, exactly, will Islam prove to be more effective at providing female equality than the feminist movements, which have explicitly pursued that goal since the 19th century? From where I stand, feminism has, so far, done a lot more for the rights of women than Islam has, and in far less time.

I don’t know. But if a secular state founded on the divine laws/permanent values/absolute values given to us in the Quran yet refutes the belief in Allah, I would still be all for it as long as I am not denied the freedom to believe in Allah or ostracized for my belief in Allah.

Divine laws? Absolute values? Do people actually fall for that? Morality is inescapablely relative. Three hundred years ago, David Hume quite elegantly showed that there is an insurmountable difference between "is" and "ought". You can't just look at the world and say of a value "this is absolutely right all the time".

[Kashim]

dealing with it,

Firstly, it is clear you don't agree with Islam, and that's fine. We are at odds, but you haven't written anything that supports your argument. At this point, you have given me reason to believe that you personally want to believe that Islam won't work. Lest we forget, you have admitted in previous posts to not having done in-depth research on Islam and don't really care to either. In addition to this, you have not rescinded your fallacious claim to there being an official Islamic hairstyle supported by the passages in the Quran. You also made the fallacious claim to the ahadith (plural of hadith), writing that the ahadith are a commentary on the Quran in an attempt prove your point. Whether you know it or not, you are lying in your fruitless struggle to prove your point. What do you think all this shows us about yourself?

Secondly, I'm still here in this topic to explain Islam to our viewers and to defend the truth of Islam from your fallacious statements. I am not a debater. I only try to work in the realm of what is true and this is why you can't support your arguments, and this is probably why you have to stoop so low as to use fallacious statements/propaganda to support your argument. Again, what do you think this shows us about yourself?

Lastly, the fact that you have asked me malignly worded questions and have expressed malignity in much of the context before and after these questions should be apparent to most readers. This doesn't just pertain to your last post, either. It leads me to believe that you are trolling or a bigot or simply very close-minded or all of the above. This is quite evidently the extent of what you have proven. In any case, you should be ashamed of yourself for the behaviour you have displayed thus far in this topic.

The people who follow the Qu'ran have the power, is what you are actually saying. Under a theocracy, religious people have power. It's very simple, I don't know why this confused you. It's literally in the definition.

Fallacious.

Islam is not a theocracy or even a religion, it is a Deen (a way of life -and this is the short definition). To give you insight, the general translation of the word "Deen" into the English language is the word "religion" -an equivalent that is not only incorrect but distorts and vitiates the true significance of Deen.

Divine laws? Absolute values?

Human values/laws are constantly changing but the values/laws in the Quran, as laid out by Allah, are constant, Absolute. This is why the Quran is a guide for mankind. Any subsequent laws should be created within the framework of the Absolute ones.

If you still have questions about Islam, be they legitimate or not, I suggest that you now do your own research.

[dealing with it]

Whether you know it or not, you are lying in your fruitless struggle to prove your point.

The only evidence contrary to my point is that I'm still participating in an argument that is peripherally about Islam, so I must care at least somewhat about your hokey religion. Specifically, I'd rather it didn't spread beyond you. I'm inoculated against it, but I'm not positive everyone else is. I know how to just say no to religions and cults.

Fallacious.

Which fallacy? This isn't helpful unless you say which one. There's a list on this website. "Argument from dictionary", what I'm apparently guilty of, isn't on it.

Islam is not a theocracy or even a religion,

I've seen Christians do it, I've seen Buddhists do it, and now I'm seeing a Muslim do it. When is a religion not a religion? When it's your religion. When is a theocracy not a theocracy? When it's founded on your religion. It takes pretty thick blinders to think that a theocracy would be fair, and give equal power to people of all religions. It's as counter-definitive as thinking that a plutocracy will give power to poor people.

So far as a government is theocratic, members of the state religion will have legal benefits. Likewise, so far as members of the state religion have legal benefits, the government is theocratic. It's pretty cut-and-dried.

Human values/laws are constantly changing but the values/laws in the Quran, as laid out by Allah, are constant, Absolute.

Why don't you talk more about these absolute values, and stop wasting my time talking about hairstyles? Unlike the official Islamic hairstyle, which is simply funny, there are actually genuine problems with Islam if Muslims believe that values can be anything other than relative.

If I grant that a "value" is more than simply an emotional reaction, it is still not a description of the world as it is. A value is only a prescription from a relative point of view. It's never ever absolute. My suspicion is that you think relative values are somehow worth less than absolute ones. That's kind of short-sighted, since no values can be absolute.


For anyone looking for actual arguments against Islam, from atheists who bothered to read the Quran: Answering Islam. I'd probably agree with these guys if I'd wasted my time studying this religion, since I inevitably tend to agree with the non-believers. Disbelief (skepticism) is the only way to be consistent, and it doesn't require one to pretend that he has access to Truth and Virtue.